- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What should US do if Russia crashes US computer network?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:39 pm to biohzrd
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:39 pm to biohzrd
OK, so, things are messed up for a week. During this week, there cannot be some significant economic loss?
See, current International Law speaks in terms of "armed attack" as being acts of war. The law may be out of date. If intentional acts of computer network attacks can cause significant economic loss on another, should International Law hold that this kind of "attack" is an act of war?
That's the purpose of the thread. What do regular people think? Should it be an act of war? I don't think that International Law has settled this question.
I'm wondering what the common sense of the people say about it.
PS I assure you that there are attorneys in DoD or/and the State Dept that are thinking about these kinds of questions. This question is not some kind of way out fantasy thinking -- it could easily be "real world" in the foreseeable future.
See, current International Law speaks in terms of "armed attack" as being acts of war. The law may be out of date. If intentional acts of computer network attacks can cause significant economic loss on another, should International Law hold that this kind of "attack" is an act of war?
That's the purpose of the thread. What do regular people think? Should it be an act of war? I don't think that International Law has settled this question.
I'm wondering what the common sense of the people say about it.
PS I assure you that there are attorneys in DoD or/and the State Dept that are thinking about these kinds of questions. This question is not some kind of way out fantasy thinking -- it could easily be "real world" in the foreseeable future.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 10:42 pm
2
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:43 pm to Champagne
The U.S., or any country, should treat an attack on its economy as an act of war. Would the U.S. treat it as an act of war is another question.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:13 pm to Champagne
quote:This would have been a B movie plot in the 80's.
Let's say that the USA sends some military supplies or weapons to Ukraine. In response, Russian hackers punch some computer buttons in Moscow and cause severe problems with our computer networks
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:29 pm to mmcgrath
Do you have a relevant opinion, or is this kind of thinking beyond your reptilian brain-stem-brain?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:46 pm to Champagne
quote:
Let's say that the USA sends some military supplies or weapons to Ukraine. In response, Russian hackers punch some computer buttons in Moscow and cause severe problems with our computer networks -- dislocation and economic loss. What should the US response be?
Fix our computers and stop involving ourselves in Ukraine's problems.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:40 am to biglego
So, no US response if Russian-sponsored operatives conduct a cyberattack causing severe economic loss to the USA?
Perhaps a response in kind, and, limit it to that?
Has anybody thought that perhaps Obama himself might be worried about a Russian cyberattack on the US economy, should the US become more troublesome?
He may worry that Russia may have a superior capability to wage Cyberwar.
How good is US cyberwar capability, anyway?
Perhaps a response in kind, and, limit it to that?
Has anybody thought that perhaps Obama himself might be worried about a Russian cyberattack on the US economy, should the US become more troublesome?
He may worry that Russia may have a superior capability to wage Cyberwar.
How good is US cyberwar capability, anyway?
This post was edited on 8/29/14 at 9:41 am
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:46 am to Champagne
It would certainly be an act of war. Anything that disrupts our economy (intentionally of course) should be considered as such.
What if NK, Russia and China all joined in the festivities collectively? If you notice, there is a severe trend that people are 'stepping up' to us - terrorists, Russia, China to an extent, petrodollars in other currencies. People that don't think these have serious implications are nuts.
What if NK, Russia and China all joined in the festivities collectively? If you notice, there is a severe trend that people are 'stepping up' to us - terrorists, Russia, China to an extent, petrodollars in other currencies. People that don't think these have serious implications are nuts.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:54 am to Champagne
quote:
Theoretically speaking, of course.
our networks is far too distributed for them to be able to make a major impact. Anonymous is a group of very talented hackers, and they couldn't even cause minor disruption.
but if it were to happen, much of anonymous would go after russia's network, which isn't near as resilient. of course, they dont rely on it as much.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:55 am to Champagne
quote:
Theoretically speaking, of course.
Deploy the global strategic #hashtag.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 10:07 am to Champagne
That would be an act of war.
The first challenge: was it sanctioned by Russian government or terrorists. It's probably one and the same but it's something we would have to take into account. I'll assume it was sanctioned by Putin.
Secondly: I think the president would have the support of the American people. Everyone would be scared shitless. He could do just about anything. I'd call every one of our allies and tell them that they were going along with the plan to stop trade with Russia whether they liked it or not (probably not a big deal because their economy would be fricked too). Like absolutely no fricking trade until xxx conditions were met.
Someone who demonstrates they can disrupt the U.S. (and world) economy must be stopped at all cost. That's an all in type scenario.
The first challenge: was it sanctioned by Russian government or terrorists. It's probably one and the same but it's something we would have to take into account. I'll assume it was sanctioned by Putin.
