Holy crap. This is huge news. Isn’t a cyber attack on critical infrastructure kind of an act of war? I’m not sure how wise this course of action is.
I recall reading, some years ago, that the US reserves the right to respond to cyberattacks with nuclear weapons. I wonder if Russia also does. Playing games with power grids etc is arguably much higher stakes than fighters messing with each other, or even with passenger planes. Or navy ships passing too closely. Edit: I guess that it was more like a heads up for adversaries. As in "don't think that we won't". Just i…
The original statement I could find [0]:
>recommending, in response to the "most extreme case" (described as a "catastrophic full spectrum cyber attack"), that "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder."
I think this is referring to an unprecedented attack which intentionally kills many citizens. It's hard to imagine a scenario where nuclear weapons would be the warranted response, even if the cyber attack killed people, but I don't think the statement should be taken literally.
Either way, this is not that. These are the same espionage and sabotage games every big nation plays. Russia has been and probably is in many of our energy SCADA systems. China, too. And we're in theirs. That's just how things go in the 21st century. It will undoubtedly escalate; the real question is who will pull the trigger. (The US did at least once against the IRA, though that was in direct retaliation to disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing the US.)