Merck’s NotPetya attack: Was it an act of war?

It's only false if you are willing to be a victim of confirmation bias.

"DUI manslaughter charges are more common than DUI murder charges. Simply put, an intoxicated driver is arrested after causing an accident that resulted in the death of another person. The driver did not intend to cause the death, but it happened as a result of drunk driving."

https://dui.findlaw.com/dui-charges/dui-manslaughter-and-dui...

It would be child's play for anyone at this point to use a search engine to dig up loads of examples of people convicted for involuntary manslaughter as a result of killing someone while drunk driving.

You get points for tenacity, I'll concede that. But your argument is simply wrong. You stated: "Killing someone while drunk is called involuntary manslaughter" Of course, most of the time it is. But you didn't qualify with "usually" or "often" (or with "while driving", for that matter). A single example of killing someone while drunk NOT equating to involuntary manslaughter, is sufficient to prove your statement to be false, same as if you had said "prime numbers are odd."

The flaw in your logic this whole time is your insistence that anything unintended = accident. Things can be unintended but also not an accident. All the previous examples. Involuntary manslaughter laws tend to use the word "unintentional" but not "accidental." How about the Free Solo guy -- certainly he didn't intend to die, but had he slipped and fell, when the whole point of the climb was to do it without any safety equipment, it couldn't be classified as an accident. Car "accidents" are rarely accidents -- in most cases, one party failed to follow a safety signal or violated some rule. And yes, if you deliberately drop a bomb near a border, you can't claim the allies you killed on the other side were accidental. Collateral damage, yes, accidental, no.

If you cannot see that, or that it isn't "accidental" when a serial drunk driver kills someone, or a gun getting fired during a robbery also isn't accidental -- or when a government unleashes a computer virus that it knows will likely affect hundreds/thousands of computers owned by people or companies it doesn't care about -- well, you're maintaining a position about which few people would agree.

Actually your argument is simply wrong.

> you didn't qualify with "usually" or "often"

You're being pedantic. It is called involuntary manslaughter. And it's most often called that. And sometimes it is called other things. There is nothing false about my statement.

> same as if you had said "prime numbers are odd."

Not really. Same as if I had said "ALL prime number are odd". Which I did not say. "Prime number are odd" is a true statement. So is "prime numbers are even".

> The flaw in your logic this whole time is your insistence that anything unintended = accident

I never claimed that everything unintended is an "just" an accident, but at this point you are just being pedantic. Your original claim was that something deliberately planned cannot result in accidents. That if something is planned, then the outcome itself must have also been planned. That's the flaw in your logic.

If the Russian government intended to attack Ukraine and a US company was unintentionally damaged, then no, that result was not planned.

In your original comment you claimed "knowing full well there would be plenty of collateral damage". Do you have proof that they knew there would be collateral damage? Do you have proof that they took no steps to try to contain the damage to Ukraine but they simply got it wrong?

> it isn't "accidental" when a serial drunk driver kills someone

How did the drunk driver all of a sudden become a serial drunk driver?

> a government unleashes a computer virus that it knows will likely affect hundreds/thousands of computers

Where is your evidence that they knew this?

> you're maintaining a position about which few people would agree.

So what? Does majority consensus determine logical consistency? And I'll claim the same thing: you are the one who is maintaining a position about which few people would agree. It's that easy.