The Next Arms Race: Cyberweapons

Harperdog writes "Scott Kemp writes about the similarities between the nuclear arms race and the use of cyberweaponry for offensive purposes. As the article points out, offensive cyberwarfare leaves a nation's own citizenry vulnerable to attack as government agencies seek to keep weaknesses in operating systems (such as Windows) secret. Quoting: 'In the world of armaments, cyber weapons may require the fewest national resources to build. That is not to say that highly developed nations are not without their advantages during early stages. Countries like Israel and the United States may have more money and more talented hackers. Their software engineers may be more skilled and exhibit more creativity and critical thinking owing to better training and education. However, each new cyberattack becomes a template for other nations — or sub-national actors — looking for ideas.'"

Re:Not until someone dies.

[Baloroth]

A weapon does not have to kill someone or indeed even be able to kill someone to be a weapon. The two definitions are "a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" and "a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest." Cyberweapons fulfill both, except, of course, it's "cyber" damage, not physical (hence the name, which of course is stupid but effective).

What Anonymous does is effectively vandalism, yes. Stuxnet, however, was a weapon.