Cyberspace Attacks can now trigger Article V.

[Kinophile]

http://m.euronews.com/en/335631/

A damaging attack will now potentially trigger Art.V.

This is a tricky one,  as 'proving' the source of a cyberspace attack is not always guaranteed (although the larger and more damaging it us,  the more evidence or leads it leaves behind). 

Still though, it's a good move. The 'bad guys'  already consider AOTI as a valid battleground with huge potential for serious damage. At this point it's almost like saying yes the Airspace above us is a potential battlefield.

Quite late in the game as a decision but official recognition will make some good budgetary difference. 

I imagine were only a decade off from having tactical scale cyber/EW units,  able to wonk up local networks,  power plants,  street lighting,  building alarms,  cause fires amongst enemy troops in real time during a battle. Imagine redirecting a fuel or passenger train into a collision with a staging rail depot for enemy tanks or ammo. Basically, using civilian infrastructure against the occupying enemy troops. 

In the context of triggering Art. V  I suspect the key red line will be Loss of life,  either directly or over time. 

Economic Loss would trigger 'just'  sanctions. 

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

This does not bode well.

I wonder who this is directed towards...

Edited June 15, 2016 by AtheistDane

[Kinophile]

It's not exactly directed towards anyone,  it more reflects the existing reality. Russia has mounted relatively serious cyberspace Attacks,  but more importantly it's fully capable of mounting far more dangerous ones. And its not the only player. 

An unusual consequence could be that a NATO member has a falling out with say,  China,  and gets cyber attacked. Things get out of hand and lives are lost, serious infrastructure damaged. Art V vote kicks in and gets a reluctant yes. But a yes is a yes.... 

Edited June 15, 2016 by kinophile

[Sublime]

Yeah hate to say it but its really starting to feel like Guns of August 2016

Edited June 16, 2016 by Sublime

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Right now cyber attacks exist outside of really being recognized as what they often are, state directed attacks.  This adds deterrence value in the same way the US does not recognize different WMDs, they all merit nuclear response.  It's not longer an attack without repercussions, and further, there's article V responses short of total invasion of the offending party (for instance, mobilizing counter-cyber assets, or even conducting retaliatory cyber attacks).  

Basically Russia and China have been waging a cyber war on a limited scale without any sort of response.  This is intended to curb that.  

[Kinophile]

14 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Right now cyber attacks exist outside of really being recognized as what they often are, state directed attacks.  This adds deterrence value in the same way the US does not recognize different WMDs, they all merit nuclear response.  It's not longer an attack without repercussions, and further, there's article V responses short of total invasion of the offending party (for instance, mobilizing counter-cyber assets, or even conducting retaliatory cyber attacks).  

Basically Russia and China have been waging a cyber war on a limited scale without any sort of response.  This is intended to curb that.  

Exactly, an existing conflict zone is finally being officially recognized as such, and now provides a legal frame work for counter strikes. So theoretically the US could hack that tower block in China that's filled with state hackers. 

....So long as there's solid proof (witness the current ambiguity about who exactly hacked the DNC database) .

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

26 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Exactly, an existing conflict zone is finally being officially recognized as such, and now provides a legal frame work for counter strikes. So theoretically the US could hack that tower block in China that's filled with state hackers. 

....So long as there's solid proof (witness the current ambiguity about who exactly hacked the DNC database) .

More realistically it's a common defense.  Retaliatory hacking is iffy simply because is it the Russian state....or some Russian nationalist nerd in a basement in Donbass?  What this really does for certain is give a much faster recourse for smaller, frequent Russian cyber attack targets in Eastern Europe, response from larger more sophisticated counter-cyber warfare assets from the larger member states.

Basically what NATO was all along, a way to keep certain folks from eating Europe piecemeal.  

[Wicky]

Problem is proving where the attacks originated and putting out evidence in the public domain so its clear where it started if a nation or NATO is going to retaliate.

For instance my UK Cricket League co.uk website is 'attacked' / visited quite regularly from a variety of countries (see below) that basically have no good reason to visit my website  - but is the originator of those attacks necessarily from the apparent IP address & nation... as Tor and similar systems can befuddle and cloak IP addresses so even attacks could be routed and appear to originate from allies / innocent parties...

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Wicky