Whether cyberattacks should be considered a legitimate strategic means is a complex and controversial issue involving multiple fields such as international law, ethics, politics and technology. Here are some considerations: 1. **International legal framework**: Under international law, especially the UN Charter, the use of force between states is strictly limited. Although cyberattacks are not the use of force in the traditional sense, some countries believe that they can be considered a legitimate means of self-defense in certain circumstances. 2. **The boundary between war and peace**: The nature of cyberattacks is difficult to define. For example, attacking infrastructure, stealing confidential information or disrupting important services may all be considered hostile acts, but their legality may vary in different contexts. 3. **Ethics**: From an ethical perspective, cyberattacks may cause unintended consequences, such as significant impacts on civilian life, which may be morally unacceptable. Therefore, whether they are considered legitimate means often depends on the specific context and its consequences. 4. **National security and strategic interests**: Some countries may believe that cyberattacks are justified in the context of protecting national security or achieving strategic goals. This view often sparks debate because it can lead to a vicious cycle and escalation of cyber warfare. 5. **International relations and norms**: As cyber attacks become more prevalent, the international community has gradually begun to discuss how to develop relevant norms and rules to reduce the risk of cyber conflicts and expand the control of cyber behavior. In general, the legality of cyber attacks has not yet been clearly defined in international law, so countries may take different positions based on their own interests and views. This issue still needs further discussion and research to find the best way to balance national security with international law and ethics.