War is something very different from sabotage. Even if it is state-sponsored sabotage. International law is a fiddly affair anyway, but war is very high on the scale of escalation.
Just imagine that infrastructure in a NATO member state would be hacked. By using a broadened definition of war, this could trigger article five.
You know. NATO. That includes states which block the access to Twitter and YouTube, states which hack each other’s AND other parties communications systems. But which the same time have how many nuclear warheads? How many megatons of conventional explosives? I can’t even be bothered to look up the numbers, but as stated, I can’t accept even stuxnet as an act of war. To accept this is simply bullshitting ourselves about definitions.
Nobody in their right mind can accept that anything like stuxnet should be legal. But treating it as an act of war instead of a criminal act triggers a whole other level of escalation. Under international law, this could legally trigger a military response.
If we don’t accept this narrative as given, we are questioning this. It must be possible to find civil legal solutions in international law.
