I mean, it can be argued that trying to damage our infrastructure by hacking our computers is just as much of an act of war as firing a missile at our infrastructure. In some cases, the effect of the damage is the same. (I admit the 'cleanup' of the Colonial Pipeline problem is much less than it would be if someone blew up the pipeline, but the impact it had on our country was similar.)
I don't expect the US to start handling this that way any time soon, but I'm not sure it'd be irrational for a nation to decide a cyberattack is, in fact, an act of war.
I hope so too, and I doubt the US government's response will be cyber-warfare related. There's not much they can do in the first place, and it would be a petty tit-for-tat reprimand.
I'd be interested in seeing what the 'militia' response was. True cyber war to break out. I'd imagine that Google, for one, would do some interesting things inresponse go a US cyber attack.
Attacking infrastructure is an act of war. In 2011 the Pentagon took this stance on cyber warfare:
“For the first time, the Pentagon has decided that cyber attacks constitute an act of war, reports The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. military drafted a classified 30-page document concluding that the U.S. may respond to cyber attacks from foreign countries with traditional military force, citing the growing threat of hackers on U.S. infrastructure such as subways, electrical grids or nuclear reactors.”
Hypothetically, if another "U.S." company with higher economical consequences got cyberattacked, would it be considered an act of war? For example if Facebook got shutdown for a few days/weeks. Or does it have to be military/government/infrastructure related tech?
"And we have the Pentagon recently saying that by policy a 'cyber attack' will be considered an act of war."
I've been wondering about the insanity of this declaration. Surely the Pentagon hasn't the slightest intention of picking a meat war with China over industrial espionage.
Maybe they had Wikileaks and Anonymous in mind. That would make Go To Jail, Do Not Pass Go much more straightforward, and scary.
It seems like the pace of cyberattacks is accelerating...will be interesting to see how the US responds, and especially if it's even possible for massive government organizations to adapt quickly enough.
I'm surprised to see even people on this site downplaying how worrisome these attacks are.
The ability to shut down an enemy's computer systems remotely is an awesome power, and will only become more impactful as we rely more and more on computer systems in our everyday lives.
Forget space: the internet is the next frontier. A group of enemy soldiers shutting down a hospital would be met with outrage and military backlash. A group of hackers shutting down fifty hospitals is met with jokes about outdated operating systems and derision towards IT directors.
At what point do we stop treating these like annoyances of a strange new world and start treating them like what they are: targeted, military-grade attacks. The whole world can see how woefully unprepared the West is for attacks of this nature and the attackers are only going to grow more bold.
The more intertwined tech is with the military, the more powerful the cyber-warfare paradigm becomes.
Ehhh I'm not sure I agree. I think Cyber-warfare could be called "silent War", or at least "War with a lag". It's certainly possible, given what we know re Snowden about the capabilities of the NSA et al, that we've responded already and we haven't (or won't) see the results, at least not in the near term and probably not as spectacular as a successful Drone strike on a military compound.
Having spent time deployed, I think a lot of Americans might be conditioned to seeing immediate(ish) responses to threats via Drones, SEAL team 6, Ranger Regiment, whatever. The nature, and future, of Cyberwar is something that's fundamentally different from what we've seen broadcast on CNN over the last 13 (soon to be 14...15...) years. A response to North Korea (though I'm not truly convinced that they're the lone perpetrators) might not be something that pops up in The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer or trends on Twitter.
Hasn't this precedent already been set a long time ago? I had thought cyber warfare acts were common. I would think they would have to specifically shut down large infrastructure before a response beyond this was even considered.
Well that's the main issue, currently the states do not consider such cyberattacks the equivalent of sending troops or rockets across the border that justify a "kinetic" response but rather the equivalent of earlier espionage activities which usually justifies only a diplomatic response. Of course, that might change in the future.
reply