|
|
|
|
|
|
by crazygringo
675 days ago
|
|
|
No, your point was clearly stated: > But the security argument? Yeah, that ship has sailed. Total war, means total war. Those are your words. I'm saying, focusing on total war is irresponsible and leads you to draw false conclusions. In the real world, limited conflicts are what we're dealing with 99.9+% of the time, thank goodness. And now in your new comment, for some reason you're focusing on "plausible deniability" which is another red herring. If China wants to disrupt Europe's grid, it doesn't care about plausible deniability -- the entire point is to publicly retaliatiate. It just needs to do it, as easily as possible. The idea that relying on a cloud vulnerability "doesn't make a list of your top 10 options" doesn't make any sense at all. It might very well be the #1 option, or one of three tactics employed simultaneously. |
|
|
With or without cloud based monitoring, our power grids can be disrupted.
That's the commonly accepted meaning of "that ship has sailed" as a colloquialism with respect to cloud based monitoring.
Also, you, yourself, brought up the idea of cold war style confrontation. The basis of most actions against proxy supporters in cold war style conflicts is plausible deniability. It's not a red herring, it's a widely adhered to tenet of cold war style conflict planning when targeting said proxy supporters.
I tried to cover total war, open war, and cold war to address the full spectrum of likely super power on super power active confrontations. In each scenario, the existence, or non-existence, of cloud based monitoring of solar panels, has no effect on the ability or inability of your adversary to disrupt your power grid.
Which disruption was the central thesis of your assertion. I was simply explaining why it was false.
You are being willfully argumentative at this point. If you didn't want to address cold war scenarios, why did you bring them up? You have a nice day sir or ma'am.