5 ms·

why aren't hack sabotages seen as acts of war? they can do as much or more damage as, say, blowing up a bridge

hawski 3y ago
Maybe they could be, but you have to catch someone doing it first and it would have to be clear they are agents of a foreign government. That's not easy.
- at0mic22 3y ago
  You don’t need to our days. Just blame Putin, sure bet
nme01 3y ago
I imagine that as with any covert operation it’s hard to prove who’s behind it. Blowing up a bridge is also not something that will cause a war easily.
krisoft 3y ago
> why aren't hack sabotages seen as acts of war? There is this mistaken belief that an act of war somehow immediately and automatically triggers war. This is not the case. If a country wants to wage war against an other they will find a reason. If they don't want to / it is not in their interest to do so they won't. This answers your question. It is not seen as an act of war because the country in question (Poland) wouldn't benefit from seeing it as an act of war at this moment in time.
- RIMR 3y ago
  It's also fundamentally irrational to define malicious non-state actions as acts of war. As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. Likewise, Poland has no interest in defining malicious actions by a Russian national or Russian Imperialism supporter as an act of war by Russia without clear evidence that The Russian state was directly involved. Getting back to the original point though, I see no reason not to define attacks against infrastructure, regardless of who was responsible, foreign or domestic, or their motives, as acts of terrorism.
  - rainsford 3y ago
    That's true, but in the Canadian example, presumably the government of Canada would extradite such a person to the US, while Russia obviously would not agree to extradite the culprit here to Poland to stand trial. Whether or not the government of Russia was initially involved, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that a government harboring an individual who attacked another country makes it a government sanctioned action in at least some sense. Attacking infrastructure as a non-government entity can certainly be considered terrorism, but if the government backs you even after the fact, that feels a lot more like an act of war with plausible deniability. And in this case I think there might be a motivation for Poland to view it that way, since allowing Russian action against NATO countries invites more of the same, and Russia absolutely does not want to give NATO an excuse to retaliate in any way.
    - brightlancer 3y ago
      > Whether or not the government of Russia was initially involved, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that a government harboring an individual who attacked another country makes it a government sanctioned action in at least some sense. Countries refuse extradition for many reasons: they lack a reciprocal agreement with the other country, laws against extraditing citizens, laws against extraditing residents to face potential execution, etc. While Russia is the Nazi Germany of examples, refusing to extradite a person doesn't automatically mean anything. Of course, if someone wanted to go to war with Russia, it makes for a wonderful pretext.
  - murderfs 3y ago
    > As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. Even if you had evidence that this were the case, you might not do anything, as with Saudi involvement with 9/11.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. But that is where you are going wrong. If the US would want to attack Canada they would absolutely use that as a cause for war. If they don't want to go to war then even an straight up Canadian military attack can be brushed aside as "navigational error during a training exercise" or "regrettable rogue elements in the Canadian military". This is not the court of law. The important factor is not if the evidence is strong or weak. The important factor is not if the perpetrator was acting in concert with a government or not. The important factor is if the country wants to go to war or not. Everything else falls in place after that.
ajsnigrutin 3y ago
Because it could be a 13yo kid doing it "for the lulz", and we don't need to overreact. By changing the traffic lights you can cause a traffic collapse in the whole city.. and a kid can do it: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-fantasy-of-changing-traffic-lights-to-green-is-real-but-you-might-have-to-do-some-time https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-fantasy-of... > Youtube user VolteGe, who says he is too young to drive, has nevertheless created a MIRT controlled by an Arduino microcontroller. ADSB spoofing can cause massive problems for the air traffic control, and software for that is open source, works on a $200 sdr with a touchscreen and a gui. FM transmitters are cheap, and remembering the "war of the worlds", anyone can create panic for $20 etc.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
Because the other side has nuclear weapons and declaring war brings those into play as well. Which is why we've been in a cold war with the Soviet block instead of a real war. The prospect of nuclear war was mutually unacceptable. So, they both sides fought lots of proxy wars instead. And those didn't stop when the wall fell. The Ukraine is a proxy war that has Russia backed by allies China, Iran, and others opposing Nato backed Ukrainian forces. Most of the conflicts in the middle east involve most of the countries I've mentioned and lots of their allies as well. Syria is the forgotten conflict where Iran and Russia are partnering and where the US, Israel, and Europe have failed to make progress for more than a decade. With Ukrainian forces now striking deep in Russia, that cold war is heating up. This is a reminder that that can work both ways and might soon start affecting Nato territory as well. All deniable of course. But a few high profile attacks like this sends a not so subtle message that Russia can escalate as well if they want.
failuser 3y ago
This is not even the worst thing Russian agents have done. They used radioactive and chemical weapons to conduct assassinations. They even blew up ammo depots. That is still below the threshold of reasons good enough to declare war on a nuclear country.

