View Poll Results: What say you?
- 16. You may not vote on this poll
Results 1 to 21 of 21
July 11th, 2009, 05:06 PM #1
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
Should they not be considered an act of war if a NATION is found to be the cause?
July 11th, 2009, 05:47 PM #2
Cyber attacks? like a virus? that would be childish, hey you hurt my computer I think i will have to kill you. Shoot if that were the case then hand me a machine gun I have some scores to settle. My last computer fell victim to a chinese born virus......Ok enough with the play. Hopefully our government has the security to block such attacks. I am sure that their computers are attacked on a daily basis.I attract success and abundance into my life because that is who I am.
July 11th, 2009, 05:58 PM #3
July 11th, 2009, 06:04 PM #4Originally Posted by snappy
Our federal government does NOT need to be downloading sensitive information on the internet for cyber-idiots to focus their attention on...
Most of these "cyber-idiots" are the ones that created the security, or understand it well enough, to find a back door in a very short period of time.
There are time-proven methods of transferring information in a way that it is less susceptible to our enemies...
Perhaps life imprisonment minimums would suffice??? .....
July 11th, 2009, 06:33 PM #5
- Join Date
- January 18th, 2005
> "Should they not be considered an act of war if a NATION is found to be the cause?" <
Your question is confusing because it's worded in the negative. Does a "yes" answer mean "yes, they should not be considered an act of war" (which is what you've asked) or "yes, they should be considered an act of war."
I think it's more analagous to spying than war; but of course it depends on how aggressive, effective, and damaging the attack is.
July 11th, 2009, 09:25 PM #6
Oh no! I can't watch YouTube videos! My comp is downloading way too slow!
I think the Germans did it. When I tried to watch "Put a little love in your heart" on YouTube, it wouldn't download and play and some German words popped up.
Mr. President. We have no choice. Open the briefcase.
10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...
Mr. President. The missiles have all launched successfully.
BREAKING NEWS: We are getting our first reports out of Germany. The German Government is estimating the death toll in Berlin to exceed 1 million. The death toll in Hamburg is estimated at over 350,000. The Ambassador says they have yet to hear from cities such as Bonn and Frankfurt. It is believed the radiation in those cities is blocking any form of communications.
JUST IN: Poland has just released a statement advising all citizens to seek shelter immediately. A strong cold front moving across Europe is moving the nuclear cloud over Berlin to the East. The first effects of the radioactive cloud are expected to be felt in Poland within the hour.
Mr. President. Microsoft has come out with a patch. We are downloading it now. You should be able to watch your YouTube videos within the next 5 minutes.
July 12th, 2009, 01:23 AM #7
I could be wrong, but I think what MCT means by cyber attacks is when the Department of Defense is hit with a DDOS or intense scans of the firewall. This happens on a regular basis and the most recent was reported in the last week. Not some staffer in the Capitol building downloading a movie from a p2p server and getting a virus.
If something should require a military response during one of these cyber attacks it could prevent communication with field troops.
I found a link to the one this week. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090708...ternetsecurity
July 12th, 2009, 01:48 AM #8
I don't care if they are downloading a movie or cleaning every file the government has out....
It ain't worth going to war over.
It would be easier to unplug the computers.
July 12th, 2009, 01:53 AM #9Originally Posted by Snowfinch
July 12th, 2009, 01:59 AM #10
The question is:
Cyber Attacks! Should they not be considered an act of war if a NATION is found to be the cause?
My answer is... NO WAY!
If you put something on a machine of any kind and it can be reached by the WORLD WIDE WEB...
You have to face the fact, someone in this WIDE WORLD may get on the WEB and attack it...
Not an act of war in my opinion.
July 12th, 2009, 02:22 AM #11
Since a cyber attacks targets can vary so should the response.
The concept that only your local computer or the computer of an idiot that downloaded a virus would be affected is outdated, shortsighted and dangerous.
