4 ms·

Bit confused.. "A possible cyber attack temporarily shut down computer networks" ... "Operations at the two banks were back to normal later in the afternoon an

by bobsy 14y ago

Bit confused.. "A possible cyber attack temporarily shut down computer networks" ... "Operations at the two banks were back to normal later in the afternoon and it was still unclear what caused the disruptions" So it might have been a cyber attack. It might not. "President Park Geun Hye’s administration created a cyber crisis headquarters to investigate whether North Korea is behind the outages" I would have thought it would have been created to see if it actually was a cyber attack before assigning blame. In the UK banking systems have failed repeatedly in recent months. The first thought isn't a cyber attack. The first thought is banks messed up. I don't get why tensions would rise if currently they cannot even determine if it is a cyber attack or not.

readme 14y ago
Because this is exactly the scenario that plays out every time North Korea "attacks" South Korea. No one ever owns it, just like with the submarine http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703. It's an "accident" or it's inconclusive. Also, neither side wants to conclusively blame the other, because hey, they're still at odds. Stepping a single foot into the DMZ without permission can get you shot at. SK is probably trying to give them the benefit of the doubt but is relatively sure it was them.
- roc 14y ago
  I would think it has little to do with the benefit of the doubt and everything to do with retaliation and escalation. If the South found that the North definitely sunk a South submarine, the people would (more loudly) call for retaliation. And while everyone is certain what that would lead to, no-one's quite sure where it would end and no-one doubts that the losses for all involved will massively dwarf the loss of a single ship. And there's always the possibility that the South really was in the wrong. That their ship had violated an agreement by doing something they'd rather not publicize. (Not unlike the subdued US reaction to the EP3/Mig-21 collision in 2001. Were the US 'innocent' the rhetoric would have sounded much different than it did. But even then, the risks of escalation far outweigh the losses at hand.)

by bobsy 14y ago

readme 14y ago

Because this is exactly the scenario that plays out every time North Korea "attacks" South Korea. No one ever owns it, just like with the submarine http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10129703. It's an "accident" or it's inconclusive. Also, neither side wants to conclusively blame the other, because hey, they're still at odds. Stepping a single foot into the DMZ without permission can get you shot at. SK is probably trying to give them the benefit of the doubt but is relatively sure it was them.

roc 14y ago
I would think it has little to do with the benefit of the doubt and everything to do with retaliation and escalation. If the South found that the North definitely sunk a South submarine, the people would (more loudly) call for retaliation. And while everyone is certain what that would lead to, no-one's quite sure where it would end and no-one doubts that the losses for all involved will massively dwarf the loss of a single ship. And there's always the possibility that the South really was in the wrong. That their ship had violated an agreement by doing something they'd rather not publicize. (Not unlike the subdued US reaction to the EP3/Mig-21 collision in 2001. Were the US 'innocent' the rhetoric would have sounded much different than it did. But even then, the risks of escalation far outweigh the losses at hand.)