Conflict Zone Cyberspace: Prospects for Security and Peace Cyberspace as a Domain of Military Action 2 ETHICS AND ARMED FORCES 01/19, 2019

International Relations theory has endured two failures in the last half century. No International Relations theorist foresaw the end of the Cold War. Likewise with the rise of Cyber War. Whilst the Internet is acknowledged as having the CIA as its parent, no one predicted that it would become a theatre for conflict. Cyber War is here and its impact on our lives will only increase in time. It is only a matter of time before a completely cyber conflict is waged. Yet no theory on Cyber War exists…until now.

2010

The potential for cyberwarfare is vast and is of concern to all nations, and national security defence. It appears that many countries are actively trying to protect their computer networks, whilst looking for ways that might bring down the networks of other countries, although this is not officially acknowledged. Bringing down another nations computer networks could give the attacking national intelligence and control. These kinds of interactions are now a part of the way in which international relations are played out, and the internet is also a place in which international relations are contested. As such the internet plays a role in the visualisation and articulation of international relations both officially and unofficially, via official pronouncements and the activities of private citizens. What makes the internet different to other media forms is that the internet also represents a space in which international relations are contested in terms of cyber attacks and information...

The goal of this research is to exhaustively collect information on all cyber attacks in the last decade so that we can delineate the patterns of cyberwar as reflected by evidence. Much talk about the concept of cyberwar and the changing dynamic of future conflict is founded on the study of spectacular flights of imagination of what could be. Our theory is that deterrence and regionalism should be expected in cyber conflict, counterintuitive to conventional wisdom. We find here that the actual magnitude and pace of cyber attacks among rivals does not match up to popular perception. Only 20 of 124 active rivals engaged in cyber conflict between 2001 and 2011. The attacks that were uncovered were limited in terms of magnitude and frequency. The coming era of cyberwar should continue to exhibit these patterns despite fears mentioned by media pundits and government agencies. Cyberwar is a reality, but it is a little used tactic that has not changed the shape of international interactions.

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 2014

Much discussion of the concept of cyberwar, cyber conflict, and the changing dynamic of future security interactions is founded upon the study of what could be, conjured through spectacular flights of the imagination. The goal of this research article is to exhaustively collect information on cyber interactions between rival states in the last decade so that we can delineate the patterns of cyber conflict as reflected by evidence at the international level. The field of cyber security needs a clear return to social science in order to be able to definitively engage the cyber debate with facts, figures, and theory. To that end we provide a dataset of cyber incidents and cyber disputes that spans from 2001 to 2011. Our data include 110 cyber incidents and 45 cyber disputes. Further, we test our theory of cyber conflict which argues that restraint and regionalism should be expected, counter-intuitive to conventional wisdom. We find here that the actual magnitude and pace of cyber disputes among rivals does not match with popular perception; 20 of 126 active rivals engaged in cyber conflict. The interactions that are uncovered are limited in terms of magnitude and frequency suggesting cyber restraint. Further, most of the cyber disputes that are uncovered are regional in tone, defying the unbounded nature of cyberpower. The coming era of cyber conflict may continue to exhibit these patterns despite fears mentioned in the discourse by the media and cyber security professionals.

How cyber assaults and government responses have been interpreted is not uniform, however, especially with regard to whether the world will eventually engage in “cyber war.” There is a community of scholars and analysts who argue that cyber war will not happen or that the impact of cyberspace on armed conflict will be limited. Others in the broad field of security studies, traditional computer science, or corporate communities claim that while some form of conflict is happening, government officials, military officers, and legislators are suffering from “threat inflation.” They argue that hyperbolic projections are leading to bad policy decisions, especially with regard to specific adversaries, and that there has been overinvestment in offensive cyber weapons rather than prudent defensivemeasures. A best-selling nonfiction book has been criticized for contributing unnecessarily to public fears about the potential for cyber warfare. Many of these critics argue that what are being called “cyber attacks” are really instances of espionage, allowed by international law, or simply crime, which is not the mission area of the nation’s military services. Some analysts detect the influence of the military-industrial complex on policy debates. If hackers, official or not, from China and Russia, terrorists, and criminals use the Internet to penetrate U.S government systems, contractors see opportunities for increased revenue. As two observers of cyberspace argue, “There’s an arms race in cyberspace, and a massively exploding new cyber-industrial complex that serves it.” Our position on this ongoing debate is that neither side has it right.