Could cyber skirmish lead U.S. to war?

Red tapr Chronicles -- MSNBS ^ | June 11 2010 | Bob Sullivan

[combat_boots]

Imagine this scenario: Estonia, a NATO member, is cut off from the Internet by cyber attackers who besiege the country's bandwidth with a devastating denial of service attack. Then, the nation's power grid is attacked, threatening economic disruption and even causing loss of life as emergency services are overwhelmed. As international outcry swells, outside researchers determine the attack is being sponsored by a foreign government and being directed from a military base. Desperate and outgunned in tech resources, Estonia invokes Article 5 of the NATO Treaty -- an attack against one member nation is an attack against all. It requests an immediate response from its military allies: Bomb the attacker's command-and-control headquarters to stop the punishing cyber attack. Now, the U.S. government is faced with a chilling question: Should it get dragged into a shooting war by a cyber attack on an ally? Or should it decline and threaten the fiber of the NATO alliance? About half this fictional scenario occurred in 2007, when Estonian government and financial Web sites were crippled by a cyber attack during a dispute with Russia. That incident never escalated to this hypothetic level, however: The source of the attack was unclear, physical harm did not occur and Estonia never invoked Article 5. The incident did, however, get other NATO members thinking: When would they be required to rise to the defense of an ally during a cyber attack?

[combat_boots]

.

[rickmichaels]

...an attack against one member nation is an attack against all.

That policy was proved invalid on 9/11.

[EGPWS]

Now, the U.S. government is faced with a chilling question: Should it get dragged into a shooting war by a cyber attack on an ally? Or should it decline and threaten the fiber of the NATO alliance?

Dear Mr. Cave Dweller,

We have Obama.

Questions of being dragged by foreign nations are moot.

[navyblue]

The members of NATO are nation states. As for 9/11, which “nation state” should we all go to war against. We are at war with an ideology, not a nation state. Which capitol city do you suggest we attack? That may be frustrating, but it is reality.

[Cacique]

NATO was disbanded years ago. The members just don’t know it yet. Putin knows..

[Pox]

Could cyber skirmish lead U.S. to war?

Not while the left is running the show. These aren't your democrats of old, these democrats are pure cowards and will do anything to avoid war.

[The Sons of Liberty]

That policy was proved invalid on 9/11.

Not entirely. NATO AWACS planes manned by NATO personnel patrolled US airspace for several months after 9/11 and several NATO countries have sent troops to Afghanistan.