"Warfare" in cyberspace doesn't worry me as much as "Mutually Assured Destruction" in cyberspace does. With conventional warfare, MAD is relatively straight-for

"Warfare" in cyberspace doesn't worry me as much as "Mutually Assured Destruction" in cyberspace does. With conventional warfare, MAD is relatively straight-forward: pick a large open area on friendly soil, detonate an impressively large weapon, and make sure your enemies know that you have plenty more where that came from. A similar approach works for missile tests and aircraft, armor, and ships in war games. It is relatively easy to convincingly demonstrate the capabilities of traditional weapons without causing any collateral damage (well, except for Castle Bravo). The problem, I think, is how does one convincingly demonstrate cyberwarfare capabilities without causing some amount of real harm. For example: we now know that China has the "great cannon" it can use relatively effectively for DDOS attacks, but only because GitHub suffered...and this is just the beginning of the inevitable arms race.