I think that attacking businesses and commercial services is fundamentally different from attacking, say, the DOD intranet. But these are philosophical discussions that the American public (not to mention, ugh, Congress) hasn't really thought through critically. It's so difficult to articulate what an appropriate "military" response could/should be. Should we simply reinforce our Cyber defensive capabilities and not respond at all offensively? If the North Korean military (I want to deliberately draw the distinction here between the people of North Korea and the North Korean Regime) launched a physical attack against a US commercial interest how would we respond? I doubt it would be a huge investment in star wars missile defense tech.

So I guess to touch back on the parent thread, it's not that we're not capable of responding...it's that we haven't invested the intellectual capital to formulate what an appropriate response should be.

Completely agree. "Hasn't really thought through critically" is quite possibly the kindest way to phrase it.

@logn mentioned rallying around this like we did Apollo. It's a grand idea, but I can't say I have any hope that will be the chosen approach.

It's important to note that what they're doing right now is thinking it through. They haven't doing anything yet.

A big military response would just escalate this whole issue and probably encourage more of the same. I don't like how everything gets framed as a military problem these days. I hope that this incident only inspires new standards for business and new shared goals for engineering. We could approach this like the Apollo landing or the cure for cancer and hopefully not like the War on Terror.

An attack, a malicious attack by a state actor, is an attack, cyber or otherwise. What if they hacked a hospital and somehow shut down life support systems, there's little moral difference than if they sent soldiers into the hospital. Whether we like it being framed militarily or not, this IS a military issue (if it's a state actor) as that's the point of the military to defend life liberty and property. However, that being said, this whole situation feels like a false flag to me, so I would suggest a highly considered response. If it is, in fact NK, then a military response is appropriate -- sanctions haven't done a damned thing ever. I am not suggesting carpet bombing the country, but certainly their must be real consequences -- otherwise what's the disincentive to do it again? However, I must reiterate, this smells like a wag the dog or a Gulf of Tonkin type situation. So I honestly feel like the best response now is no response until there is more information. Ultimately though, it's potentially a disgruntled employee, in which case it's a criminal matter as opposed to a national security one.

> 'sanctions haven't done a damned thing ever'

OT, but have you read what's going on in Russian this last week? It's unbelievable how hard the sanctions have hit them, and how quickly. It's a huge story which has been drowned out in all this other noise. NK is obviously not Russia, being more insular makes it harder to sanction them.

The escalation of cyber warfare, the possibility of it all being a false flag, the idea of a military response to defend, exactly as you say, life liberty and property, the idea of a necessary response if sufficiently proven to be a state-sponsored attack... the idea of the network as a battle zone with governments playing offense and defense... it all gives me shivers.

As @unclebucknasty says, the drum beat has started. This is going to take us somewhere very interesting in 2015.

I don't know what American news say, but from what I've gathered from Finnish news, the Russian troubles are mostly due to oil prices, and the sanctions have had very little effect.

I was reading an article on telegraph.co.uk [1] which very much pins the Russian collapse on sanctions;

  After years of bluster and suggestions by Mr Putin that the US is a paper
  tiger, the Kremlin is now coming face to face with the cataclysmic
  consequences of what it has done by invading Ukraine and changing
  Europe's borders by force. By the same token, Washington needs to move
  with care since it would be a geostrategic miscalculation of the first
  order to push a nuclear-armed Russia too far into a corner, or to
  perpetuatue a cycle of grievance.

[1] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11297770/Russia...

>hopefully not like the War on Terror.

Oh, it's coming. The drumbeat has started and harrowing possibilities are being offered. The media will be in full panic mode and billions of dollars in contracts will be awarded soon enough.

There's too much money to be made to resist treating it like the "War on ____".