Who put the NATO website, or can a cyber war turn into a normal one?

    “At present, NATO does not see cyber attacks as an open military attack. This means that the provisions of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, in other words, collective self-defense, will not automatically apply to the attacked country, ”said Estonian Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo the other day. Trust, but verify ... and today, May 19 at 13:30 Moscow time, in search of the notorious Article V, I go to the official website of NATO and see:
    Safari can't open the page “http://www.nato.int/” because the server is not responding.
    A crazy thought creeps into my head: what if the "enemy" sites in Russia have already been turned off? Checking on Site24x7 :
    Test Result for nato.int
    Status Unavailable
    In order to save time for the reader, I immediately admit that twenty minutes later, while I was writing this topic, the NATO website still loaded.

    And now a little reflection. Here is Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty translated into Russian:
    “The Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered an attack on them as a whole and, therefore, agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each of in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, they will be assisted by a Contracting Party subjected to or by Contracting Parties subjected to such an attack, by immediately carrying out such an individual or joint action as it considers necessary, including the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region.
    Any such armed attack and any measures taken as a result of it shall be immediately reported to the Security Council. Such measures will be discontinued when the Security Council takes the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security. ”
    Estonian statesmen continue to insist on the need to equate cyber attacks with hostilities. Defense Minister Yaak Aaviksoo again: “Currently, not a single defense minister in NATO sees cyber attacks as an open military attack. This issue needs to be resolved in the near future. ”
    His spokeswoman, Madis Mikko, develops the theme: “If a missile attack is carried out against, say, an airport, this qualifies as an act of war. If the same effect is achieved using computers, then how else should we call such an attack? ”
    Of course, there is logic in these statements. Today's world is so dependent on computers and information technology that cyber attacks can not only disrupt the familiar lives of millions of people, but also lead to significant human victims. Imagine that the sites of ministries, which are not particularly needed, will be disabled, but the computer systems of airports, hospitals, and other vital services.
    What can we expect in the future if such logic triumphs?
    The reason for the outbreak of the First World War was the murder in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914 of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
    Here is a brief dystopian scenario. June 28, 2014. Distributed DDoS attack on the site of the heir to the British throne . Adequate answer. The spiral of conflict spins. And finally, in accordance with Article V “the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region”.
    No not like this. In accordance with the new version of Article V adopted in 2012: “the use of armed force to restore and subsequently maintain the information security of the North Atlantic region”.
    PS By the way, in 1914 no one wanted war: neither Russia, nor Germany. Austria and Serbia started a landfill. But the “pacta sunt servanda" - the treaties must be respected - Russia had to fulfill its obligations to Serbia, Germany - to Austria.

    Also popular now: