Hacker News Reader

To give a concrete example of your excellent point:

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.

The drawback is that they require systematic vulnerabilities to work; therefore the rhetoric for state-sponsored malware demands systems deliberately be left vulnerable to attack, either by failing to fix vulnerabilities found or deliberately inserting them (as in by backdoors)

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.

So, let's tease out a couple ideas here, that way I can address your core idea at its best.

>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 would much rather wars were fought with code and robots than with tanks and bayonets.

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.

> everybody in the region is still alive and kicking.

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

I had to read your comment a few times to make sure I was getting the gist of it correctly. Here's what I understood: you are advocating cyber warfare, and are a big fan of it. I understand your point about handling the situation with no loss of life. Great. But advocating war, even if it's cyber war? Wow.

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.

I'm not advocating warfare. Of course, peace is always best, when you can get it.

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.

Fair enough. Choose the lesser of all evils. Tells us a lot about humanity and what it has come to. Sad though isn't it.

Not at all. I don't see human history as a fall from peace so much as a struggle upward from a constant state of tyranny and war.

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.

Stuxnet didn't work though. Sure, it very likely damaged some of Iran's Uranium enrichment centrifuges and set their program back by months perhaps, but those months have passed. Iran has a fully capable Uranium enrichment infrastructure. They have the enrichment capacity to build bombs within a matter of months at most. All they need to do is take their existing Uranium stockpiles and run it through their existing enrichment infrastructure. Claims that it would be "oh so difficult" for them to build bombs are Iranian propaganda at best.

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.

Like civilians don't need "infrastructure" or "aren't harmed" by its loss... I'd say stick to your day-job or whatever.

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

I'd say stick to your day-job or whatever.

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.

What upsets me the most is that these kind of personal attacks delegitimise the entire argument (which happens to be my argument too). Fortunately, there still are a couple of people here who know the difference between "not condemning" and "advocating."

> I'd say stick to your day-job or whatever

Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.