Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Cyberwarfare and International Relations
Cyberwarfare is a relatively nascent phenomenon; it is a new component of warfare that is comparatively lacking in research and continually increasing in significance. Its rise is both undeniable and unavoidable: All major militaries are now developing cyberwarfare programs. A 2012 survey of hundreds of experts found 57% believed the world is in the midst of a cyber arms race, and 84% saw cyberattacks as a threat to national and international security, and to trade.However, although there is an increasing amount of study into the nature of this threat, researchers have mainly disregarded the impact cyberwarfare has on international relations. As one expert put it, the problem comes from both sides: On the one hand, theorists of international relations have ignored the challenges of the digital age, particularly from a security standpoint; however, on the other hand, the literature on cybersecurity issues also ignores the theories of international relations and security.For this reason, the primary research question of this paper is the following: What is cyberwarfare’s impact on international relations?
However, is cyberwarfare a potent enough threat to impact international relations? One of the most important features of cyberwarfare is its asymmetric nature, which is not only key to its role in warfare generally but also important from an international relations outlook. The Chinese military, for instance, views cyberwarfare as a way of evening the landscape in conflicts with the United States (U.S.), and the reason for this view is its asymmetric nature.As more “weaker” states develop their cyberwarfare capabilities, a question naturally rises as to its efficacy. This paper aims to demonstrate cyberwarfare’s asymmetries make it a viable weapon for weaker states to use against stronger adversaries and, in consequence, cyberwarfare brings new challenges to international relations.
This paper examines cyberwarfare’s asymmetries and organizes them into three categories, providing a new framework for understanding cyberwarfare’s strengths and weaknesses. The first asymmetry category is a significant offensive advantage; that is, it is much easier to attack than to defend. There are a number of technical and legal reasons for this asymmetry. The second category is cyberwarfare favors states with lower government transparency. Unlike traditional warfare in which types of weapons and their capabilities are mostly public knowledge, in cyberwarfare, secrecy is key to its potency. The last category of asymmetries is cyberwarfare favors poorer states over wealthier adversaries: Wealthier countries have a greater reliance on technology, which creates more cyber vulnerabilities, and these additional vulnerabilities allow an attacker to inflict great financial loss on the defender, relative to the cost of the attack. Of course, it is not necessarily the case a weaker state is more likely to attack, has a more opaque government, and is poorer than a stronger state, but there is often a correlation: Relative to stronger adversaries, a weaker state might not be as concerned with the consequences of initiating a cyberattack, they often have less transparent governments, and they often have less money—or, at least, have less money dedicated to the development of technologically sophisticated infrastructure.
1.2 Definitions
Cyberwarfare is often discussed in tortuous metaphors because there is no consensus on its definition and there are few concrete, historical examples of its use. To illustrate this difficulty, one analysis found 28 definitions for the term cyberspace.The term originated in a work of science fiction and there are questions about its merit; however, the fact is there exists no better term to describe the phenomenon.Moreover, cyber is the term the literature has adopted. In order to create an effective analysis and not fall into a semantic quagmire, cyberspace here is defined as the domain in which computers communicate, and cyber- is what occurs in that domain: Cyberwarfare is warfare in cyberspace, cyberpower is power in cyberspace, and so on.
However, greater specificity on the meaning of certain terms will be valuable. Richard A. Clarke, a U.S. government security expert, defines cyberwarfare as “actions by a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.”For this endeavor, his definition suffices. The existence of differing definitions of cyberwarfare does not preclude being able to draw from the work of different experts in the field, as they are all discussing the same phenomenon. Further, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., one of the founders of the neoliberal school of international relations theory, provides a helpful definition of cyberpower. He writes, “Defined behaviorally, cyberpower is the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through use of the electronically interconnected information resources of the cyberdomain.”Additionally, this paper frequently uses the term cyberattack. Cyberattacks includes cyberwarfare, cyberespionage, or any other attack committed through cyberspace; it is not limited to any particular actor—both states and individuals can perpetrate a cyberattack. Finally, cybersecurity is the security of computers against cyberattacks, whereas cyberdefense is a broader term that includes both cybersecurity and also other aspects of defense in cyberspace, like cyberretaliation capability and cyberdeterrence.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Relevant Research
The following chapter discusses the literature on cyberwarefare’s asymmetries, the structure of cyberspace as a domain of warfare, and the nature of cyberpower. The asymmetries demonstrate the inherent advantages in cyberwarfare’s use by weaker states in conflicts with stronger states (here it is important to note weak and strong refer to the relative strengths between two states rather than an objective measurement of strength). Additionally, an understanding of both cyberspace and cyberpower is necessary for determining environmental influences on cyberwarfare. As such, this chapter lays the groundwork for the final analysis.
