Who put the NATO site, or can cyberwar grow into a normal one?
“At present, NATO does not view cyber attacks as an open military attack. This means that the provisions of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, in other words, collective self-defense, will not automatically apply to the attacked country, ”said Estonian Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo a few days ago. Trust, but verify ... and today, May 19, at 13:30 Moscow time, in search of the notorious Article V, I go to the official NATO website and see:
Safari can't open the page “http://www.nato.int/” because the server is not responding.
A crazy thought creeps in my head: what if the "enemy" sites in Russia had already been turned off? Checking on Site24x7 :
Test Result for nato.int
Status Unavailable
In order to save the reader time, I immediately admit that after twenty minutes, while I was writing this topic, the NATO website was still loaded.
And now let's think a little. Here is Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty translated into Russian:
“The Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered as an attack on them as a whole and, therefore, agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each they, in exercising the right to individual or collective self-defense, recognized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, will assist the Contracting Party subjected to or Contracting Parties subjected to such an attack, by immediately taking such individual or joint action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result of it are immediately reported to the Security Council. Such measures will be terminated when the Security Council takes the measures necessary to restore and preserve international peace and security. ”
Estonian government officials continue to insist on the need to equate cyber attacks with military action. Again, Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo: “Currently, not a single NATO defense minister regards cyber attacks as an open military attack. This issue must be resolved in the near future. ”
His press secretary, Madis Mikko, develops the theme: “If a rocket attack is conducted against, say, an airport, this qualifies as an act of war. If the same effect is achieved using computers, how else should we call such an attack? ”
Of course, the logic in these statements is. Today’s world is so dependent on computers and information technologies that cyber attacks can not only disrupt the usual lives of millions of people, but also lead to significant human victims. Imagine that not particularly unnecessary sites of ministries, but computer systems of airports, hospitals, and other vital services will be put out of action.
What can we expect in the future if such logic prevails?
The cause for the start of the First World War was the murder in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Here is a brief dystopia scenario. June 28, 2014. Distributed DDoS attack on the site of the heir to the British throne . Adequate answer. The spiral of conflict unwinds. And finally, in accordance with Article V "the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region".
No not like this. In accordance with the new, adopted in 2012, the wording of Article V: "the use of armed force in order to restore and subsequently preserve the information security of the North Atlantic region."
PS By the way, in 1914 no one wanted a war: neither Russia nor Germany. Landfill started Austria with Serbia. But "pacta sunt servanda" - the agreements must be respected - Russia had to fulfill its obligations to Serbia, Germany - to Austria.
Safari can't open the page “http://www.nato.int/” because the server is not responding.
A crazy thought creeps in my head: what if the "enemy" sites in Russia had already been turned off? Checking on Site24x7 :
Test Result for nato.int
Status Unavailable
In order to save the reader time, I immediately admit that after twenty minutes, while I was writing this topic, the NATO website was still loaded.
And now let's think a little. Here is Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty translated into Russian:
“The Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered as an attack on them as a whole and, therefore, agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each they, in exercising the right to individual or collective self-defense, recognized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, will assist the Contracting Party subjected to or Contracting Parties subjected to such an attack, by immediately taking such individual or joint action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result of it are immediately reported to the Security Council. Such measures will be terminated when the Security Council takes the measures necessary to restore and preserve international peace and security. ”
Estonian government officials continue to insist on the need to equate cyber attacks with military action. Again, Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo: “Currently, not a single NATO defense minister regards cyber attacks as an open military attack. This issue must be resolved in the near future. ”
His press secretary, Madis Mikko, develops the theme: “If a rocket attack is conducted against, say, an airport, this qualifies as an act of war. If the same effect is achieved using computers, how else should we call such an attack? ”
Of course, the logic in these statements is. Today’s world is so dependent on computers and information technologies that cyber attacks can not only disrupt the usual lives of millions of people, but also lead to significant human victims. Imagine that not particularly unnecessary sites of ministries, but computer systems of airports, hospitals, and other vital services will be put out of action.
What can we expect in the future if such logic prevails?
The cause for the start of the First World War was the murder in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Here is a brief dystopia scenario. June 28, 2014. Distributed DDoS attack on the site of the heir to the British throne . Adequate answer. The spiral of conflict unwinds. And finally, in accordance with Article V "the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region".
No not like this. In accordance with the new, adopted in 2012, the wording of Article V: "the use of armed force in order to restore and subsequently preserve the information security of the North Atlantic region."
PS By the way, in 1914 no one wanted a war: neither Russia nor Germany. Landfill started Austria with Serbia. But "pacta sunt servanda" - the agreements must be respected - Russia had to fulfill its obligations to Serbia, Germany - to Austria.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/8631/
All Articles