2013/10/9 Phillip Hallam-Baker <hal...@gmail.com>

> I see cyber-sabotage as being similar to use of chemical or biological
> weapons: It is going to be banned because the military consequences fall
> far short of being decisive, are unpredictable and the barriers to entry
> are low.

I doubt that's anywhere near how they'll be treated. Bio en Chem are banned
for their extreme relative effectiveness and far greater cruelty than most
weapons have. Bleeding out is apparently considered quite human, compared
to chocking on foamed up parts of your own lungs. Cyberwarfare will likely
be effectively counteracted by better security. The more I think the less I
understand "fall far short of being decisive". If cyber is out you switch
to old-school tactics. If chemical or biological happens it's either death
for hundreds or thousands or nothing happens.

Of course the bigger armies will want to keep it away from the
"terrorists", it'd level the playing field quite a bit. A 200 losses, 2000
kills battle could turn into 1200 losses, 1700 kills quite fast. But that's
not what I'd call a ban.
The cryptography mailing list

Reply via email to