4 ms·
I think cyber warfare is inevitable. Because systems are so complex, defensive techniques will always fall short. The only effective deterrent is an offensive a
by ub 11y ago
I think cyber warfare is inevitable. Because systems are so complex, defensive techniques will always fall short. The only effective deterrent is an offensive attack or at least the fear of an attack. The US has to create a catch-22 situation for China so that it fears the repercussions.
- bahador 11y agomutually assured cyber destruction?
- nitrogen 11y agoMAD doesn't really work on the Internet for too many reasons to list.
- ub 11y agoI hope not. I think it's like the nuclear arms race. Everyone wants one so that it can deter it's enemies but using a nuclear weapon can be disastrous. Similarly, the US strategy here could be to show China that it's capable of retaliating if it wanted to but doesn't necessarily have to resort to it.
- kuschku 11y agoFinally a mutually assured destruction where the Germans actually have power. (Just check how much stuff worldwide is using SIEMENS tech, including almost all power grids, train infrastructure, etc)
- dikaiosune 11y agoI'm pretty sure that the nuclear arms race was largely driven by adherence to MAD. And what you're describing is exactly the kind of escalate-in-kind deterrence policy that was built on top of the mutually assured destruction philosophy.
- trhway 11y ago>Because systems are so complex, defensive techniques will always fall short. sounds like a typical BigCo's PM argument when waiving security bugs.
- shillno1138 11y agoYeah, systems really are not so complex they fall short, its the fact that there are ineffectual non-technical leadership, and they always tend not to listen to their technical people and SME's
- x5n1 11y agoYou want to spend a trillion dollars on the new IT project? No. Well then I guess it can't be 100% secure.
- im3w1l 11y agoProblem with retaliation is attribution; it can be hard to know just who should punish. In this case it seems to be clear, but that's not always so.