Secondly: I think the president would have the support of the American people. Everyone would be scared shitless. He could do just about anything. I'd call every one of our allies and tell them that they were going along with the plan to stop trade with Russia whether they liked it or not (probably not a big deal because their economy would be fricked too). Like absolutely no fricking trade until xxx conditions were met.
Someone who demonstrates they can disrupt the U.S. (and world) economy must be stopped at all cost. That's an all in type scenario.
This post was edited on 8/29/14 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:15 am to a want
Thanks for the responses, folks.
It's an interesting topic.
We'll have to rely on our computer network experts to make sure that our system is incapable of anything but a minor disruption from cyberattack.
If we can make sure of this, then we don't have to worry about cyberattack causing the kind of economic loss that, say, an EMP bomb would wreak.
If we can ensure our system from cyberattack, then we can take each minor hacking/cyberattack incident at it comes, and possibly respond in kind.
Let's be nice to our computer network expert folks so that this doesn't become an issue.
I agree that if some kind of massive cyberattack were to collapse a country's economy, that would be an act of war against that country. I don't think that International Law has completely resolved the issue in a coherent manner yet, however, but, in a common sense way, most people would consider it to be an act of war.
Here's to the computer geeks ! . . . I mean, here's to our esteemed computer network experts !
It's an interesting topic.
We'll have to rely on our computer network experts to make sure that our system is incapable of anything but a minor disruption from cyberattack.
If we can make sure of this, then we don't have to worry about cyberattack causing the kind of economic loss that, say, an EMP bomb would wreak.
If we can ensure our system from cyberattack, then we can take each minor hacking/cyberattack incident at it comes, and possibly respond in kind.
Let's be nice to our computer network expert folks so that this doesn't become an issue.
I agree that if some kind of massive cyberattack were to collapse a country's economy, that would be an act of war against that country. I don't think that International Law has completely resolved the issue in a coherent manner yet, however, but, in a common sense way, most people would consider it to be an act of war.
Here's to the computer geeks ! . . . I mean, here's to our esteemed computer network experts !
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:48 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
our networks is far too distributed for them to be able to make a major impact. Anonymous is a group of very talented hackers, and they couldn't even cause minor disruption.
but if it were to happen, much of anonymous would go after russia's network, which isn't near as resilient. of course, they dont rely on it as much.
This.
There are so many things to take into account for this to happen that it's nearly impossible. Our network is so dispersed that attacking one sole company, government group, etc isn't going to cut it. There would need to be a concerted, long-term effort to infect not only every Administration agency (Secret Service, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) with some stuxnet-ish virus, but there would also have to be infections of backups as well as the systems of many private contractors. These groups take cyber-security VERY seriously.
On top of that, to have any long-lasting effect there would need to be attacks not only on the global DNS servers (which have insane levels of prevention and backups) but on whatever DNS servers the government uses on their own private network(s).
For that many systems to be taken down all at the same time for more than a day or three, you would have about as much luck as winning the Powerball and Mega-Millions while getting struck by lighting. It's not impossible, but so improbable that it might as well be.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 11:51 am to Champagne
People will be rioting in the streets if they bring Facebook and gmail down.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 2:01 pm to Asgard Device
If Russian Cyberwar experts are able to crash Facebook for a month, would that be an act of war against the USA, or merely a War on Women?
Happy Labor Day Weekend !
Happy Labor Day Weekend !
Posted on 8/29/14 at 2:44 pm to Champagne
Take away their vodka.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 5:34 pm to biohzrd
play golf.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:05 pm to Champagne
You realize we initiated an attack against Syria with the Stuxnet virus, right? In your eyes, we committed an act of war.
Posted on 8/29/14 at 9:07 pm to Champagne
I would say launch tactical nukes on Moscow and St. Petersburg. Then renegotiate things.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 10:37 am to Jcorye1
quote:
You realize we initiated an attack against Syria with the Stuxnet virus, right? In your eyes, we committed an act of war.
This thread is exploring the issue. I haven't reached a conclusion. International Law probably hasn't reached a conclusion.
It's an interesting issue. It's an open legal question whether cyberattacks are on the level of "armed attack" that would be a legal act of war under international law.
It could be that the USA is not in a hurry to establish a definitive answer in order to keep our options open. Thus, the Stuxnet "attack" can't legally be considered an "attack."
Seems that most reasonable people agree that, if it were possible for a cyberattack alone to bring down computer networks and cause massive economic loss, THAT would rise to the level of an "armed attack"/act of war.
Makes sense?
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:16 pm to biohzrd
Obama will give them ALL the keys to the farm.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News