The research format here has several advantages over other efforts to understand cyberwarfare. These categories of asymmetries provide a new framework for examining the viability of cyberwarfare a weapon; other treatments of the subject detail the different components of these asymmetries, but this research compiles them into a classification system that clearly connects their benefits to weaker states. Further, other research efforts might look at either cyberwarfare’s asymmetries, the structure of cyberspace, or the nature of cyberpower, but this paper connects them together in a holistic approach: By combining the technical and political aspects of cyberwarfare with its environmental conditions, a broader and more substantial viewpoint emerges. Moreover, this research directly relates these subjects to their impact on international relations in chapter 5.
2.2 The Asymmetries in Cyberwarfare
The following table summarizes this section’s classification of cyberwarfare’s asymmetries into categories that favor the weaker state. It is important to note weaker states might not have the benefit of all these asymmetries—but there is a general correlation.
2.2.1 A General Overview
The term asymmetry has many uses, but at its core it connotes gaining the advantage over an adversary by minimizing their strengths and exploiting their weaknesses.Franklin D. Kramer explains the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated the U.S.’s unmatched conventional warfare capabilities; consequently, U.S. adversaries will likely attempt to use asymmetric means in conflicts with the U.S., and cyberwarfare provides one of these asymmetries.The U.S. has been aware of this likelihood for a number of years, and it is certainly reasonable for the world’s strongest military to be concerned with asymmetric disadvantages. The following 2001 dialogue with Defense Intelligence Agency director Thomas R. Wilson demonstrates an instance of this concern:
Chapter 3: The Rise Of Cyberwarfare .......... 25
3.1 The Role of Cyberwarfare’s History ................ 25
3.2 A History of Cyberattacks ........ 25
3.3 The Development of Cyberwarfare Programs ........... 32
3.4 Cyberwarfare’s Rise and International Security .......... 35
Chapter 4: Cyberconflict And Political Will .............. 39
4.1 The Realities of Cyberwarfare .............. 39
4.2 Pivotal State-Sponsored Cyberattacks ......... 39
Chapter 5: Analysis ............. 52
5.1 Analytical Process ................. 52
5.2 Cyberwarfare as a Weapon for Weaker States .................. 52
5.3 Cyberwarfare’s Impact on International Relations .................... 54
Chapter 5: Analysis
5.1 Analytical Process
This chapter assimilates and analyzes the information from the previous chapters in order to address the primary research question: How does cyberwarfare impact international relations? First, as a necessary precursor to answering this question, the chapter demonstrates the validity of cyberwarfare as a weapon for weaker states to use in conflicts against stronger adversaries. The next section then illustrates the challenges cyberwarfare brings to international relations. It categorizes the issues this paper previously explored and provides a framework for understanding these challenges. The final section is a discussion on how international relations theory might incorporate cyberwarfare for analysis, in order to demonstrate the theoretical compatibility between cyberwarfare and the field of international relations. Together, these sections present a new conceptual framework for analyzing cyberwarfare, combing the technical, political, and environmental aspects of cyberwarfare with international relations schools of thought.
5.2 Cyberwarfare as a Weapon for Weaker States
Beginning in the 1980s, the ubiquity of cyberspace empowered the individual to be able to inflict an amount of damage disproportionate to any previous time in history. Unlike a conventional weapon, the strength of a cyberweapon correlates to the skill of its operator. This empowerment grows alongside the world’s increasing dependence on technology, from critical infrastructure to military operations. It is natural, then, groups of individuals working together would be more powerful than individuals in cyberspace, and nations would be the strongest of all actors. Nations have the most resources and the largest talent pool to draw from, and they have more time to devise and execute cyberattacks. The Gulf War in 1991 demonstrated the U.S. military’s immense power to the world, and its adversaries will attempt asymmetric means to compensate; cyberwarfare offers one of these asymmetric means.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 Summary of Findings
The discussions throughout this paper demonstrate cyberwarfare is an important factor in international relations, and its significance continues to grow. Due to its asymmetries, cyberwarfare is an effective tool of warfare for weaker states to employ against stronger adversaries; moreover, its quality of proximity irrelevance allows any state to target any other. As a result, cyberwarfare brings a number of unfamiliar challenges to international relations. Further, international relations theories are compatible with these issues cyberwarfare raises.
Regarding cyberwarfare as a viable weapon for weaker states, it has three different groups of asymmetric advantages: It favors the attacker over the defender, it favors opaque governments over transparent governments, and it favors poor states over wealthier adversaries. These advantages typically favor a weaker state over a stronger adversary. Additionally, the structure of cyberspace suggests it is unlikely to change to minimize weaker states’ cyberattack capability. Further, the nature of cyberpower suggests dominance in cyberspace is infeasible and bans on cyberattacks are unlikely. Moreover, a state does not have to fear major repercussions for perpetrating an attack, either by international condemnation or cyberretaliation. Finally, China provides a compelling example of a state that understands and depends on cyberwarfare’s asymmetries, and that views cyberwarfare as a weapon offering great tactical flexibility. In summary, the evidence indicates cyberwarfare is a viable tool of conflict for weaker states to employ against stronger adversaries, and not just for the short term.
reference(omitted)