• sbv
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can’t always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We’re largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses

    This paints information warfare as a nothing burger that is distinct from a physical assault. It really isn’t. Russia (allegedly) took down parts of the Ukraine grid for a few hours during their ongoing assault against the country. Saudi refineries have been taken offline. Stuxnet did significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program.

    Misinformation is arguably worse, since it can significantly damage social cohesion in victim countries. I don’t think we have a very good handle on the role of foreign actors in the rise of populism in the past decade, but you can bet your polling booth it’s nonzero.

    Do we really need to talk about economic espionage like it’s nbd? Imagine Taiwan without fabs. Or Canada without Nortel (oh wait, you don’t need to). So much of our economic growth is driven directly through innovation, and national power/prosperity comes from that growth. It’s a big deal.

    • Candelestine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.

      I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.

      It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.