Every state "reserves the right" to do whatever they want, including things they have previously claimed they will not do. That is literally the definition of sovereignty.

Point taken.

I guess that it was more like a heads up for adversaries. As in "don't think that we won't".

Countries in Europe have given up some sovereignty to the EU.

Example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secreta...

Yes, the legal framework is there, but it is up to the members to enforce it.

It's the classic: "What are you going to do, hit me?" response after hitting someone. Just be glad most countries maintain some semblance of civility.

Hence the benefit of nuclear weapons. Although even the UK caved.

I reserve the right to argue with people I don't know, on the internet.

I don't think it can be related. For one, the US was referring to a cyber sabotage operation, not an attack in the sense of "an attack against a computer system". "Attack" has two very different meanings in this context. SSHing into a server is an attack and shutting down power for a city leading to 20 hospital deaths is an attack.

The original statement I could find [0]:

>recommending, in response to the "most extreme case" (described as a "catastrophic full spectrum cyber attack"), that "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder."

I think this is referring to an unprecedented attack which intentionally kills many citizens. It's hard to imagine a scenario where nuclear weapons would be the warranted response, even if the cyber attack killed people, but I don't think the statement should be taken literally.

Either way, this is not that. These are the same espionage and sabotage games every big nation plays. Russia has been and probably is in many of our energy SCADA systems. China, too. And we're in theirs. That's just how things go in the 21st century. It will undoubtedly escalate; the real question is who will pull the trigger. (The US did at least once against the IRA, though that was in direct retaliation to disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilizing the US.)

> that the US reserves the right

From whom do they reserve that right?

OK, it was a bad choice of words.

Basically, the US has warned adversaries.