[marvin]

While I’m opposed to using legal terms to weasel out of an insurance claim, it’s an interesting question. If Russia deliberately dropped a bomb on Merck’s factory, it would unquestionably be an act of war. Likewise if they dropped a bomb on a neighboring plant and also accidentally destroyed Merck’s plant.

But dropping a bomb on a facility in Ukraine, with equally destructive shrapnel destroying facilities all over the world? Knowing that using this weapon can easily cause such collateral damage?

We barely have the terminology for discussing this type of warfare. The initial attack was an act of war, certainly. Beyond that, we have to come up with definitions and reactions. At the very least, it’s a subject for diplomatic channels, maybe even sanctions.

[gchamonlive]

Dropping a bomb is not an act of war because of the target itself. It is because to do it you have to violate the country's whole security system and cause damage to the country's real state, which is an act of war, whereas to invade a company's cluster of computers you don't have to compromise the country's whole cybernetwork.

It is interesting though to think about aftermath. If it is not an act of war, one can compromise a country's economy without going directly against the country itself.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Dropping a bomb is not an act of war because of the target itself. It is because to do it you have to violate the country's whole security system and cause damage to the country's real state, which is an act of war, whereas to invade a company's cluster of computers you don't have to compromise the country's whole cybernetwork.

I would counter that you don't need to violate all of the US's defense to bomb Hawaii and we all know how that was received. So yes, a state sending assets to go destroy some other state's property within the borders of said state is generally considered an act of war. That said, details matter a lot and these situations are basically handled on a case by case basis.

[marvin]

Deliberate attacks against a country’s economy would probably be handled on a case by case basis through diplomatic channels.

E.g. I’d argue that if China announced it would not repay its massive Treasury debts to the US, that would basically be an act of war even if no aggression was used, just due to the extreme destructive effects. And the reaction would be similarly upsetting, although not quite on the level of an unprovoked, large-scale military action.

But it quickly becomes a discussion of semantics at that point ;)

[robocat]

> E.g. I’d argue that if China announced it would not repay its massive Treasury debts to the US

Other way round: US has “borrowed” money from China

[marvin]

Ah, I had a suspicion I had my signs mixed up. Thanks for pointing that out. Point stands though :)

[randcraw]

Yeah, this act was wildly indiscriminate. Russia could easily have limited the propagation of NotPetya to Ukraine only, but chose not to. That makes the act irresponsible and comparable to distributing an infectious biological agent via randomly addressed mail bombs that were posted in Kiev.

An appropriate response needs to arise from a cooperative authority like the UN or Interpol, and needs a policy suited to address future events before they arise.

[boomboomsubban]

>If Russia deliberately dropped a bomb on Merck’s factory, it would unquestionably be an act of war.

The US does this all the time and it is not labeled an act of war. The most famous incident is the Al-Shifa medical facility, but this is common practice in the "war on terror."

[occamrazor]

In insurance context any bombing by military airplanes falls under war exclusion clauses.