[acqq]

Returning to the topic and 2020, from the transcript of the 50-minute show I've mentioned:

"Nakasone said the American people shouldn't worry about the 2020 elections because Cybercom is prepared to prevent the Russians from repeating what they did in 2016."

"TEMPLE-RASTON: Even saying that much is new. Remember - offensive cyber not so long ago was something they didn't talk about, and now, all of a sudden, they seem to be. So why is General Nakasone talking about this now?

DEIBERT: What's happening here is part of a deterrent justification."

Then they give an explanation of this using some lines from Dr. Strangelove.

By the way, the show was "written and hosted by Dina Temple-Raston," who also wrote the article, and I liked the show.

-----

Edit: responding to "deterrent could easily be communicated privately" below: -- no, that's too narrow thinking: consider the potential target as "anybody who'd be willing to try it at home." That's a much bigger target group than potential workers. Also consider every "it" that people would be potentially scared to do.

Edit2: re. the edit of the post below involving joke with the submarines -- I fail to see any relation to anything discussed here, and I'd also like to know if anybody but the writer even understands what the joke is. I honestly don't. Meh.

Edit3: re "MAD": Like I've said I don't believe it's about MAD, but "anybody who'd be willing to try it at home." Anybody in front of the computer anywhere in the world, including, but not exclusively, some future "Junaid Hussain." (and, if I'm closer to the correct answer, Cybercom can give me 10 upvotes here).

Edit4: I think I understand it now after it's added that the "joke meant to illustrate MAD" -- I guess he didn't follow the link, but reacted to "Dr. Strangelove" reference believing it's about MAD, even if it never was. As per transcript, it's there to argue: "if you keep it a secret [i.e. American offensive cyber operations] - you could say the same thing about American offensive cyber operations. They've been so stealthy for so long, maybe people don't realize the U.S. has them." Note "people." As is, people wouldn't be scared to do something the U.S. doesn't like, instead of thinking who'd be the target of next U.S. drone attack.

[082349872349872]

Sorry, I was reacting to the Dr. Strangelove from the article, especially the "end of"[1] description. Maybe it was more obvious in the transcript? I believed it to be about MAD because who, since 2010 (Stuxnet), could plausibly believe that non-decisive[2] American offensive cyber operations are not at least a potential thing?

As written in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24522125 I don't believe everyone apparently having more offensive than defensive capability is necessarily the most stable of situations.

[1] the true end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIpTE-aHEZ0

On the "mineshaft gap": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23712008

Have you got change for 20 million people? https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/713/nuclear-war

[2] "There was too much there to move, and we knew we had to break [Chrome], burn her straight down, or she might come after us."

[acqq]

Not having the whole story arc about Junaid Hussain is the main difference between the show (as seen in the transcript) and the article. I was talking about the former from the start, as it can be easily seen.

The point in the article after mentioning Dr. Strangelove uses however the same wording that I've pointed to:

"You could say the same thing about American offensive cyber operations. They have been so stealthy for so long, maybe people don't realize we have them."

[082349872349872]

(a) deterrent could easily be communicated, and much more easily clarified, privately.

(b) taking out an electrical grid is not at all comparable to MAD.

I'd imagine domestic recruiting to be more likely, along the lines of the prime-time channel 1 song-and-dance mentioned in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24453689

==== Edit: joke meant to illustrate (b), the Assured Destruction part that makes MAD a non-iterated game. I agree that if TFA is not about MAD, then threatening Proportional Inconvenience can be an effective deterrent in an iterated game, a deterrent much more applicable to future Hussains than to future Bystrovs. (indeed, in that scenario, I would worry about non-nuclear powers swatting each other via Uscybercom) ====

In the middle of the Carribean, a US sub, gleaming and spotless, surfaces next to a dingy-in-comparison russian sub, whose boomers are sprawled out in undershorts and telnyashki, listlessly passing around vodka bottles across a littered foredeck.

One of them is murmuring over and over again, "which one of you idiots threw slippers on control board?"

On the US sub, a dress-uniformed officer in Randolph Engineering glasses emerges from the hatch. "This is the Captain of the USS Alaska. May I speak with your captain, please?"

On board the russian sub, the only response is the clinking and refilling of glasses.

"I repeat, I am Commander William Dull, captain of the USS Alaska, SSBN 732. I would like to speak with your captain!"

A small fight breaks out on the russian sub over who last poured.

"Damn it, what is up with you russkies? Do you call that shipshape? At least we learn discipline back home at King's Bay! Di. Sci. Pline!"

"Don't you get it?" yells back the murmuring russian, in english now. "Is no King's Bay any more." Then he recommences his russian refrain, a little more loudly, "Oi, which one of you idiots threw valenki on control board?"