> I also take issue with your last sentence, with the idea that the US was the first state to directly engage foreign targets. Obviously, the words "of major mi

> I also take issue with your last sentence, with the idea that the US was the first state to directly engage foreign targets. Obviously, the words "of major military significance" gives your argument a lot of room to maneuver, but the overall effect of the argument as it stands is that the US is the only state pursuing any kind of meaningful offensive security effort. That's almost definitely not the case. Absolutely. The US was simply the first to cause actual physical damage to a high-profile target. Other nation states have focused their efforts on accessing sensitive information, a la Aurora. Occasionally these attacks make it into the news but, more often than not, they go undisclosed by the target and/or unreported by the media.