*Can anyone respond to this post? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not*Having Cyber Peace can be realistic in the United States and other nation-states that will agree on the treaties. It would still be smart to have people in cyber security to defend against cyber attacks and to investigate who the attackers are. There are individuals and/or nation-states that will still conduct espionage to spy on other countries for their own benefits. Their are countries that are afraid that they are going to be attacked by other countries so they conduct espionage to look at what other countries are doing. There is a treaty in place to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons, so creating a treaty to ban cyber attacks is possible. The one thing that the UN has decided that any nation targeting civilians in another country will not be tolerated and the one responsible would be branded as a war criminal. Having Cyber Peace would make sure that the infrastructure would not be targeted through cyber space and would not affect the civilian population. The only problem is that there are individuals in different countries that would target other countries and those should only be considered as actions conducted by individuals and the country should not be blamed for it. Unless the country knew about the attacks and either does not do anything or they condone the attacks and support it.*Can anyone respond to this post? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not*