Cyberwar III.

This is coolbert:

Cyberwarfare III. Conclusion.

Is it war or is it not war - - that is the question?

Again thanks to the BBC, an expert - - who claims that the "hysteria" regarding the threat of cyberwarfare is overblown!

"The threat of cyber warfare is greatly exaggerated, according to a leading security expert." [Bruce Schneier]

"Cyber war threat exaggerated claims security expert"

"'a "battle of metaphors'."

Metaphors? A battle of words? The definition thereof? This is what is at question?

Surely we DO understand that a lone hacker stealing bank records or invading the computer of a commercial concern to "browse" is not committing cyberwarfare? This is intuitive?

War as generally, ordinarily and commonly understood is two groups of people, using armaments, each attempting to impose their will upon the other. Armaments highly advanced in the modern era, of course not merely relegated to the edged weaponry of ancient times. Armaments to now include cyber attack!

Cyberwarfare as waged by a nation-state or a terrorist entity against a target is SURELY understood to be warfare? Also intuitive? This entire word "cyberwarfare" has NOT been defined with the meticulous degree and measure of accuracy that is required? Required by whom I would ask!

And tanks and bombs alone are not needed to cause casualties in the age of modern warfare? Again, this is also intuitive? If you shut down the power grid or water supply of a nation, or disable the military computers of your adversary with a touch of the keystroke, surely that is understood without explanation to be WAR!

Bruce is in part right and in part wrong!

coolbert.