With much of a countries infrastructure being computerized, in one way or another, a sophisticated attack would not be a simple denial of service attack.
Power grid: how many would die if a section of the countries power grid goes offline for just a few days.
911 systems: What happens when you canít report a small fire?
Water systems: release raw sewage into the water supply, shut down pumping stations, over-pressurize the system (burst pipes everywhere), water is an easy target..
Dams: take any big dam in the US and open it up: what happens to the cities downstream?
Chemical/Petrol chemical plants: mix the chemicals and a very toxic cloud can be coming to a city near you.
Transportation: trains rerouted onto busy tracks, more checmical fires. All lights turn green,
The possibilities are endless.
July 12th, 2009, 02:45 AM #12
I am a peace-lover. I will not apologize for that. For blessed are the peacemakers.
The possibilities are not endless.
But if we don't stop thinking war is the answer to every little problem we come across...
It will be the end.
The end of all life on Earth.
So, does the good of the many out weigh the good of the few?
I won't post on this thread anymore. Have fun with war over a computer glitch.
Let's just nuke Moscow, Toyko, London, Mexico City and Perth.
Then, a year later, find out it was a mouse that gnawed on a wire that shutdown that dam or traffic light or telephone line.
Violence leads to violence.
Good evening. PEACE. GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN. ALL MEN.
July 12th, 2009, 09:19 AM #13
It is not a act of war but I agree with what was said above maybe 2 life sentences with or without the possibility of parole? And I read yesterday that the system at the pentagon is almost always under attack so if some one were to go in and infect that person would be in trouble, if a nation did it, well that would be hard to believe as that would be to funny to see all the "germans" online at once trying collectively to hack and destroy. It is one or 2 or even 6-19 people who would be responsible (like my numbers yep I pulled them out of my ?)I attract success and abundance into my life because that is who I am.
July 12th, 2009, 10:25 AM #14
I can see how people would say yes, but if a "third world" country disables the US computers the issue should be solved with firing of people and companies, not missiles.Continued Success,
The secret of success is constancy of purpose ~ Disraeli
July 12th, 2009, 11:01 AM #15Originally Posted by Haiko de Poel, Jr.
Originally Posted by CCBerries
July 12th, 2009, 03:33 PM #16
Who said anything about nuking? I certainly didnít, and donít see where anybody else suggested it. Bringing out nukes as a proposed solution to all problems is fluffy headed.
Murder is murder whether itís with a gun or through a cyber attack.
Is the police officer justified in shooting the person that just stabbed your friend and has a knife to your jugular? What if you had the gun and had to protect yourself or family? Are you going to send him home with that knife?
Countries have the responsibility to protect itís residents (ďprovide for the common defenseĒ), but they do not control every possible threat to those residents. They can only respond to the actions of others. Much like a local police force, the national governments have a limited ability to pre-empt the hostile actions of others, also like a local police force they have to ignore the little stuff to focus on the bigger issues. That threat does not have to be a direct physical attack (bomb or 911 style), but can be the secondary carnage cause by a cyber attack.
An act or war does not necessarily result in countries putting bombers in the air, it never has: A non-resident(spy) sneaking over a boarder, doing a sneak an peak at an embassy, rescuing a hostage, can all be acts of war, because they violate a countries sovereign territory, and these happen on a daily basis.
If a country can be proven to have attacked another countries infrastructure then a proportional response would be called for. A key word is proven, with real proof, not because the country is unpopular, has different views, hostile, or run by those that are just plain crazy. The other key word is proportional, you donít shoot a someone who ran a red light, but if they run enough red lights you take away their ability to drive.
That some fall back on nuking as a response to all threats shows a lack of imagination.
Every countries infrastructure is more susceptible than the general populace is aware of, either to a cyber attack or a physical threat. The more complicated a system is the more susceptible it is to interfering influences.
