[hummingurban]

When a foreign adversarial state launches 'cyber 9/11' it would imply a few things:

1) The offending country is willing to escalate/desires to provoke skirmishes that may lead to major battles with or without conventional military.

2) The offending country is so desperate, the only way to reboot their economy is to start a losing battle so it can be rebuilt.

3) the economy of the offending country is so skewed at the top of the leadership, they are willing to thin the herd using foreign intervention, and build up a zealous supporter base who is out for blood for vengeance.

TLDR: The adversarial state will launch a 'cyber nuclear' attack when it thinks is fully ready to take the brunt of 12 American carrier groups armed with manned and unmanned stealth fighters.

[topkai22]

AFAIK, there remains no clear policy or line on what sort of cyber incident would warrant escalation to a “kinetic” (blowing things up) response. This is a serious problem, as it can lead to unintentional escalation.

For example, if Turkey and Russia got into a spat over access to the Black Sea and Russia triggered blackouts in Turkey that (perhaps unintentionally) killed people. Would that trigger Article 5? (NATO Mutual Defense Treaty?)

What if a state sponsored (but not state controlled) group managed to do a massive uncontrolled release of dam water, drowning hundreds. Would the US be justified in a kinetic retaliation against the sponsoring state?

This is one reason why people are calling for a cyber version of the Geneva convention- we need norms to help make the signaling and consequences inherent in these actions clear to all parties.

[panarky]

"Pentagon Suggests Countering Devastating Cyberattacks With Nuclear Arms"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/us/politics/pentagon-nucl...

[nradov]

The US already has a policy to use kinetic means to retaliate against state sponsored terrorism. Whether that terrorism is carried out through "cyber" or other means is irrelevant. And the US did trigger Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks.

[topkai22]

Ok, the dam scenario is excessive (and kinetic already), but where that threshold crossed? If a string of on going attacks caused 10s of billions of damage but with no fatalities, would it crossed? What about incidental fatalities such as preventable deaths in a blackout?

Messaging and intentions aren’t clear in this domain yet, that’s the worry about unintentional escalation.

[nradov]

Intentions about military responses are intentionally unclear. Presidents want to preserve their freedom of action and keep their options open.

[_8j50]

Why were there no military actions against russia for DNC hacks then? Sure,they might bomb a few useless places if a 3rd world country did it. But the US will need to weigh the cost of attacking countries like China,N Korea,Russia or any one of the currently US allied western european and some asian countries like Japan and Vietnam. Good chance the attackers deny relationship with the Gov't,US will respond with just air strikes and sanctions.

If N Korea caused something like the 2008 crash,is it worth a regional nuclear war by invading them? You're also assuming it's just one country that will attack and they haven't already prepared an invasion against mainland US

[rattlesnakedave]

>Why were there no military actions against Russia for the DNC hacks then?

Probably because the “evidence” Russia hacked the DNC is dubious at best.

[Hextinium]

There are reports from the FBI, CIA and joint reports from the Department of Homeland Security detailing what they describe as intention from Russian backed security groups.

Here are two links to the joint reports from the three letter agencies involved:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR...

[TheOtherHobbes]

The US appears to be shockingly unprepared for social cyberwar.

If you're an aggressor, you don't need to break infrastructure or blow things up. For the cost of a few troll farms, a few training classes in infowar, and maybe a mainstream news outlet or two, you can split any country along its political fault lines and encourage division, sectarianism, social unrest, "spontaneous" terrorism, and perhaps eventually civil war.

A country like the US, which has extremely deep social fault lines, is almost ridiculously vulnerable to this kind of attack.

And with the right financial and/or political incentives, there will always be potential fifth column interests who would support such an effort, as long as they gain personally.

The US has sponsored efforts like these in other countries in the past. There doesn't seem to be much understanding that it's also vulnerable to them - far more than it used to be, thanks to the amplifying effects of social media.

[TomMckenny]

Indeed, the society is so divided, just sowing a little bit of doubt would be enough to prevent the huge decision of retaliation. Merely some anonymous accounts on influential forums could be a very cheap way to make strides in that direction.

So cheap in fact that I'm not surprised if we witness exactly that very, very nearby.

[rattlesnakedave]

Those are both almost entirely lacking in any technical evidence.

[_8j50]

The dutch literally watched the russians over cctv cameras(apt28).

[partiallypro]

The hacks may have manipulated public opinion, but that's it. Why is that worth military attack? It's not.

[z3phyr]

What if you can't figure out who the offending country is? The USA like any other nation is just some people who have emotions and psychology that can be tinkered with. How about six American Carrier groups against the other six??

[clubm8]

>What if you can't figure out who the offending country is?

Sounds like a great excuse to take out all the "usual suspects" at once.

[ohiovr]

If the CIA can trace a journalists killing to a crown prince I think the three letter agencies can paint a decently decisive target.

[z3phyr]

Theorotically, in a world without consequences the USA can take out multiple powers very easily.

Practically (and without usage of nuclear weopons), the USA can barely handle attrition. Also the USA have not fought a conventional war with another competent regional power since World War 2 and that too was with many allies.

[_8j50]

Even something like vietnam would be very difficult now with all the internal division and the prelude strife they'll cause.

[hummingurban]

> How about six American Carrier groups against the other six??

How will you divide them equally and pit them against each other?

[topkai22]

I get your point, but the regular US military is a culture and organization apart from the mainstream.

[TomMckenny]

Although I imagine the first target of this unnamed adversary will be Estonia.