I'm sure you've all seen in the news, that the Pentagon feels that cyber attacks on the United States will constitute an act of war.
I've got mixed feelings on this. Certainly I don't want hostile governments hacking into the United States business, military info, etc. etc. But just how do you go about proving that the cyber attack was directed by a government, and not just some crazy anarchist in a basement looking to start WWIII?
Granted, the fact that the most recent alleged cyber attacks were traced to IP addresses of a Chinese military facility does lead to a certain amount of suspicion... but again - is that some guy in his off time going "HAHA! Got the US!" or did a general direct him to see just how much US info he could get?
I think it's a slippery slope. I don't think you should get to drop bombs in response to a cyber attack. I think you should get to launch a cyber counter-attack. Force should only be answered with like-force. If someone is hacking into the US - we should hack back into them. Or maybe set up a font of mis-information, so whatever they get by hacking only have a 50-50 shot of being true. I just don't think that military response to computer assault may be the best way to go.