An Act of War?

[Navy1960]

North Korea is suspected of launching a cyber attack that paralysed the websites of South Korean and United States government agencies, banks and businesses, the first such large-scale attack attempted by the isolated communist state.

The attack came as Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, made a rare appearance at a ceremony to mark the 15th anniversary of the death of his father, the founding president, Kim Il Sung.

The younger Mr Kim is believed to have suffered a stroke last August and dropped from view completely for several months.

South Korea’s intelligence agency has reportedly told members of parliament that it believes North Korea is behind the attack, which hit 25 websites on Tuesday evening, shutting some of them down for up to four hours.
North Korea 'launches massive cyber attack on Seoul' - Times Online


It's about time as a nation we simply send a STRONG message to this regime. This is in a lot of ways an act of war on the part of North Korea should it be found out that they have been behind it. Our president and I doubt seriously that it will come to pass , should bring all US cyber assets into play against the N. Korean Govt. and shut that country down. It's high time this regime that exports deadly technology the world over and thumbs it nose at every sanction ever imposed on it be sent a message that it will CLEARLY understand.

 

[WillowTree]

the wimp in the WH will ignore it.

 

[Care4all]

Good morning Navy

Legally, how is "an Act of War" defined?

Second, shouldn't the businesses that were attacked be spending their own private money to protect themselves against an attack of this sort?

Third, if our government goes after all of north korea cyberly on attack would this open the door for all governments and people around the world to feel it is A-OK to attack another cyber wise....?

Our best offense in this situation is a good Defense, imo.

care

 

[Navy1960]

In the U.S. Army's Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02 I found the following reference to the definition of Cyber Warfare & Terrorism: "the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or to further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives." This was an excerpt from an article I wrote back in 2003 when the issue of cyber war was in its infancy. While this frames acts of cyber war, in retrospect it does not address a measure of the disruptive acts or provide guidance assess if individual acts, or a collection of acts rise to the level to be considered an act of cyber war.

Defense Tech: What Constitutes an Act of Cyber War?

While im sure we will run to the UN again and try for more sanctions, this recent attack is a big step over the line by the North Koreans and it needs to be addressed swiftly and STRONGLY and not with words meant to appease them.

 

[Navy1960]

Good morning Navy

Legally, how is "an Act of War" defined?

Second, shouldn't the businesses that were attacked be spending their own private money to protect themselves against an attack of this sort?

Third, if our government goes after all of north korea cyberly on attack would this open the door for all governments and people around the world to feel it is A-OK to attack another cyber wise....?

Our best offense in this situation is a good Defense, imo.

care

Good Morning Care , I encourage you to look at what was attacked, mostly Govt. sites with the exception of perhaps the Washington Post, etc. and in South Korea, it was largely an attack on Govt. systems. I would encourage our Govt. to shut the North Korean Govt. down at the very least to send a signal that this type of activity will not be tolerated, rather than engaging in further threats of sanctions that clearly do not work.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Keep the troops home. Use Norton.

 

[RodISHI]

Good morning Navy

Legally, how is "an Act of War" defined?

Second, shouldn't the businesses that were attacked be spending their own private money to protect themselves against an attack of this sort?

Third, if our government goes after all of north korea cyberly on attack would this open the door for all governments and people around the world to feel it is A-OK to attack another cyber wise....?

Our best offense in this situation is a good Defense, imo.

care

Good Morning Care , I encourage you to look at what was attacked, mostly Govt. sites with the exception of perhaps the Washington Post, etc. and in South Korea, it was largely an attack on Govt. systems. I would encourage our Govt. to shut the North Korean Govt. down at the very least to send a signal that this type of activity will not be tolerated, rather than engaging in further threats of sanctions that clearly do not work.

I believe they have the technology to do this. If cyber attacks are the new way to wage war it sure beats our soldiers being bloodied.

 

[Navy1960]

Good morning Navy

Legally, how is "an Act of War" defined?

Second, shouldn't the businesses that were attacked be spending their own private money to protect themselves against an attack of this sort?

Third, if our government goes after all of north korea cyberly%

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."
--b--

Well it depends a lot on how you define it Care. it's rather like saying to the civilian contractors that operated the drydocks at Pearl Harbor they needed to hire an Army to make them whole. Or perhaps the World Trade Center as a private entity being responsible for seeking out those that attacked it. So the answer is no. any act such as this by a foreign entity be it on civilian or military targets is an act of agression and should be treated as such. In my previous post I also gave you the definition of "cyber war" as well. Hopefully this helps. Regards...

 

[geauxtohell]

Must Gin up support for another useless war.....

Oh wait, the Neocons aren't in power anymore.

Or are they?

We shall see.

 

[WillowTree]

like I said, the wimp in the WH will ignore it. no freaking backbone!

 

[geauxtohell]

like I said, the wimp in the WH will ignore it. no freaking backbone!

Like the previous "wimp" in the White House ignored 8 years of provocation?

N.K. has nukes. We aren't going to war with them.

Sorry to rain on your blood lust.

 

[Montrovant]

I was just reading about this before I came over to USMB. The article I read, while it listed North Korea or at least hackers supported by NK as the main suspect, it also mentioned China as a possibility. Something about the attacks was said to be similar to Chinese hackers in some way.

