I had to read your comment a few times to make sure I was getting the gist of it correctly. Here's what I understood: you are advocating cyber warfare, and are a big fan of it. I understand your point about handling the situation with no loss of life. Great. But advocating war, even if it's cyber war? Wow.
Have you given a thought to this scenario: while deploying the virus, they made a mistake in their code, that leads to a nuclear meltdown causing an explosion, destroying millions of lives and causing a worldwide phenomenon.
Or how about the drone version cyber warfare mentioned by one of the commenters below?
Or let's say the stuxnet virus fell into the hands of a malicious party and they modified it to take down the national grid. Can you imagine the number of accidents that would cause?
Or maybe I'm just a fool and totally misunderstood your comment.
Have you given a thought to this scenario: while deploying the virus, they made a mistake in their code, that leads to a nuclear meltdown causing an explosion, destroying millions of lives and causing a worldwide phenomenon.
Or how about the drone version cyber warfare mentioned by one of the commenters below?
Or let's say the stuxnet virus fell into the hands of a malicious party and they modified it to take down the national grid. Can you imagine the number of accidents that would cause?
Or maybe I'm just a fool and totally misunderstood your comment.