4 ms·

The difference between sword and shield has never been clear. Unlike many weapons it's hard to place cyber-weapons into nice "defensive" and "offensive" boxes.

The difference between sword and shield has never been clear. Unlike many weapons it's hard to place cyber-weapons into nice "defensive" and "offensive" boxes. But also, code has almost all of the undesirable properties a weapon can have; A good weapon is single use. That way it does not become ammunition in the hands of an enemy. For the same reason a good weapon is ephemeral, and does not persist in the environment to injure innocents long after the conflict is over (think land-mines). A good weapon is precise, not indiscriminate (a sniper, not gas). And a good weapon is inflexible, working only in the hands that wield it and not easily turned against you. IEDs used against us in many conflicts are often fashioned from unexploded munitions we've fired. Cyberweapons (which include many things that look "defensive") have all the undesirable sides. They are reusable, highly flexible, indiscriminate and persistent. People who work on them will inevitably see them used against themselves and their own loved ones.

wongarsu 4y ago
A bit of a tangent, but swords can be used to parry, and shields can be used to bash people. Many medieval shields even have metal spikes to make shield bashes more effective. Medieval weaponry can't be put in nice "defensive" and "offensive" boxes either.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Medieval weaponry can't be put in nice "defensive" and "offensive" boxes either." But the main purpose of a sword is to strike and that of a shield to block. This is what those categories are about, but not that they mean much.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    The idea applies just as much to medieval or any-era weaponry, but I first heard it expressed about anti-aircraft missiles: There is no such thing as purely defensive weapon. You can think that anti-aircraft missile turrets are purely defensive, as they can only shoot down enemy planes flying over your cities. But then, you can pack those turrets on trucks and drive over to the enemy and deploy them to shoot down their planes flying over their cities. And so is with everything. A perfect armor the enemy attacks can't penetrate is an offensive weapon, because the enemy won't be able to stop your soldiers when they invade their land. But also, conversely, a better sword, or gun, or bomb, can work well as purely defensive weapon, because the threat it projects deters the enemy from attacking you in the first place. This is the basic reason why you can't not have a military, even if you're a peaceful state that doesn't intend to engage in conquest. In most extreme form, this is what's been keeping the world largely at peace - threat of nuclear retaliation and subsequent mutual destruction. War is not about offensive and defensive technologies. Any technology can be used as either (with varying degree of effectiveness). War has always been about the willingness and ability to get your people to go and beat other people, and keep beating them until either side gives up.
    - jerf 4y ago
      This is, in my opinion, the great lesson to learn from chess. Offense and defense are a duality, not a partition. You can defend a piece by making an offensive threat elsewhere on the board. You can attack a piece by shoring up defenses. Offense and defense are human concepts that clearly mean something, but when you get down to brass tacks and try to define them with mathematical precision it becomes very, very difficult. And potential offense can manifest as real defense, and potential defenses can manifest as real offense, and all sorts of other such relationships can be clearly seen in higher level chess. One is also a hopelessly lost without a map if one tries to understand international relationships without this understanding. Which frankly most people babbling away about them don't, even yea verily on HN and the mainstream media outlets. Rest assured the players themselves do. Since international relationship also have a large poker element to them, and you as a normal citizen are shockingly short on information, this isn't a secret decoder ring by any means. But you're just completely lost if you don't at least understand this duality of offense and defense aspect.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      Tell that to Tony Blinken and MBS...
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Greatly recommend the latest series of Vikings Valhalla, with shield maidens performing some aweseome moves :)
- saurik 4y ago
  Is it really a tangent if that was the very point that started the comment? "The difference between sword and shield has never been clear."
maxerickson 4y ago
Those seem more like things that can be good about a weapon rather than things that a weapon must have to be good. Like being reliable and effective is probably more important than being foolproof. This is probably true for any tool that is going to see frequent use.

wongarsu 4y ago

A bit of a tangent, but swords can be used to parry, and shields can be used to bash people. Many medieval shields even have metal spikes to make shield bashes more effective. Medieval weaponry can't be put in nice "defensive" and "offensive" boxes either.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Medieval weaponry can't be put in nice "defensive" and "offensive" boxes either." But the main purpose of a sword is to strike and that of a shield to block. This is what those categories are about, but not that they mean much.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  The idea applies just as much to medieval or any-era weaponry, but I first heard it expressed about anti-aircraft missiles: There is no such thing as purely defensive weapon. You can think that anti-aircraft missile turrets are purely defensive, as they can only shoot down enemy planes flying over your cities. But then, you can pack those turrets on trucks and drive over to the enemy and deploy them to shoot down their planes flying over their cities. And so is with everything. A perfect armor the enemy attacks can't penetrate is an offensive weapon, because the enemy won't be able to stop your soldiers when they invade their land. But also, conversely, a better sword, or gun, or bomb, can work well as purely defensive weapon, because the threat it projects deters the enemy from attacking you in the first place. This is the basic reason why you can't not have a military, even if you're a peaceful state that doesn't intend to engage in conquest. In most extreme form, this is what's been keeping the world largely at peace - threat of nuclear retaliation and subsequent mutual destruction. War is not about offensive and defensive technologies. Any technology can be used as either (with varying degree of effectiveness). War has always been about the willingness and ability to get your people to go and beat other people, and keep beating them until either side gives up.
  - jerf 4y ago
    This is, in my opinion, the great lesson to learn from chess. Offense and defense are a duality, not a partition. You can defend a piece by making an offensive threat elsewhere on the board. You can attack a piece by shoring up defenses. Offense and defense are human concepts that clearly mean something, but when you get down to brass tacks and try to define them with mathematical precision it becomes very, very difficult. And potential offense can manifest as real defense, and potential defenses can manifest as real offense, and all sorts of other such relationships can be clearly seen in higher level chess. One is also a hopelessly lost without a map if one tries to understand international relationships without this understanding. Which frankly most people babbling away about them don't, even yea verily on HN and the mainstream media outlets. Rest assured the players themselves do. Since international relationship also have a large poker element to them, and you as a normal citizen are shockingly short on information, this isn't a secret decoder ring by any means. But you're just completely lost if you don't at least understand this duality of offense and defense aspect.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Tell that to Tony Blinken and MBS...
nonrandomstring 4y ago
Greatly recommend the latest series of Vikings Valhalla, with shield maidens performing some aweseome moves :)
saurik 4y ago
Is it really a tangent if that was the very point that started the comment? "The difference between sword and shield has never been clear."

maxerickson 4y ago

Those seem more like things that can be good about a weapon rather than things that a weapon must have to be good. Like being reliable and effective is probably more important than being foolproof. This is probably true for any tool that is going to see frequent use.