Defence and offence --- @Stefanie Sorry if you misunderstood my line of thought or my previous HTs on cyberweapons. What I seek to present in this last HT was if one intentionally caters for offensive capabilities then theoretically they are thinking in the event that there might be the possibility in the future when these may be useful. Of course in conventional warfare, OCCs are catered for and as such the same can be and is being done in cyber. As mentioned in previous HTs, cyber is simply another domain from the convention air, sea, land, space and air. Your suggestion about disabling one's defense by bombing their facility was never understood to be a cyber weapon; what we have articulated is that in cyber space, such a scenario may be analogous to covertly set up lethal electronic weapons at what we termed "a threshold" (wherever this state may be) and eventually executing. In a nutshell, my point is that if one makes provision for war then that expectation may be a possibility. Further, if we have articulated that no one has a unified and accepted definition what a cyber attack is or even what constitutes an attack, then we are in a state where every nation can provide its own subjective definition which may trigger an intended cyber war. Its rather unfortunate that with all these "cyber conflicts" that we have noticed that we would come to the conclusion that there will not be a cyber war!! If the comparison is extended to the conventional physical world, why was there World War 1 and 2 and even a threat of 3 with all these major powers having nuclear and atomic bombs (comparison to OCCs in cyberspace)?

Source author: Bennette Thomas thomasb@dominica.gov.dm