I know how I feel about it: I would much rather wars were fought with code and robots than with tanks and bayonets. And I would rather those than CBRN weapons!

Certain countries were going to neutralize that facility. Had to, for survival reasons. The only real question is . . . how? They could have picked a full-scale war. They could have precision-bombed the facility. They could have assassinated the workers. These solutions have all been chosen in the past, in similar scenarios. By comparison with the other options available, Stuxnet achieved the goal in an extremely civilized manner, with no loss of life.

They say the purpose of war is to kill people and break things, but really it isn't -- it's to accomplish objectives, to make people do what you want. The killing and breaking is really just a way to make objectives happen. And the better targeted your weapons are, the better you can make what you want to happen happen with less and less extra mess. Cyberweapons are some of the best targeted things ever dreamed of in the history of warfare. You can disable infrastructure without going within miles of harming a human on either side, military or otherwise. I am a big fan.

You could hack into missile guidance systems and have the missiles all route to the Pacific ocean -- having the boards fritz-out is a MUCH less powerful weapon, blowing up the factory for missiles is much less powerful than that. I'm sure if Stuxnet could make the machinery seem to work but not give them good enough materials to build anything worthwhile, (1) those engineers would have done that, and (2) the public would still not know about it.

This is perhaps the best argument for cyber-weapons, too (the intelligence/espionage element): it inverts the incentives. You build a gun, I need a better gun. You have a bomb, I need a bigger bomb that kills more people and destroys more and more. But cyber-weapons? Best cyber-weapons change the very least possible to accomplish the actual objective.

Breaking the ENIGMA, for instance, didn't change every single tactical choice for the Allies. To do so would eliminate a large portion of the benefits.

This has a global effect. The "enemy" uses the same things you do. A weapon to attack them demands weaknesses in everyone's armour, including your own.

They are so easily reverse-engineered and repurposed to attack you or third parties, so easily developed by low-budget or non-state actors, and so easily misattributed, that they exhibit all the same essential properties as biological weapons.

I think state-sponsored malware should be banned, by international treaty, and I say this as someone with expertise in the field.

>They are so easily reverse-engineered and repurposed to attack you

You probably meant just third parties here. No one is checking government machine's patch level and demanding an explanation -- if they have the exploit they probably patched any vulnerable systems before they used it.

> I think state-sponsored malware should be banned, by international treaty

So, espionage is largely _already_ banned by international treaty, including fairly specific rules about how, if you are a soldier down behind enemy lines you can escape using a disguise but not if you are a spy (I hope this conveys how bizarre international law is, the idea that if a spy is caught that their use of a disguise will play a factor in their fate).

Suffice it to say, you want a "soft ban", because you want them to not be used in reality (not just that you don't want them used in threat gestures, etc. -- plus you can't really rely on international law for things like this, as we've seen by recent NSA leaks as well as Merkel's response to learning she was personally wiretapped).

----

Most importantly: you have an argument that is too general. You could make _precisely the same argument_ in defense of banning pistols in any wars. (1) enemy is symmetrically offensive; (2) if there exist defenses, your opponent is likely to use them; (3) this leaves you largely unprotected to isomorphic attacks for all useful versions of this weapon (soldiers can still die from gunshot wounds); (4) similar technology can be devised by your opponents; (5) guns can be developed by low-budget or non-state actors; (6) direct attribution for gun crime is difficult (about half of murders in the US go unsolved, and that's not in a war zone).

So governments paying for pistols is too dangerous and should be "soft banned" or banned by international treaty.

I believe you have a more complex belief that would provide for much better discussion (subject matter experts typically do). Would you mind expanding on your ideas and sharing?

I don't mind Robot Wars either, but last time I checked we have plenty of robots killing nothing but people.

> Certain countries were going to neutralize that facility. Had to, for survival reasons.

Really? I'm pretty sure Iran's nuclear facilities are operating and everybody in the region is still alive and kicking.

I don't mean to offend you, but when you use phrases like "had to" and "for survival reasons" the argument is pretty much over anyway. Furthermore, even if it were true, chances are you and me wouldn't know about it.

> I am a big fan.

I bet you are.

That's kind of the point of why not to destroy them.

Have you given a thought to this scenario: while deploying the virus, they made a mistake in their code, that leads to a nuclear meltdown causing an explosion, destroying millions of lives and causing a worldwide phenomenon.

Or how about the drone version cyber warfare mentioned by one of the commenters below?

Or let's say the stuxnet virus fell into the hands of a malicious party and they modified it to take down the national grid. Can you imagine the number of accidents that would cause?

Or maybe I'm just a fool and totally misunderstood your comment.

You can't always get it, though.

Nations have conflicts and need to resolve them. In descending order of preference, I would prefer they resolve them via diplomacy, economic warfare, cyberwarfare, covert targeted operations, conventional warfare, total warfare.

I am glad cyberwarfare exists, because -- unpleasant as it is or could be -- if a nation is trying to accomplish something it thinks is worth the pain of something further down the list, it gives a more civilized way of getting it done.

In a more general sense, war not at the absolute bottom of my list. Horrible as it is, I am glad it exists, because tyranny can be worse.

There are whole civilizations now that haven't known tyranny for generations. Where the last invasion is almost out of living memory. Where they try to only go to war for good, moral reasons.

I mean, to come back to the main topic . . . these days, we sometimes settle serious, international disputes by breaking each others' machines.

Sad? No sir. The 21st century is pretty damn awesome by historical standards.

Iran has been very savvy here. They've built the capacity to become a nuclear weapons power on a moment's notice without actually putting weapons in service or having nuclear weapons tests. So far they've avoided the worst negative consequences of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Drone warfare is a horrible new twist on the human tradition of killing each other over pettiness. There is nothing good about it.

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

You know, this is an example of the sort of vacuous insult that I don't expect to see on HN -- or at least, didn't expect to see a few years ago. Every time I come by here, I'm disappointed afresh by the community, and I find myself visiting and participating less and less frequently. :(

I disagree with a lot of what you said, and can give you a serious response if you want one -- but from your tone, I strongly suspect you don't.

For example, a couple years ago, I had a discussion about drone warfare -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957015 -- that covered very similar conceptual ground. I thought it was pretty civil.

Indeed, I would have thought the technologization of warfare was something of general interest to this community, and a legitimate topic of discussion -- being at the intersection of technology and interesting changes in the way the world works. I didn't think it was just stupid politics, but that can be a landmine...

If we can add a layer of conflict-resolution between open diplomacy and global thermonuclear war, there's something to be said for the fact that it may provide additional margin before greater escalation occurs.

That's not advocating for war/or violence, that's just responsible conflict-resolution.

It'd be just as fallacious as my saying anyone opposed to cyber warfare must prefer that we cut to the chase and nuke the globe.

You can oppose cyber warfare but also prefer it to something you oppose even more.

What was the backdoor, can you provide a link?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080101082631/http://www.inteld...

Edited to add:

I tried chasing down a few of the links mentioned in the comments of https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/01/nsa_backdoors..., but I hit some dead ends and lack time to give you further detail. Sorry about that. As far as I can tell, the original report comes from Der Spiegel.