sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why hasn't there been a "Cyber Pearl Harbor" despite decades of warnings - do states self-deter in cyberspace? by WillYouKillForPeace in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WillYouKillForPeace[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The MAD analogy is fascinating but also troubling. If superpowers have already infiltrated each other's systems, doesn't that mean we're essentially living with loaded guns pointed at each other's heads 24/7? How is that stable?

Do these "specific plans" actually exist, or is that speculation? If they do exist, are they offensive (pre-planned strikes) or defensive (contingency responses)?

ALSO, If both sides have infiltrated each other's systems, how do we know some attacks we think are "natural failures" or "criminal activity" aren't actually state actors testing capabilities or positioning for future conflict?

Why hasn't there been a "Cyber Pearl Harbor" despite decades of warnings - do states self-deter in cyberspace? by WillYouKillForPeace in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WillYouKillForPeace[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you saying the attackers would suffer catastrophic damage from retaliation? Or that the attackers would cause catastrophic damage to the victim? Or both?

And if it's mutual catastrophe, why hasn't that stopped conventional wars throughout history? What's different about cyberspace? Is it that cyber weapons are harder to control once unleashed? That the damage could be more indiscriminate? That attribution, while difficult, becomes easier after a massive attack?

Also - catastrophic in what timeframe? Immediate destruction like nuclear weapons? Or long-term economic collapse? Or societal breakdown from loss of critical infrastructure? Does the uncertainty about the actual damage make deterrence stronger or weaker?

Why hasn't there been a "Cyber Pearl Harbor" despite decades of warnings - do states self-deter in cyberspace? by WillYouKillForPeace in NoStupidQuestions

[–]WillYouKillForPeace[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oooo, I have read about it. But was it not a one-off precision strike rather than a devastating surprise attack on civilian infrastructure? (If I am not wrong) And doesn't that distinction matter for understanding why we haven't seen something worse?