I recall reading, some years ago, that the US reserves the right to respond to cyberattacks with nuclear weapons. I wonder if Russia also does.

Playing games with power grids etc is arguably much higher stakes than fighters messing with each other, or even with passenger planes. Or navy ships passing too closely.

Edit: I guess that it was more like a heads up for adversaries. As in "don't think that we won't". Just in case you didn't think we were that hardcore.

Every state "reserves the right" to do whatever they want, including things they have previously claimed they will not do. That is literally the definition of sovereignty.

Point taken.

I guess that it was more like a heads up for adversaries. As in "don't think that we won't".

Countries in Europe have given up some sovereignty to the EU.

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secreta...

Yes, the legal framework is there, but it is up to the members to enforce it.

It's the classic: "What are you going to do, hit me?" response after hitting someone. Just be glad most countries maintain some semblance of civility.

Hence the benefit of nuclear weapons. Although even the UK caved.

I reserve the right to argue with people I don't know, on the internet.

I don't think it can be related. For one, the US was referring to a cyber sabotage operation, not an attack in the sense of "an attack against a computer system". "Attack" has two very different meanings in this context. SSHing into a server is an attack and shutting down power for a city leading to 20 hospital deaths is an attack.

The original statement I could find [0]:

>recommending, in response to the "most extreme case" (described as a "catastrophic full spectrum cyber attack"), that "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder."

I think this is referring to an unprecedented attack which intentionally kills many citizens. It's hard to imagine a scenario where nuclear weapons would be the warranted response, even if the cyber attack killed people, but I don't think the statement should be taken literally.

Either way, this is not that. These are the same espionage and sabotage games every big nation plays. Russia has been and probably is in many of our energy SCADA systems. China, too. And we're in theirs. That's just how things go in the 21st century. It will undoubtedly escalate; the real question is who will pull the trigger. (The US did at least once against the IRA, though that was in direct retaliation to disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing the US.)

> that the US reserves the right

From whom do they reserve that right?

OK, it was a bad choice of words.

Basically, the US has warned adversaries.

Yeah, I guess.

So just sayin', but I was in Moscow in 1984, when President Reagan's joke went public:

> My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Everyone pretty much knew that it was a joke, being that he was such a funny guy. But some folks in Ukraine did freak a bit, at first.

But this isn't just a joke.

It's part of a larger game these nations are playing. There will not be a war between Russia and the US. Not with China who is ultimately the enemy of both Russia and the US. These incidents are meant to keep each other awake.

It sets the stage for a false flag operation where the Chinese disable Russia's power infrastructure making it look like it was America.

False flag operations aren't new concept, taking out Ukraine's power plants for a few hours could also be false flag operation with Russia not even involved as a pretext to get more military funding. Or russian links to Trump a false flag operation by some third party to install their own president. I've seen russia used as a scary monster so often I always think "who does _actually_ benefit from this" whenever russia comes up in news headlines.

> taking out Ukraine's power plants for a few hours

That didn't actually happen.

This depends. If blackouts start happening, the situation could escalate to war pretty fast.

Plus, what if multiple state actors penetrate a system and each lay their own "implants"? Mutually assuredly destruction only works if you can attribute an attack. Unless you're planning on destroying non-guilty actors too. What if NK, China, and Russia all hack the same system and then eventually the system fails catastrophically as a result of malware and no one takes credit. How could the US respond? What if the perpetrator were an adversary that wasn't even known to have penetrated the system?

True. The perpetrator could be some kid, doing it for lulz.

Edit: As in "WarGames".

What do you mean by "these incidents are meant to keep each other awake"? Why would you want to keep a competitor awake?

Keep them wary, so they don't get overconfident and try something that both sides will wind up regretting.

More of a show of force. The same way militaries physically project power to let the other side know what's possible.

China and Russia just "agreed to upgrade their relationship to a comprehensive strategic partnership":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWBEVwIdTxE

If so, then Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea have been at war with the US for years.

Have you read about the 2016 United States election interference? [1] Or the Russian probing of the US power grid? [2]

Russia has been attacking critical infrastructure in the US for years. This is at best an incredibly latent response from a government who in many cases welcomes these attacks.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/27/us/politics/russian-hacke...

It's difficult to tell what's true and what is made up by the US military as a pretext to keep ratcheting tensions up (and justify their existence):

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-...

You remember VPNFilter? I'd certainly consider that and other disinformation campaigns acts of war.