If a US based hacker were to attack a major hospital system and double up everybodyís medications: heíd either spend life in jail or be executed depending on who did the prosecution, (state or federal). By the faulty logic of some: if that same hack was carried out by a foreign government they should be forgiven: they do not have the same value system as you and trying to put a flower in their gun barrel will get your fingers blown off.
Violence- there is a time for it, just as there is a time for everything else.
If the US didnít use violence in WWII then the world would look much different now, whole races/cultures would be virtually extinct. If the allies had been capable of responding to Hitlerís early attacks things also would be much different. But the Allies were not able to respond proportionately at the beginning of the war, and the US had a sizable population that wanted to stay out of it. If not for the attack on Pearl Harbor the US probably would have ďofficiallyĒ stayed out of the war for a much longer period.
Flight 93, if the passengers didnít fight back how many more would have died?
Violence can be a positive force for world change, and sitting in the corner with a blanket over your head can make things much worse for everyone. The trick is to knowing when to use the violence and what level is apporiate.
Since snowfinch pulled out a line from the bible... (For blessed are the peacemakers
<< Ecclesiastes 3 >>
American King James Version
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
It is our duty still to endeavor to avoid war; but if it shall actually take place, no matter by whom brought on, we must defend ourselves. If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.
July 12th, 2009, 05:13 PM #17
During a hurricane, communications are cut off. The 911 service stops working and if it does work, they usually won't respond. The traffic lights go out and get knocked down. Raw sewage gets in the water supplies. Dams and levees break and flood the people in the path. Oil spills are quite common. Often, hundreds or thousand die.
So, is this an act of war against the United States by God or Mother Nature?
Since we don't wanna use Nukes just yet against God or Mother Nature...
Hmmmm.... Do we go ahead and send up bombers? Fire a few cruise missiles? Send in the Marines? Put up an embargo against God? Boycott Mother Nature?
Yes, if someone pointed a gun at me and I had a flower, I would stick it into the barrel.
I'd rather lose my fingers than for thousands to lose their lives.
If you buy a man lunch, you may make a new friend. If you steal a man's lunch, you now have an enemy.
Peace is cheaper than war.
Self defense is one thing. Self defense is fine.
However, fear is a very dangerous thing. Stop being so scared of everything that is different or that may seem threatening.
I would ask you if you wanna play mind games, but I figure this thread is just about done. They'll probably close it because of our childish behavior.
By the way, I am a writer of fiction. That YouTube post was meant to get people thinking. It worked.
Though, I am a fluffy headed idiot with no imagination, I do have enough sense to realize this.
As long as the United States has Nuclear Weapons, there is always the possibility, no matter how remote, that when the word war comes up, nukes could go off.
I believe in love, peace, compassion, mercy and forgiveness whenever possible. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I do believe I have found that equal and opposite reaction to myself.
Thank you for your time.
I now hand you a tulip.
A tulip is one of the first flowers to bloom in the Spring. It is a symbol of new life after a long, dreadful nuclear winter.
ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!
July 12th, 2009, 07:46 PM #18
The whole cyber issue is perhaps more crucial than any other. Remember when someone hit a switch wrong in LA and took out their power for a few hours? I lost half my sites during that time because they apparently used servers in LA. Replace "wrong switch" with "backpack nuke" and then envision the effect on banking, commerce, etc in addition to all the lost sites. And more importantly, the tremendous loss of human life in a highly populated area. 911x1000. THIS is what we need to focusing our military/defense/intelligence on.This World is Not My Home
We're gonna go inside, we're gonna go outside, inside and outside. . . And then we're gonna go go go and we're not gonna stop til we get across that goalline! Quotes from the movie Rudy, 1993
July 12th, 2009, 09:16 PM #19
There is a large difference between a natural disaster and a man made event, the analogy is without meaning.
You say you advocate self defense, but have seemed to confuse fear mongering with a reasonable response to a hostile act, the planning for a possible event, or a countries duty to defend itís population..
