The United States has been engaged in a cyber cold-war for years; foreign actors penetrate public and private networks, while the US undoubtedly returns the favor. At a certain point we have to ask, how far is too far? At what point do malicious cyberattacks become acts of war that necessitate a traditional, violent response? The giant pharmaceutical company Merck was collateral damage in a Russian cyberattack in 2017; as a result the company turned to their insurers for payout, but we denied because they weren't covered against "acts of war". In 2018 the US nuclear playbook was updated to include allowance for nuclear retaliation against non-nuclear attacks on critical infrastructure. Clearly, cyberattacks have the potential to be extremely costly, devastating and cost huge losses of life but are nukes the answer? What do you think? Physical force has yet to be officially used in retaliation for a cyberattack, but the day will come and a decision will have to be made.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/09/cyberattack-ransomware-nuclear-war/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-12-03/merck-cyberattack-s-1-3-billion-question-was-it-an-act-of-war
No comments:
Post a Comment