I'm not sure what the best response is should this turn out to have been orchestrated by the North Korean government, but at the moment I don't believe the source is known, or at least not from the information the media has provided. It's probably a good idea to be sure where the attack originated before we respond

 

[MaggieMae]

War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.

National wars are said to be offensive or defensive. War is offensive on the part of that government which commits the first act of violence; it is defensive on the part of that government which receives such act; but it is very difficult to say what is the first act of violence. If a nation sees itself menaced with an attack, its first act of violence to prevent such attack, will be considered as defensive.

To legalize a war it must be declared by that branch of the government entrusted by the Constitution with this power. And it seems it need not be declared by both the belligerent powers. By the Constitution of the United States, Art. I, Congress is invested with power "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and they have also the power to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy."
--b--

Well it depends a lot on how you define it Care. it's rather like saying to the civilian contractors that operated the drydocks at Pearl Harbor they needed to hire an Army to make them whole. Or perhaps the World Trade Center as a private entity being responsible for seeking out those that attacked it. So the answer is no. any act such as this by a foreign entity be it on civilian or military targets is an act of agression and should be treated as such. In my previous post I also gave you the definition of "cyber war" as well. Hopefully this helps. Regards...

Then can we presume you approve of this?

DefenseLink News Article: Obama Announces Cyber Security Office

 

[Navy1960]

Must Gin up support for another useless war.....

Oh wait, the Neocons aren't in power anymore.

Or are they?

We shall see.

I'm curious what do you think the proper response to a nation that intentionally sets out to attack your Govts. computer infrastructure? Is it proper to respond in kind to a nation that does this sort of thing? The facts are people in this nation no matter how much they would like it to be so have to get used to the idea that there are some nations in the world that simply do not like the United States or what we stand for. That being the case to be able to defend ourselves from these nations is not "useless" by any stretch of the imagination unless of course your advocating the United States simply never defend itself no matter what the reason?

 

[WillowTree]

like I said, the wimp in the WH will ignore it. no freaking backbone!

Like the previous "wimp" in the White House ignored 8 years of provocation?

N.K. has nukes. We aren't going to war with them.

Sorry to rain on your blood lust.

heee heee! appeasement and ass kissing won't work,, never has, but I like to see wimpy democwats ass kissing it's entertaining..

 

[WillowTree]

Must Gin up support for another useless war.....

Oh wait, the Neocons aren't in power anymore.

Or are they?

We shall see.

I'm curious what do you think the proper response to a nation that intentionally sets out to attack your Govts. computer infrastructure? Is it proper to respond in kind to a nation that does this sort of thing? The facts are people in this nation no matter how much they would like it to be so have to get used to the idea that there are some nations in the world that simply do not like the United States or what we stand for. That being the case to be able to defend ourselves from these nations is not "useless" by any stretch of the imagination unless of course your advocating the United States simply never defend itself no matter what the reason?

he's a left wing ass kisser, he only has one response... Blame Bush!

 

[Navy1960]

Then can we presume you approve of this?

DefenseLink News Article: Obama Announces Cyber Security Office

You can assume as in my original post Maggie that if it is established that North Korea has been behind this attack then as I have indicated the United States should respond in kind. If you wish to take that as approval of repsonding in kind then you would be correct.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can assume as in my original post Maggie that if it is established that North Korea has been behind this attack then as I have indicated the United States should respond in kind. If you wish to take that as approval of repsonding in kind then you would be correct.

Let's just assume that the White House and the NSA don't regularly check with the public over how they should approach such direct threats. You have no clue what they might be doing behind closed doors. The Pentagon alone gets hit with over 80,000 attempted hackings every single month, so I personally feel quite comfortable that they are literally on top of the current situation as well, although attacking North Korea probably isn't one of the options.

It's just unbelievable how Republicans love war. When we're not smack in the middle of one, they like to dream about the possibilities of the next one.

 

[geauxtohell]

Must Gin up support for another useless war.....

Oh wait, the Neocons aren't in power anymore.

Or are they?

We shall see.

I'm curious what do you think the proper response to a nation that intentionally sets out to attack your Govts. computer infrastructure? Is it proper to respond in kind to a nation that does this sort of thing? The facts are people in this nation no matter how much they would like it to be so have to get used to the idea that there are some nations in the world that simply do not like the United States or what we stand for. That being the case to be able to defend ourselves from these nations is not "useless" by any stretch of the imagination unless of course your advocating the United States simply never defend itself no matter what the reason?

I'd assume our technological infrastructure is sufficient enough to hit N.K. back without putting boots on the ground for a "cyber-attack".

In ways that won't make it on the internet.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't believe we can do much about cyber war with NoKo. How much of a web presence do they have? two old 486 machines down in the basement of the Ministry of Truth? How will disrupting them cause anyone any anguish? I would guess if they get more than 10 hits a day they celebrate.

What is interesting here is the targets. If the Norks were to do an invasion, this attack shows up the vulnerability of the civil defense network. They can shut down the information flow to the public to prevent a safe evacuation of the city. They shut down ISPs and the presidents office. Were there a real emergency, this would be very bad news, as I would imagine that is the first thing folks in South Korea would look at.

It is amazing just how many folks are in the Seoul/Inchon metroplex. And the whole thing is so very close to the truce line.