Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

loworbitsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 476 posts

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#81

Post by TheAlchemist »

bawolff wrote: post #75
TheAlchemist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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, Wouldn't that constitute air defense being "bad"? There are no "well technically it should have worked" in war. Failing to properly secure the air defense sites is bad air defense.

Not really. Ferrari is a great car, but with punctured tires or bad driver, it won't win any race.

Although I do agree, that in war only the final outcome is important. It's just that in this case it failed not necessarily because of technology, but because of humans.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#82

Post by adventured »

delichon wrote: post #28

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.

Nuclear deterrent is absurd.

You have to assume everyone is willing to die over every single thing short of obliteration.

So what's the scenario then? Venezuela has nukes. The US abducts Maduro. Venezuela launches its nukes, everyone dies on both sides. Please, explain that laughable premise. Everyone in Venezuela dies for Maduro? Go on, explain it, I'll wait.

Back in reality: Venezuela has nukes. The US abducts Maduro. Venezuela shakes its fists at the sky, threatens nuclear hell fire. Nothing happens. Why? The remaining leadership of Venezuela does not in fact want to die for Maduro.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#83

Post by Terr_ »

Terr_ wrote: post #32
eastbound wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s be honest, that was a crazy operation. I wonder whether they really secured all chances of success, or just winged it with chances of not depositing the leader, and him being able to summon his diplomatic relations into 50 countries declaring war to the USA. While on their way out, if the USA could set everything back to IPv6, that would be nice.

The outcome is less-crazy if one views it as assisting a palace-coup, partnering with a bunch of Venezuelan government and military insiders already seeking to depose Maduro, able to subtly clear the path and provide intel.

P.S.: In that scenario, it's quite possible for both groups of conspirators to benefit from denying it and saber-rattling:

* The (remaining) Venezuelan government gets to point to Big Evil America to unify (or crack-down-upon) an unhappy public, and they avoid being personally tarred as unpatriotic.

* Trump et al. get to "wag the dog" as distraction from crimes and mismanagement back home.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#84

Post by _boffin_ »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #60
adolph wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded if they hadn’t given up their nuclear weapons.

I have a few questions about that:

1. Did Ukraine control the nukes, or did Russia?

2. Could Ukraine keep them working on its own?

3. If nukes stop invasions, why do nuclear countries still get attacked?

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#85

Post by JasonADrury »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #70
JasonADrury wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear capability wouldn't necessarily rule out this kind of a decapitation strike, it's just that it's very hard to imagine this kind of an operation actually being successful in any nuclear-capable country. 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.

>It's extremely difficult to believe that the US could fly a bunch of helicopters to Pyongyang or Tehran and do the same within 30 minutes. Would your answer change if China were somehow guaranteed to not intervene? Because I'm not sure the obstacle here is North Korean defenses, so much as Chinese intervention. Tehran? I think it'd go more or less like Caracas did.

>Would your answer change if China were somehow guaranteed to not intervene? Because I'm not sure the obstacle here is North Korean defenses, so much as Chinese intervention.

No. The obstacle isn't Chinese intervention, the obstacle is that such an operation would have to be significantly larger and it would take longer. There would be much more air defense assets to suppress, and some of them would be impossible to effectively defeat.

A helicopter assault on either of those cities would in the most optimistic scenario take hours of preparatory bombing, which would give a plenty of time for nuclear retaliation by North Korea. Both countries would also certainly have better safeguarding mechanisms for their heads of state, during that bombing they would be evacuated and now you'd probably be looking at the very least at a weeks-long operation.

Assassination is a different thing, but I would suspect that for purely psychological reasons a rapid kidnapping operation like this would be far less likely to invite anything more than symbolic retaliation than a single targeted missile strike. This kind of operation would be far more confusing for the enemy than a simple assassination, and the window during which for example nuclear retaliation might make sense tends to be rather small.

>Tehran? I think it'd go more or less like Caracas did.

Tehran doesn't have a fancy air defense network, but it does have one. They'd have shot down every single helicopter. You don't even need fancy missiles, a bunch of .50cal machine guns will do the trick.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#86

Post by aoeusnth1 »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #60
adolph wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded if they hadn’t given up their nuclear weapons.

Alternatively, we might have entered either a limited or a worst-case nuclear war scenario.

Russia may have just continually pushed the envelope until it became clear there wasn't a bright red line, and eventually someone would push the button.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#87

Post by kachapopopow »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #62
literalAardvark wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> him being able to summon his diplomatic relations into 50 countries declaring war to the USA. As if. Dictators only do things that benefit themselves, and deciding to attack the US is suicide and/or world ending.

Took a long time to catch up with Bin Laden after he attacked the US.

we don't really have a way to tell if it was even real, it would actually be a rather trivial operation for the government during those times and the entire thing could have just been overplayed and/or involved collaboration from all sides.

none of those documents exist since it was probably never documented to begin with so we will never know I guess.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#88

Post by alex43578 »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #60
adolph wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded if they hadn’t given up their nuclear weapons.

Even setting aside that Ukraine never had the technical means or infrastructure to operate/maintain those weapons, I don't think they would have dissuaded Russia or actually been used. Russia could turn them into a wasteland in response and 6 million people (including hundreds of thousands of men of military age) weren't even willing to stay in Ukraine, much less fight for the country. If Zelensky were to give an order to launch hypothetical nukes, I'd think there would have been a coup and no launch.

Re: There were BGP anomalies during the Venezuela blackout

#89

Post by adventured »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #60
adolph wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ukraine wouldn’t have been invaded if they hadn’t given up their nuclear weapons.

Why not?

Russia invades. Ukraine launches nukes. Every major city in Ukraine is ash. Several major cities in Russia are ash. Millions die plausibly.

That scenario is not what would happen from an invasion.

Zelensky would not have used nukes to prompt the death of millions instantly. He would have proceeded with the same defensive war.

The false premise rests on: it's better for everyone to die than live under Russian occupation. That would overwhelmingly be chosen false by the population in question that is being invaded.

All those people that lived under Soviet Russia occupation, they were better off dead in nuclear fire than living under said occupation? Obviously not what the masses would have chosen (just look at what they did choose to do while living under Russian occupation - how many gave up their lives to fight back?). It's fundamentally why nuclear weapons as deterrant is largely fraudulent. They're solely viable as a last option against total oblivion at the hands of an enemy: it entails everyone dies, which means there has to be a good enough reason for everyone to die to justify use.

Post reply on HN