Good grief.

Just imagine if the hacker is skilled enough to make it appear the intrusion came from one of their own enemies?

Yep, per their own leader that’s correct. 😂

😂

I'm pretty sure we're not talking about a lone "skilled hacker," or even if we are, a sustained and lethal attack on our infrastructure.

Imagine the entire grid going down. For weeks.

Imagine our nuclear facilities sent offline. All of them. At once.

Imagine JUST the internet down, almost permanently.

Imagine -- far less damaging, frankly -- false Hawaii-style alerts everywhere, all at once.

Imagine our water systems taken down -- all of them.

We've already caught Russia noodling around some of these things.

It’s simply their proposed solution isn’t a viable solution. There are methods that may be viable, but nuking other countries isn’t one of them.

Also, what if they choose to belive a spoofed location to create a situation (which under this administration wouldn’t shock me.)?

This isn’t the solution to the problem. Working first to secure or infrastructure and using a tech based approach to this problem is the way to go.

Nuking China, Russia, Iran or South Korea would be suicide.

What will become of all the tubes?

Don't let Trump anywhere near that strategy. He'll no doubt love it.

How err... responsible!

First, it was to supposedly protect Christianity and the Constitution from the threat of Muslim Jihad and the slippery slope of the 1st Amendment that could allow the Muslims and Liberals to take over and steal guns, bibles, Christian Manhood, and also impose Sharia Law. The Cheney administration encouraged these fools as willing weapons for the Oil-oligarchy's plan to expand U.S. corporate interests. Christianity was nothing but a tool for Cheney and his Cabal. Especially the Oafkeepers with their the "React-Kill" mentality.



The Oafkeepers really ramped it up when Obama became President to "save the military from the heathen ruining our country", actively recruiting aimless young white males as a bulwark against diplomacy and the perceived "liberalism" known as sane logic. The lessons of the 1960's and the 1980's have been lost on leadership; time to relearn it.

Haele

I mean, I could see the point of feeling if the only way to stop something like that was to shut down the computers.

Which an airburst to create an EMP certainly would do.

But it's not necessary to use nukes to create that effect.

Of course they're not fully taking into account the fact that finding out exactly WHO did the hacking can take days, weeks or even months. And even then, many times we're no where near 100% sure who's responsible. So why not just go off half cocked and run the risk of nuking the wrong people. Kill thousands and thousands of innocents. Smart. Real smart. Anyone who could accomplish something of this nature already knows all this, so it's obvious to them that we're full of shit. Such stupid, empty threats may make it more probable that a hack of this nature IS carried out.

If you want a clear picture of the madness surrounding the use of these weapons - this book gives a great history of our "thinking" and reliance on first-strike intimidation tactics.

More proof we're all just monkeys on a mud ball and we'd better learn how to get along with each other or else.

fuck these fucks before they kill us all.

Using cyber attacks to crash the stock market?
Melting down a nuclear power plant (or several)?
Completely destroying a nation's infrastructure electronically, killing millions and crippling its economy?

While a nuclear attack does seem a bit much, putting a threat out like this does make some sense. A nation might believe, "I can attempt to wreak havoc on the US's infrastructure without any consequences, because it's not technically an attack!" Cyber warfare could potentially do as much damage as a nuclear bomb if properly executed, so it makes sense to treat it as another act of warfare.