The UK Response to the Nerve Agent Attack

Not only do I think the UK should response with a cyber attack, I think they will do so in short order.

It's easy to underestimate the brits because they're constantly drinking tea and complaining about the lorries but the same team that will change an Al Qaeda magazine to cupcake recipes will turn your power off to make a point

The Russians have changed their tune entirely today, now asking for a "joint investigation" and not crowing about how the target was an MI6 spy and traitor to the motherland killed as a warning to other traitors (except on Russian TV). I don't think the Brits will buy it. As Matt Tait says in his Lawfare piece, this is the Brits talking at maximum volume, using terminology that gives them ample legal cover for an in-kind military response. Ashley Deeks further points out the subtleties of the international law terminology May chose to use and how it affects potential responses.

For something like this, sanctions go without saying, but I don't think that ends the toolbox. The US often also does indictments, but that's more message sending than impactful sometimes. The UK could pressure Russia on the ground in many places (by supporting Ukraine, perhaps?) but that takes a long time and is somewhat risky. Cyber is a much more attractive option for many reasons, which I will put below in an annoying bullet list.

• Cyber is direct
• Cyber can be made overt with a tweet or a sharply worded message
• GCHQ (and her allies) are no doubt extremely well positioned within Russian infrastructure (as was pointed out in this documentary) so operational lag could be minimized or negligable
• Cyber can be made to be discriminatory and proportional
• Cyber can be reversible or not as desired
• Sending this message through cyber provides a future deterrent and capabilities announcement

That answers why the Brits SHOULD use cyber for this. But we think they will, because they've sent that as a signal via the BBC and the Russians heard it loud and clear.