It has already evolved. I don't want to rehash everything here, but I wrote something that made the rounds at the Munich security conference some years back and the bottom line is deterrence to massive cyberattack is via nuclear weapons.
Do you like Moscow? Ok great. Keep the lights on stateside.
That's the policy.
I know it isn't what HN likes to hear but it's not like it doesn't exist. There is a reason the nuclear football has a switch to disable the internet for at least the USA and probably Canada too because of NORAD, etc. Even Matt Tait (aka, pwnallthethings) has talked about the "strategic threats" from the cyber domain of war at a completely unclassified conference in Miami and he ended the talk with a mushroom cloud up. I believe it was the keynote, but I can't quite remember.
I am also after this info. I believe the parent poster given his high reputation, I just hope he can point us to some sort of article about it as google is failing me
I like the idea of adding rather vague threats, compared to kinetic weapons, with often not clearly or quickly identifiable causers/perpetrators as a possible justification for a nuclear weapon use.
Do you like Moscow? Ok great. Keep the lights on stateside.
That's the policy.
I know it isn't what HN likes to hear but it's not like it doesn't exist. There is a reason the nuclear football has a switch to disable the internet for at least the USA and probably Canada too because of NORAD, etc. Even Matt Tait (aka, pwnallthethings) has talked about the "strategic threats" from the cyber domain of war at a completely unclassified conference in Miami and he ended the talk with a mushroom cloud up. I believe it was the keynote, but I can't quite remember.