51–60 of 476 posts
I assume that nuclear capability would rule out a target from this kind of snatch operation, and that this event will add pressure to proliferate.
If having nuclear weapons did anything at all to prevent cyber attacks, the US would not be getting constantly victimized by cyber attacks.
I assume that nuclear capability would rule out a target from this kind of snatch operation, and that this event will add pressure to proliferate.
It would probably rule out the type of decapitation strike the US did, but bgp hijacking is way way below on the escalation ladder.
Cyber-warfare capabilities on this level seem pretty horrific. What if you could simply turn off the power grid of Kyiv or Moscow in anticipation of a strike? That seems extremely disorientating. What if you could simply turn off the power grid indefinitely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If having nuclear weapons did anything at all to prevent cyber attacks, the US would not be getting constantly victimized by cyber attacks.
I think "this kind of operation" refers to the entire "we bombed your capital and stole your President" thing, not just the cyber component of it. It seems extraordinarily unlikely we'd have attempted such a thing if Venezuela had nukes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General Caine specifically said they utilized CYBERCOM (which is the US inter-branch hacking command) to pave the way for the special ops helicopters. I personally have no doubt that any (whether or not they all were) lights being out was due to a US hack. Some of the stuff that got blown up may well have been to prevent forensic recover of US tools and techniques.
I have no doubt they used cyberattacks and electronic warfare. Trump just seems the worst person in the world to play a game of telephone with on such a subject. For example: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/05/16/pentagon-silent-a... > “The F-35, we’re doing an upgrade, a simple upgrade,” Trump said. “But we’re also doing an F-55, I’m going to call it an F-55. And that’s going to be a substantial upgrade. But it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "this kind of operation" refers to the entire "we bombed your capital and stole your President" thing, not just the cyber component of it. It seems extraordinarily unlikely we'd have attempted such a thing if Venezuela had nukes.
Probably, but there is also some speculation usa had help on the inside, so it probably depends on the nature and pervasiveness of that help.
I assume that nuclear capability would rule out a target from this kind of snatch operation, and that this event will add pressure to proliferate.
From bgp hijacking? Almost certainly not. It would probably rule out the type of decapitation strike the US did, but bgp hijacking is way way below on the escalation ladder.
The US couldn't just fly a bunch of helicopters to Pyongyang or Tehran and do the same within 30 minutes. Most likely every single one of those helicopters would end up being shot down.
Cyber-warfare capabilities on this level seem pretty horrific. What if you could simply turn off the power grid of Kyiv or Moscow in anticipation of a strike? That seems extremely disorientating. What if you could simply turn off the power grid indefinitely?
Something like this more or less happened during the initial Israeli strike on Iran ? From what I remember reading, they were able to gain air dominance not because Iranian air-defense was bad, but because it was put almost completely out of service for a brief period of time by people on the ground - be it through sabotage, cyber-warfare, drone attacks from inside, allowing the Israeli jets to annihilate them.
[1]:https://radar.cloudflare.com/routing/as8048ref=loworbitsecur...
I assume that nuclear capability would rule out a target from this kind of snatch operation, and that this event will add pressure to proliferate.
Counterpoint is that Ukraine, Qaddafi, and Assad already demonstrated the significance of maintaining certain capabilities. Vzla didn't have those capabilities before, much less publicly depreciate them.