5 ms·
NK could interpret it as US actions rather than Anonymous.
by mikerice 13y ago
NK could interpret it as US actions rather than Anonymous.
- wladimir 13y agoMy first thought was "these are US or SK actions". On further thought it doesn't seem likely, but still, everyone can hide behind the Anonymous flag for plausible denyability.
- xmpir 13y agoFor what reason should US or SK do such a thing. If they are capable of hacking NK they don't need to deny that.
- wladimir 13y agoOne reason I can think of would be because it's "not done" in international diplomacy to publicly admit of hacking. I don't think any country ever openly admitted to building Stuxnet and other "cyberwar" botnets either. Or maybe they did eventually (not sure), but only after very long suspicions. They could still tell NK of it privately, threaten them in an indirect way. Note that I'm not saying they did this, or have good reason to. It's just that I'm a bit suspicious of anything Anonymous related after the Sabu/Lulzsec story, especially when it relates to propaganda like this.
- laumars 13y agoThat's besides the point, it's about political spin. NK has a history singling out USA and SK for actions that sometimes aren't even related to that country at all.
- RivieraKid 13y agoGood, I hope the tension escalates in a war, it would be the best solution for the NK situation.
- benologist 13y ago100,000s of people dying (or more!) is not the best solution.
- RivieraKid 13y agoIt is, because the alternative is worse. There are more that 100,000 prisoners in NK living in horrible conditions. And of those who are not in prison, most have miserable standard of living.
- benologist 13y agoMost people have a miserable standard of living by our extremely sheltered standards. There is very little precedent for war being the 'right' answer to any problem.