> On Nov 14, 2017, at 9:59 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aren't there already laws of war that forbid targeting civilians and civilian > infrastructure as well as laying out the combatants' duties to mitigate > collateral damage from strikes on government personnel and facilities? Is > there some reason these laws should not continue to apply when the attacks > are carried out with bits instead of bombs?
Because… cyber!
I mean, it would be really _nice_ if they thought the way you do, but they
don’t. They figure the old rules don’t also apply in a new venue.
Also, the rules by which _war_ is conducted don’t apply when it’s not a _war_.
And it’s essentially never a _war_ anymore.
Militaries are very clear that they won’t listen to anyone else about how they
should conduct themselves when they’re at war. This is an effort to create a
norm governing their behavior when they’re not at war, and have less excuse or
leeway or whatever.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
