Pentagon Says Cyber Combat Can Be Considered An Act of War
The Pentagon has decided that computer sabotage from another country can be considered an act of war. And the U.S. can respond with military force:
The Pentagon’s first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of which are expected to become public next month, represents an early attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or pipelines as a hostile country’s military.
In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way. “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” said a military official.
Quotes like that portend an interesting document. And, as reports go, this one will be brief:
The Pentagon’s document runs about 30 pages in its classified version and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of Armed Conflict—derived from various treaties and customs that, over the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality of response—apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according to three defense officials who have read the document. The document goes on to describe the Defense Department’s dependence on information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.
Also from the WSJ today, Hackers Broaden Their Attacks.
10 Responses to “Pentagon Says Cyber Combat Can Be Considered An Act of War”
So, we can invade any country that has a rogue hacker?
My thoughts exactly ProfElwood.
So Israel’s cyber-attack on Iran was an act of war. It certainly would have been portrayed that way had the attack come FROM Iran directed at Israel.
Well maybe when a “rogue Hacker” that actually is working with national backing causes a catastrophe in your neck of the woods you’ll feel different. They can actually cause more damage than an airliner full of explosives and I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already.
Certainly, but then it wouldn’t be a “rogue hacker.”
The point I was trying to make is that there had better be some pretty stiff guidelines to insure that we don’t attack a sovereign nation because of a lone hacker who happened to live there hacked us.
dducks comment is spot on in pointing out that it will probably depend on who does what to whom.
1. Hacking an “act of war”? In wartime, against military assets, yes, but all the time, any time?
Is inflammatory speech by foreigners that riles our public or disrupts our ordinary courses of life next?
2. a) China; b) Russia — aren’t they the likely culprits?
Would that an attack(s) were identifiable. They can be launched from anywhere and it takes time to make sure you are spotting the real perps, and as Slam points out, it’s surprising we have not had many cyber-terrorist attacks already. And, unlike an attack from an actual country (Iran, as an example), we can’t counter-attack the banking system of terrorists.
We are vulnerable across the board for our banking, securities, utilities, medical, municipal, and law/fire depts.
I suggest Bill Gates start a subsidized upgrade incentive for all the computer systems out there. An attack could cause enormous problems and even many deaths. WAKE UP WASHINGTON-NO SLEEPING HERE.
Breaching an IT system because of poor security to only see if you can get in is NOT an act of war. Malicious actions after a security breach is an “act of cyber warfare”, but should Obamama order air strikes to some Internet Cafe in the middle of nowhere.If a foreign citizen doesn’t like Breitbart and launches a DoS attack should the cruise missile with Neutron bombs attack someone in their basement.
This country is in love with war…
DDuck Forget about Gates, MS is the problem. Now Linux/Unix with hardware firewalls is the way to go…
Like Willie Sutton, I go where the money is. MS, whatever.