imi Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0e147568-3939-11e1-837e-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F0e147568-3939-11e1-837e-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-middle-east-16456100 This quote was something that got my attention “The US has announced that any attack on its cybernetic space would be considered a declaration of war, and that it would go as far as firing missiles to respond to such an attack. This is a good criterion for us all,” the deputy FM added.: Who are they planning to launch missiles against, an individual OR a country? Its like a bloody movie.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branners Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Article only available to subscribers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Article only available to subscribers. Oops - here is a link from the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16456100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 This link works on the subject: http://rt.com/news/cyber-israel-military-hacker-343/ Looks like either Saudi or Mexico, they can't decide which one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastcar Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Just excuse for them to start another war that can't finish. Why don't they just launch a bomb in a 90 degree angle above there own country and do the world the biggest favour in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastcar Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 This link works on the subject: http://rt.com/news/cyber-israel-military-hacker-343/ Looks like either Saudi or Mexico, they can't decide which one It will be Saudi there the only ones with oil:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastcar Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 This link works on the subject: http://rt.com/news/cyber-israel-military-hacker-343/ Looks like either Saudi or Mexico, they can't decide which one It will be Saudi there the only ones with oil:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ibtl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Just excuse for them to start another war that can't finish. Why don't they just launch a bomb in a 90 degree angle above there own country and do the world the biggest favour in history. I'm sure your response would be different if you were a victim of hacking. Until all nations unilaterally agree to extradite hackers, I don't see what choice nations have but to take the hard line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ibtl. Yawn, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wile e coyote Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 iran will be next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm sure your response would be different if you were a victim of hacking. Until all nations unilaterally agree to extradite hackers, I don't see what choice nations have but to take the hard line. But what constitutes a "hard line"? As Imi says, where do you draw the line? An individual, a house, a tower block? Are they advocating only bombing countries that they deem to be "anti" American? Or would they bomb a friendly country who has a few anti American dissidents living there. As my friend says, you couldn't write it sometimes eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 But what constitutes a "hard line"? As Imi says, where do you draw the line? An individual, a house, a tower block? Are they advocating only bombing countries that they deem to be "anti" American? Or would they bomb a friendly country who has a few anti American dissidents living there. As my friend says, you couldn't write it sometimes eh? They're not saying they'll nuke every hacker but using a strong deterrent is necessary. What do you think they should do, just let it go on unchallenged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 They're not saying they'll nuke every hacker but using a strong deterrent is necessary. What do you think they should do, just let it go on unchallenged? Aren't they? “The US has announced that any attack on its cybernetic space would be considered a declaration of war, and that it would go as far as firing missiles to respond to such an attack. This is a good criterion for us all,” the deputy FM added.: Or are you being selective in what you read? Unchallenged? No. Dropping bombs in retaliation seems a bit OTT though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Aren't they? “The US has announced that any attack on its cybernetic space would be considered a declaration of war, and that it would go as far as firing missiles to respond to such an attack. This is a good criterion for us all,” the deputy FM added.: Or are you being selective in what you read? Yes I am It says "would go as far", not we will bomb everyone. Or have I missed something? There may be circumstances that allow a missile attack, though I would suspect they would be few and far between. But do you think that cyber warfare is okay and should be allowed to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Yes I am It says "would go as far", not we will bomb everyone. Or have I missed something? Well to me that indicates that they would be prepared to do so. Hence I stand by my statement of way OTT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Well to me that indicates that they would be prepared to do so. Hence I stand by my statement of way OTT. But how do you think they should treat such attacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 But how do you think they should treat such attacks? I'm not too sure but bombing certainly wouldn't be an option for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm not too sure but bombing certainly wouldn't be an option for me. Why not? They haven't mentioned anything about targets. I wouldn't have a problem with them launching a uav attack against a telephone exchange or power lines if the chances of collateral damage where as near to 0 as possible. These people thrive because the law is too soft on them. I suspect the US knows that many of these individuals aren't individuals at all, and are carrying out orders. I would also suspect the US has been guilty of the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Why not? They haven't mentioned anything about targets. I wouldn't have a problem with them launching a uav attack against an telephone exchange or power lines if the chances of collateral damage where as near to 0 as possible. You obviously have a far bigger penchant for retaliation and war than I and you have far more faith in their accuracy than I do. Lets be honest, their record of minimum collateral damage is pretty poor isn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbloodyturbo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm not too sure but bombing certainly wouldn't be an option for me. Well in my opinion its a good thing you dont make the decsions then. Cyber terrorism is a threat just like any other, it threatens a way of life for people, they have also been known to mess with defence systems which can affect operations globally for a given nations armed forces. If they know some cyber warfare arm of some countries military is specifically targeting their networks in a focused attack and they know where the personnel that are doing it are, then in my opinion they are fully within their right to use force to stop it if the country in question is either incapable of doing so itself or generally an enemy of the united states and therefore is instigating the attack. I suppose you could write them a nice letter asking them to cease but I'd imagine it would be rather fruitless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 You obviously have a far bigger penchant for retaliation and war than I and you have far more faith in their accuracy than I do. Lets be honest, their record of minimum collateral damage is pretty poor isn't it. I wouldn't say I have a penchant for war but sitting back at letting this cyber crime go on is simply unacceptable to me. Under the right circumstances I wouldn't rule out a physical attack, but it would have to be the last resort. The accuracy of laser guided weapons is outstanding, unfortunately when the odd one goes off in the wrong place it will cause alot of damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 You obviously have a far bigger penchant for retaliation and war than I and you have far more faith in their accuracy than I do. Lets be honest, their record of minimum collateral damage is pretty poor isn't it. I wonder whether the reaction would have been the same had the country been Iran as supposed to Israel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I wonder whether the reaction would have been the same had the country been Iran as supposed to Israel It seems people aren't quite so magnanimous in their support of that one my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I wonder whether the reaction would have been the same had the country been Iran as supposed to Israel It seems people aren't quite so magnanimous in their support of that one my friend. With regards to cyber attacks, what comes under cyber attack and the term used for it is so vast it is as comparable to someone describing the car they drive as... a car. In theory I could 'launch' a cyber attack right now this very second, flooding a network which say a country uses for security monitoring or intelligence. Hold on, actually what has happened is I have created a script which is running on a server pointing to an incorrect IP address which actually is a government server... what's that noise? BANG! Whole street dies from a nuke. I could also carry out the attack using your home wireless router, without you knowing it. The source and the location of the cyber attack would be your home, how would you react to come home and find everyone died due to hackers exploiting you? Who would you be angry at? This is purely just to cover there backs... if they attack someone or a country, they can just say we told you so. Regardless if evidence was provided to prove who it was, because that doesn't matter these days when going to 'war'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.