Ziel is literally a target, but in truth it translates as "destination". "Angriffsziel" could be translated as "target" in this sense, so Stephan is not wrong - but perhaps soft-pedaling a little. Where you're right is that "Angriff" ("attack") makes "Angriffsziel" sufficiently explicit in its connotation of a military target. I'd consider "target of attack" in that "Angriff" doesn't necessarily connote a military attack, but could also imply, say, a hacking attack.

Maybe "country of interest"?

Ziel is both, it can mean target and destination. In that case, it is more of a target (attack destination? na, the NSA is not currently in an airplane flying into battle).

> Maybe "country of interest"?

Yeah maybe, but that sounds a bit harmless, doesn't it?

It does sound harmless, which is why it's the Orwell-approved nomenclature. In fifty years it won't sound at all harmless, and there will be a new euphemism.

"Attack destination" made me smile. The English word destination doesn't work like that, but maybe it should.

Eavesdropping or even "hacking" attacks don't have to be military in nature.

That is correct. But in case of the US Internet War, it is. Hacking done by the NSA on a foreign country is not not military in nature.

What "internet war" are you talking about? And although the NSA is an agency of the US DoD, I don't think they would consider all targets of their eavesdropping measures as "military" targets.

The current one: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-...