The legal requirements for a cyber action to meet the definition of an act of war are very vague. According to Charles J Dunlap Jr an act of war is a political phrase not a legal term. Also mentioned is that it could be said that the UN Charter was designed to ban war from the vocabulary of nations. According to Military.com Pentagon leaders have yet to regulate when a cyber-attack against the U.S. would establish an act of war. It also mentioned that the Defense Department would take action an attack on cyber-attack on civilian infrastructure. I think that the requirements for a cyber-attack to meet the definition of an act of war should not be left ambiguous. I don’t because then it is left up to be interoperated and not everyone will see it that way.
I think an act of terrorism should include any attacks against the government even if it is a phishing seem and employee opened up on the government’s network. This way a nation or individual will know before had that any attack will be taken seriously. I also think that this should apply to business that are in our country weather it’s a mom and pop shop or a large business such as Home depot. I think in all aspects no matter what a large business does they usually provide some kind of support to the government. The last job I was at serviced VA hospitals and commercial hospitals. Although those attacks are not against the government they are against the people of the government that use their credit card there. Also government entities shop there. For me even though an attacker did not know the information they were getting they still could have an effect on a government account.