5 ms·

The centrifuges could have been destroyed, and with loss of human life. The system itself was damaged. I wouldn't call this a "cold" war. It is a very real, ver

by wissler 14y ago

The centrifuges could have been destroyed, and with loss of human life. The system itself was damaged. I wouldn't call this a "cold" war. It is a very real, very physical war(albeit precisely targeted, for now).

SkyMarshal 14y ago
The same sort of stuff used to happen during the Cold War with the Soviets [1]. Cold War doesn't mean no loss of life or destruction, just that there aren't two armies going at it on the battlefield. 1. http://www.damninteresting.com/the-farewell-dossier/ http://www.damninteresting.com/the-farewell-dossier/
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  The gas pipeline sabotage was just the example I was thinking of. Nice.
- wissler 14y ago
  "Cold War doesn't mean no loss of life or destruction, just that there aren't two armies going at it on the battlefield" If so, then "cold" vs. "hot" would be a distinction without a difference. I don't think the populace is generally educated to think that a "cold war" means "overt attacks on the enemy producing destruction and death." Rather, I think most people think that "cold war" means heightened political/military tension without overt attacks. To define a "cold war" as one in which no soldiers are used is fallacious: it's a definition by non-essentials. What is relevant to war is whether there is a systematically planned and ongoing violent attacks, not whether soldiers happen to be the means of attack.
  - pyre 14y ago
    The "cold" distinction is that there are no open hostilities. There are hostilities wrapped in plausible deniability, and found through proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, etc).
    - wissler 14y ago
      "No open hostilities" is a definition by non-essentials. It's fallacious. As I already said and as you failed to address. Whether certain people happen to know whether there is an attack or who is behind it does not change anything. A state of knowledge does not change the reality: someone is planning and attacking.
      - wissler 14y ago
        It's easy to hit the downvote button. It'd show more courage and intelligence to counter with an actual argument. Incidentally, Wikipedia backs my definition of "cold": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) "A cold war or cold warfare is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellites" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country." I.e., this definition does not include direct planned and executed attacks by the nations involved. Continuing: "The definition which has now become fixed is of a war waged through indirect conflict." Indirect means indirect, not directly planting viruses that can destroy your factory.
        pyre 14y ago
        > acts of espionage Are you claiming that stuxnet is not an act of espionage? > Indirect means indirect By your definition, embargoes are 'direct' because they are not levied against proxy nations.
        wissler 14y ago
        Stuxnet was very clearly sabotage. I can't believe the herd here. Downvote away.
      - 14y ago
  - SkyMarshal 14y ago
    > Rather, I think most people think that "cold war" means heightened political/military tension without overt attacks. You underestimate 'the populace'. I think most people suspect the 'Cold War' included everything up to outright war. What do you think all the CIA's Memorial Wall [1] signifies anyway? I imagine the Kremlin has something similar. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Memorial_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Memorial_Wall

by wissler 14y ago

SkyMarshal 14y ago

The same sort of stuff used to happen during the Cold War with the Soviets [1]. Cold War doesn't mean no loss of life or destruction, just that there aren't two armies going at it on the battlefield. 1. http://www.damninteresting.com/the-farewell-dossier/ http://www.damninteresting.com/the-farewell-dossier/

dredmorbius 14y ago
The gas pipeline sabotage was just the example I was thinking of. Nice.
wissler 14y ago
"Cold War doesn't mean no loss of life or destruction, just that there aren't two armies going at it on the battlefield" If so, then "cold" vs. "hot" would be a distinction without a difference. I don't think the populace is generally educated to think that a "cold war" means "overt attacks on the enemy producing destruction and death." Rather, I think most people think that "cold war" means heightened political/military tension without overt attacks. To define a "cold war" as one in which no soldiers are used is fallacious: it's a definition by non-essentials. What is relevant to war is whether there is a systematically planned and ongoing violent attacks, not whether soldiers happen to be the means of attack.
- pyre 14y ago
  The "cold" distinction is that there are no open hostilities. There are hostilities wrapped in plausible deniability, and found through proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, etc).
  - wissler 14y ago
    "No open hostilities" is a definition by non-essentials. It's fallacious. As I already said and as you failed to address. Whether certain people happen to know whether there is an attack or who is behind it does not change anything. A state of knowledge does not change the reality: someone is planning and attacking.
    - wissler 14y ago
      It's easy to hit the downvote button. It'd show more courage and intelligence to counter with an actual argument. Incidentally, Wikipedia backs my definition of "cold": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) "A cold war or cold warfare is a state of conflict between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, propaganda, acts of espionage or proxy wars waged by surrogates. The surrogates are typically states that are "satellites" of the conflicting nations, i.e., nations allied to them or under their political influence. Opponents in a cold war will often provide economic or military aid, such as weapons, tactical support or military advisors, to lesser nations involved in conflicts with the opposing country." I.e., this definition does not include direct planned and executed attacks by the nations involved. Continuing: "The definition which has now become fixed is of a war waged through indirect conflict." Indirect means indirect, not directly planting viruses that can destroy your factory.
      - pyre 14y ago
        > acts of espionage Are you claiming that stuxnet is not an act of espionage? > Indirect means indirect By your definition, embargoes are 'direct' because they are not levied against proxy nations.
        wissler 14y ago
        Stuxnet was very clearly sabotage. I can't believe the herd here. Downvote away.
    - 14y ago
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  > Rather, I think most people think that "cold war" means heightened political/military tension without overt attacks. You underestimate 'the populace'. I think most people suspect the 'Cold War' included everything up to outright war. What do you think all the CIA's Memorial Wall [1] signifies anyway? I imagine the Kremlin has something similar. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Memorial_Wall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_Memorial_Wall