Since there are state actors attemting to sow public disorder in the U.S. it seems increasingly like a bad idea to have hosptital networks and the like on public networks accessible from around the globe.
If these are state actors, then the US state needs to grow a backbone and treat these as an actual act of war. China, Russia, and the like need to face serious consequences or they will only go further.
Many of us would like to not get blown up and to not blow up other random strangers.
It’s easy to say an eye for an eye but I think if you’ve seen enough shell shock / ptsd the taste for war becomes bitter, although in the pre conception/ fantasy phase the taste is powerfully sweet and titillating.
Also, things tend to accelerate as they get towards the end. So Oceania does X to us, we have to do x+y, then they do x+y+z and on and on as overt escalation is normalized.
Serious consequences swings both ways. Maybe, just maybe, there could be another way rather than getting shaken up and angry.
I don’t want my kids at the bottom of a ruble heap. I don’t won’t yours there either.
Correct, I’m making that link. That is my argument. Tit for tat escalates. When you respond with like then you get a stronger like in response. It’s a positive feed back loop. Basic human and group behavior. Two kids starting bumping into each other, if they both respond with similar force then soon they will be fighting all out.
Standing up can work but the stakes are different in war vs fighting back on a school bus.
Human loss is an absolute tragedy. Often [always?] times those who command the war have the least to lose. They protect their children but the white/black/brown “trash” kids they are quick to deploy. This fact is shown multiple times in every conflict in living memory.
Just search “Russian drone soldier” on Twitter. This is tragedy. Imagine if it was you or your dad or your brother or your son. Then all the fricking Israeli and Palestinian kids. Horror.
I’m not a peacenik, there are reasons for war. They should not be taken lightly. It’s like chemotherapy, use it if you have to but if you have ANY other option, consider that.
Alternative: I disagree that violence is an alternative at all, I think our war tools and tech reliance and knowledge industry siloing is too advanced and significant global conflict will ensure ends to these ways of life. I think violence can be necessary but we tend to have a history were it sure is necessary a whole lot and the places we grace tend to erupt in it too. I’ll try yo present a vision for an alternative. I realize I’m an idealist. I am not an optimists. I would love if we could all hold hands, I realize that is impossible.
Small part of my world event view point: Russia has or is sending nuclear weapons into spaces, BRICCS is a thing, various US alliances are shifting to other centers of power. Many people the world over feel like the American boot has been on them (and they aren’t wrong, US history does t and couldn’t have thing
time to teach even a small amount).
Framework I propose as opposed to shoot back harder and faster:
we stop seeing every possible thing as world Enders, moral imperatives, urgent action items. A lot of people who have not really experienced life threatening war situations are so quick to thrust not just themselves but their cousins once, twice, and 6 times removed into chaos. I understand your political and moral view points are important, keep fighting the good fight but keep it figurative.
We stop low key following Hammurabian Code of Laws (eye for eye).
We increase defense, actually harden these systems, and decrease offense and stop dubious us led foreign political interference , increase public transparency, we tamper back foreign influence (aka corporations), we increase dialogue.
The fact remains, if we continue to act in the same manner and things continue to escalate, why is it going to change? Things are escalating.
The U.S. doesn't even consider it a crime. Read https://rewardsforjustice.net/rewards/foreign-malicious-cybe... and notice how the USG only cares if the hackers are acting under the direction of a foreign government. These days ransomware is about as illegal as corporate raiding and short selling.
Official US government statement: "When warranted, we will respond to hostile attacks in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country. We reserve the right to use all necessary means - diplomatic, informational, military and economic - to defend our nation, our allies, our partners and our interests."
The problem is attribution. If a cyber attack is traced to an IP address in Russia it's almost impossible to know for certain that it was really sponsored by the Russian government. It could have been some random kid in Australia who pwned a vulnerable computer in Russia and used it to launch an attack for the lulz.
Since deterrence is ineffective for cyber defense we need to put our focus into hardening critical systems.
The problem isnt attribution. NSA cybersecurity professionals are groomed before theyre even in the agency. First at their respective governor's school, then through college, and then throughout their career once theyve been picked up.
Genius is a tightly controlled commodity.
The problem in my eyes is recognition.
I believe the US government has the ability to stop these attacks but instead chooses not to up until a certain point. You learn a lot running honeypots and attacking every machine in existence when you run with a community.
The US has been stockpiling "weaponized" software payloads for over two decades. Defensive actions would only serve as an opportunity for foreign actors to improve their own skills as well as highlight where our actual strengths/weaknesses might be.
It seems to me like the culture at most 3 letter agencies is one where theyre content to watch the world/country burn for as long as certain "red lines" arent crossed.
