[echelon]

You're correct.

Historically the choices were made to spend billions (and trillions) of dollars to invade countries harboring terrorists and use the situation to project power against other adversaries, advantageously control the price of oil, work trade deals, etc.

I predict the same path will be taken with cybercrime. The U.S. defense apparatus won't be giving subsidies to non-tech companies to boost security. Rather, they'll be waging war and using overlapping objectives and narratives to further other goals.

[gilbetron]

Cyberwarfare will be used to further terrible agendas (and already is) - that must be fought politically, but I am plenty jaded enough to see where that is likely to go. Unfortunately not participating in Cyberwarfare is not an option.

[bluGill]

I disagree - Russia seems to be a large source of these crimes and they are a bit too big to invade (without nuclear bombs it might be possible, but only a fool would invade given they have them)

We might seem some special forces go into action under cover. However it would be assassinations done in such a way that Russia either won't know who did them, or is willing to look the other way (the later implies something diplomatic).

[MomoXenosaga]

If sheltering hackers means war countries might think twice of letting them operate from within their borders.

But there are other options: assassination for instance like Israel does with nuclear scientists.