If those countries take away the legal system route of extradition for attacks on critical infrastructure, then in my mind its justifiable to go the batman style of extradition with a special forces team.
Because fixing the infrastructure couldn’t possibly work, we need renditions and live fire operations. Totally.
Fixing infrastructure won't get done because the people in charge are too stupid, lazy and greedy to fix it. Most of them are so wealthy they're completely insulated from the consequences of their actions (or inaction, as the case may be). Folks need to wake up and realize they're living in a global public-private idiocracy.
Or make hacking legal so that companies start taking appropiate measures instead of labelling themselves as victims.
White hat hacking, sure.
So, sign an extradition treaty or we'll declare war? Because that's what sending in troops without their consent means.
It's interesting to compare this to the physical-world analog. What if somebody shows up at the US-Canada border, start shooting rockets at Canada, and the US refuses to acknowledge this as a crime or extradite? What if the rockets are aimed at a critical piece of infrastructure near the border and can cause billions in damage? One could argue that if the US condones these attacks, they have effectively already declared war on Canada.
Well that's the main issue, currently the states do not consider such cyberattacks the equivalent of sending troops or rockets across the border that justify a "kinetic" response but rather the equivalent of earlier espionage activities which usually justifies only a diplomatic response. Of course, that might change in the future.
More like, don’t harbor or foster attacks on critical infrastructure or we will take action to bring those that do to justice. At what point do those actions by other countries become acts of war?