Respond here in 250 words:
2) War, traditionally defined as comprising armed conflict and violence to achieve a political goal, does not adequately describe State-sponsored cyberoperations to date. Cyber war may indeed be occurring, but it is a much different proposition than traditional warfare. In future armed conflicts, cyber operations will almost certainly be a key factor in successful military operations. Controlling the information domain will be paramount to controlling the physical domains.
I think Arquilla provides an adequate description of cyberwar, which he describes as, “Less a way to achieve a winning advantage in battle than a means of covertly attacking the enemy’s homeland infrastructure without first having to defeat its land, sea, and air forces in conventional military engagements” (Arquilla 2012). In other words, cyber war enables conventional military success while denying it to the adversary.
While cyber operations will surely be critical to succeeding in future warfare, States cannot wait to execute them until conflict begins. States must establish access and position tools to be used when conflict breaks out, which takes time, perhaps months of reconnaissance. Furthermore, network defenders are continually searching for vulnerabilities and compromises, and updating security protocols to account for them. In other words, cyber war begins long before shots are fired.
One need not look any further than Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, which many have described as an attack. Indeed, no blood was shed as a direct result of the operation, but it is hard to argue that it was insignificant. Russia may have altered the course of U.S. history without firing a shot. Time will tell what the ultimate cost will be, but it is a vivid example of the gray area that is cyberspace. Without international norms and laws, States are emboldened to operate in cyberspace with relative impunity.
Cyberspace is also unique in the way it affords anonymity and plausible deniability. In two well known cases, Stuxnet and the cyberattacks against Estonia, “The identity of the perpetrators, though suspected, cannot be known with certainty. This anonymity is also the case with the extensive cybersnooping campaigns undertaken against sensitive U.S. military systems since the late 1990s…So these actions…qualify as a low-intensity form of cyberwar, have gone unpunished.” (Arquilla 2012). Moreover, they are likely to continue unless the status quo changes.
Contrary to Arquilla, Rid argues, “Cyberwar is still more hype than hazard. Consider the definition of an act of war: It has to be potentially violent, it has to be purposeful, and it has to be political. The cyberattacks we’ve seen so far, from Estonia to the Stuxnet virus, simply don’t meet these criteria” (Rid 2012). Similarly, Solis writes, “Despite early fears that nations would strike at each other using surprise…there is no evidence that such conflicts have occurred. Nations seem to be willing to launch significant cyber assaults during larger crises, but not out of the blue…” (Solis 2014, 52).
While there is much debate on what cyber war is, there is wide agreement on what is happening in cyberspace. States are building capabilities, using cyberspace as a means to achieve political ends, and will certainly integrate cyber operations into military operations during future warfare. I for one believe cyber war is a perpetual cycle that includes reconnaissance, establishing access, developing and pre-positioning exploits, defending one’s own networks, and executing attacks when necessary. We are in this cycle. Cyber war is here. It is the new reality and it isn’t going anywhere.
Respond here in 250 words:
Arun1990
addresponses.docx
0
