only disruption The reason the MAD (Mutually Assur Destruction) analogy no longer works is that cyber warfare does not cause the kind of destruction that nuclear weapons would cause, and it is difficult to convince the enemy that he will inevitably suffer large losses.
“would be nuisance,” said Ariel Levitt, a nonresident senior fellow in the nuclear weapons policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “And the relatively serious problem would be data substitution or corruption.”
Levit, who previously head only disruption
The Israeli Defense Ministry’s International Security and Arms Control Directorate, said there are a number of issues with cyber warfare, including fax lists the question of what actually constitutes cyber warfare.
“Can we describe the actions we want to deter?” he asks. He poses three more questions that ne to be answer to understand whether cyberwarfare is actually happening. “Can you know when an attack is happening?” he asks, explaining that it is often impossible to fully understand the nature of an attack, let alone who is carrying it out. “Do you have the means to retaliate, and does the enemy have vulnerabilities to retaliate?” he asks further.
Finally, there is the question
Whether retaliation is even possible. If the enemy is well prepar, you will probably not be able to cause significant damage, and then retaliation will be ineffective.
The idea of retaliation through damage probably isn’t practical, according to retir Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle. Schmidle, a former create thematic content sections deputy commander of U.S. Cyber Command, said the real goal should be to change your adversary’s behavior, not to destroy it.
“You have to convince your adversary
That you are really willing agb aero leads directory to use cyber weapons,” he explain. And you also have to convince your adversary that you have the ability to retaliate, even if you don’t necessarily intend to carry out an attack.
