Completely agree. "Hasn't really thought through critically" is quite possibly the kindest way to phrase it.

@logn mentioned rallying around this like we did Apollo. It's a grand idea, but I can't say I have any hope that will be the chosen approach.

An attack, a malicious attack by a state actor, is an attack, cyber or otherwise. What if they hacked a hospital and somehow shut down life support systems, there's little moral difference than if they sent soldiers into the hospital. Whether we like it being framed militarily or not, this IS a military issue (if it's a state actor) as that's the point of the military to defend life liberty and property. However, that being said, this whole situation feels like a false flag to me, so I would suggest a highly considered response. If it is, in fact NK, then a military response is appropriate -- sanctions haven't done a damned thing ever. I am not suggesting carpet bombing the country, but certainly their must be real consequences -- otherwise what's the disincentive to do it again? However, I must reiterate, this smells like a wag the dog or a Gulf of Tonkin type situation. So I honestly feel like the best response now is no response until there is more information. Ultimately though, it's potentially a disgruntled employee, in which case it's a criminal matter as opposed to a national security one.

>hopefully not like the War on Terror.

Oh, it's coming. The drumbeat has started and harrowing possibilities are being offered. The media will be in full panic mode and billions of dollars in contracts will be awarded soon enough.

There's too much money to be made to resist treating it like the "War on ____".