Emergency response plans are based on people getting together and trying to figure out what can go wrong and the best way to respond to an event. Sometimes the plans work, sometimes not: but after every major event the people involved get together and try to figure out a way to keep the problems from happening again.
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has worked, every major power knows that a nuclear war is a no win situation. The danger from nuclear weapons comes not from the major powers but from the stolen weapons and the countries with unstable leadership. Burn them, drop them, kick them... it takes a whole lot more to set one off, set off a conventional explosive next to one and most likely you will get a fizzle but not the big bang.
Risks to the population centers in the US are much higher from conventional or chemical attacks than through the use of nuclear weapons, itís just so much easier to make a regular bomb or chemical weapon.
What surprises me is who you singled out: ďAs long as the United States has Nuclear WeaponsĒ I wonder why you chose to single out the United States? Weíve dropped two in the last 60 years, and though the effects were horrific: by all accounts they saved a lot of American lives and brought the war to a quick end (possibly saving Japanese lives but that is a equation that has no good answer and too many unknowns).
I actually donít fear any of the man made disasters listed, the chances of them affecting me are too small, on 9/11 I was in a 21 story building in Atlanta and the fluffy heads were running around thinking they were next. Very ďChicken LittleĒ-ish. A number of them asked to stay at my house because they didnít understand what was going on and it was well known that I used to target shoot for fun (several hours of solid shooting...)
A proportional response does not by default mean you have to, nuke, bomb, gas, poison, kill, or any other similar manor of widespread destruction. Embargos, trade sanctions or reciprocal attacks in kind can have the desired results.
The government has the responsibility to defend itís residents, that defense is not limited to things that go Ďbangí, nor should their response be limited in the same way.
July 12th, 2009, 10:07 PM #20
I singled out the United States, because that is where I live. If I lived in Russia, I would have singled out Russia. If I lived in China, I would have singled out China. Etc... Etc... Etc...
BREAKING NEWS: YTN-TV reports that North Korea's Kim Jong II has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Desperate men do desperate things. A dying man has nothing to lose. Remember, I told you that.
Cause pretty soon, you might find out that M.A.D. ain't worth the time it took to type it.
See, I have to be careful and not get political, which is sort of hard to do in this conversation. But, since the government is being brought up so much, I guess the conversation is already partly political. However, I will carry it no further than that on the political side and do my very best to obey the rules of this forum. So, I may have to talk in circles in times.
1. Not one time did I say the government should not take preventive measures to make sure a cyber attack was avoided.
2. Not one time did I say that if a major cyber attack was to occur, no action at all should be taken.
3. What I did say is posted on this thread and I stand 100% behind it.
I am a firm believer in the following...
"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
I am a stronger believer in this part of that....
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
Ask yourself this question...
If the U.S. Government launched a Cyber Attack against Iran and Iran considered it an act of war and responded in a way that they felt was appropriate, would you still have these same feelings?
I think this issue is very important. Most everyone of us in here use the "cyber world" to make money, as merchants or affiliates. So, personally, I think this thread is a very good topic, because it is one that does or could affect most every member of this forum.
However, I do wish "Merchant Consultant Team" would come in and rephrase the question or give a more detailed explanation on what the question is exactly. No offense to "Merchant Consultant Team", but the question and poll is somewhat vague and open to private interpetations, as I guess all questions are.
July 12th, 2009, 10:13 PM #21
- Join Date
- October 10th, 2006
Unless the "cyber attack" results in people dying (i.e. they disable some hospital computer system), then no, it's not an act of war.
By chetf in forum Virtual Family and Off-TopicReplies: 5Last Post: February 20th, 2004, 07:35 AM
By perfectG in forum Midnight Cafe'Replies: 11Last Post: May 13th, 2003, 11:48 PM
By Ebudae in forum Midnight Cafe'Replies: 5Last Post: April 13th, 2002, 03:21 PM