On the other hand, it can't be too soon for the global community to get serious about the threat of cyber-warfare or cyber-shenanigans. The range of issues is huge. For example, the Geneva Convention should probably ban interference by combatants in each others computerized medical procedures and tools. What other uses of cyber-warfare should be banned? When is it permissible? When is it not? When does cyber interference become an act of war? How will cyber treaties be monitored? It's a veritable can or worms."...the US wants to force a dialogue within the international community...so that down the road treaties circumscribing its use can be entered..."
Possible though it seems premature to these unsophisticated eyes.
What benefits to the leaks do you see along those lines? One I see, is impressing Iran that we're serious that we won't tolerate their having nukes.I do think this leak is tied to ongoing negotiations with Iran. I'm unsure if it's intended as a very direct and public warning to Iran or, perhaps, others on the P-5+1 about our seriousness. Or both.
That was one of my contentions. It is reasonable to suspect that every country with the tech capability is working on contingency plans for cyber warfare. That's only prudent. But how does a country do that without worming its way into a potential enemy's systems to see how they are configured and where they are vulnerable. Worming is the new spying...but it is also a way of placing time bombs in a system waiting patiently for the command to do their damage. It's almost as if Russia planted a few nukes in Washington just in case it gets in a war with the US and vice versa.On another level, I wonder if this wasn't a shot across the bow of other global agents already engaged in such against the U.S.
Good questions. If deliberate, will there be scapegoats?Finally, was there a domestic element to this message? If so, whom and why? Internal pressure to act against Iran? Presidential electoral politics? Both? Something else?
Yes. And we gotta think out of the box. (Hate that expression)In short, could there be a lot of messages to a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons? I don't know how many birds can be killed with one stone but it's got me thinking on those levels.