Well, I think what the parent is saying here is that the United States set a precedent for other nation states to engage in destruction of industry when they see national security or state advantages - while the myth of America being a fair and even handed juror of world affairs is not true, it is pervasive, and it (and the "West") is used as a basis for comparison. It also provides an out for a state actor who is caught and there is an attempt at an international judicial (rather than military) response: they can point at Stuxnet and suggest (convincingly IMO) that the United States should face the same standards of judgement and if they stand up a proportional reprimand. This gives an additional sort of 'insurance'.

I would disagree with the parent that Stuxnet is the same type of activity (it's private industrial sabotage rather than state military sabotage). The papers with the most lip service regarding cybermilitarization (inside the US) try to suggest international norms by breaking types of operations down into an ontology that separates national security operations and military operations from activities that interfere with private enterprise, citizens and from infrastructure.