> But the security argument? Yeah, that ship has sailed. Total war, means total war.
Those are your words.
I'm saying, focusing on total war is irresponsible and leads you to draw false conclusions. In the real world, limited conflicts are what we're dealing with 99.9+% of the time, thank goodness.
And now in your new comment, for some reason you're focusing on "plausible deniability" which is another red herring. If China wants to disrupt Europe's grid, it doesn't care about plausible deniability -- the entire point is to publicly retaliatiate. It just needs to do it, as easily as possible. The idea that relying on a cloud vulnerability "doesn't make a list of your top 10 options" doesn't make any sense at all. It might very well be the #1 option, or one of three tactics employed simultaneously.