Maybe they could be, but you have to catch someone doing it first and it would have to be clear they are agents of a foreign government. That's not easy.

at0mic22 3y ago
You don’t need to our days. Just blame Putin, sure bet

nme01 3y ago

I imagine that as with any covert operation it’s hard to prove who’s behind it. Blowing up a bridge is also not something that will cause a war easily.

krisoft 3y ago

> why aren't hack sabotages seen as acts of war? There is this mistaken belief that an act of war somehow immediately and automatically triggers war. This is not the case. If a country wants to wage war against an other they will find a reason. If they don't want to / it is not in their interest to do so they won't. This answers your question. It is not seen as an act of war because the country in question (Poland) wouldn't benefit from seeing it as an act of war at this moment in time.

RIMR 3y ago
It's also fundamentally irrational to define malicious non-state actions as acts of war. As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. Likewise, Poland has no interest in defining malicious actions by a Russian national or Russian Imperialism supporter as an act of war by Russia without clear evidence that The Russian state was directly involved. Getting back to the original point though, I see no reason not to define attacks against infrastructure, regardless of who was responsible, foreign or domestic, or their motives, as acts of terrorism.
- rainsford 3y ago
  That's true, but in the Canadian example, presumably the government of Canada would extradite such a person to the US, while Russia obviously would not agree to extradite the culprit here to Poland to stand trial. Whether or not the government of Russia was initially involved, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that a government harboring an individual who attacked another country makes it a government sanctioned action in at least some sense. Attacking infrastructure as a non-government entity can certainly be considered terrorism, but if the government backs you even after the fact, that feels a lot more like an act of war with plausible deniability. And in this case I think there might be a motivation for Poland to view it that way, since allowing Russian action against NATO countries invites more of the same, and Russia absolutely does not want to give NATO an excuse to retaliate in any way.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > Whether or not the government of Russia was initially involved, there's a pretty convincing argument to be made that a government harboring an individual who attacked another country makes it a government sanctioned action in at least some sense. Countries refuse extradition for many reasons: they lack a reciprocal agreement with the other country, laws against extraditing citizens, laws against extraditing residents to face potential execution, etc. While Russia is the Nazi Germany of examples, refusing to extradite a person doesn't automatically mean anything. Of course, if someone wanted to go to war with Russia, it makes for a wonderful pretext.
- murderfs 3y ago
  > As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. Even if you had evidence that this were the case, you might not do anything, as with Saudi involvement with 9/11.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > As an example, if someone from Canada were to come to the US and blow up a government building, no matter how severe the damage and human loss, we wouldn't dare consider that an act of war by Canada, unless evidence existed that the Canadian government or military were involved somehow. But that is where you are going wrong. If the US would want to attack Canada they would absolutely use that as a cause for war. If they don't want to go to war then even an straight up Canadian military attack can be brushed aside as "navigational error during a training exercise" or "regrettable rogue elements in the Canadian military". This is not the court of law. The important factor is not if the evidence is strong or weak. The important factor is not if the perpetrator was acting in concert with a government or not. The important factor is if the country wants to go to war or not. Everything else falls in place after that.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago

Because it could be a 13yo kid doing it "for the lulz", and we don't need to overreact. By changing the traffic lights you can cause a traffic collapse in the whole city.. and a kid can do it: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-fantasy-of-changing-traffic-lights-to-green-is-real-but-you-might-have-to-do-some-time https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/the-fantasy-of... > Youtube user VolteGe, who says he is too young to drive, has nevertheless created a MIRT controlled by an Arduino microcontroller. ADSB spoofing can cause massive problems for the air traffic control, and software for that is open source, works on a $200 sdr with a touchscreen and a gui. FM transmitters are cheap, and remembering the "war of the worlds", anyone can create panic for $20 etc.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Because the other side has nuclear weapons and declaring war brings those into play as well. Which is why we've been in a cold war with the Soviet block instead of a real war. The prospect of nuclear war was mutually unacceptable. So, they both sides fought lots of proxy wars instead. And those didn't stop when the wall fell. The Ukraine is a proxy war that has Russia backed by allies China, Iran, and others opposing Nato backed Ukrainian forces. Most of the conflicts in the middle east involve most of the countries I've mentioned and lots of their allies as well. Syria is the forgotten conflict where Iran and Russia are partnering and where the US, Israel, and Europe have failed to make progress for more than a decade. With Ukrainian forces now striking deep in Russia, that cold war is heating up. This is a reminder that that can work both ways and might soon start affecting Nato territory as well. All deniable of course. But a few high profile attacks like this sends a not so subtle message that Russia can escalate as well if they want.

failuser 3y ago

This is not even the worst thing Russian agents have done. They used radioactive and chemical weapons to conduct assassinations. They even blew up ammo depots. That is still below the threshold of reasons good enough to declare war on a nuclear country.