Cyber Warfare

Cyberwar refers to the use of computational technologies in the military or diplomatic contexts of international affairs and interactions between nation states. It involves direct battles using information technology capabilities. Cybersecurity, on the other hand, refers to a state’s defensive (and sometimes offensive) capabilities within the domain of cyberspace.

While the common usage of the term “cyberwar” seems to indicate direct clashes between computational technologies and state actors, its true intent is to suggest that there is an ongoing technological battle within the larger context of a foreign policy interaction between nation states. As expert Hersh has defined it, cyberwar involves “the penetration of foreign networks for the purpose of disrupting or dismantling those networks and making them inoperable.”

Cyber War vs Cybersecurity

Cyberwar refers to the use of computational technologies in the military or diplomatic arenas of international affairs and interactions. It involves direct attacks using technology against an opponent’s computer systems or infrastructure.

Cybersecurity refers to a state’s defensive (and sometimes offensive) capabilities in cyberspace. It involves protecting a state’s own systems, networks, and critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. Cybersecurity also enables a state to respond to or deter cyberattacks through development of its technological defenses and capabilities.

The common usage of the term cyberwar seems to indicate direct battle and attacks between computational technologies and state actors. However, the true intent is usually to suggest there is an ongoing technological struggle taking place in the context of a broader geopolitical, military or diplomatic interaction between nation states. Cyberwar is one aspect of state conflict and rivalry that unfolds through cyberspace.

In essence, cyberwar refers specifically to offensive operations and attacks, while cybersecurity indicates defensive capabilities and protections. But in practice, cybersecurity infrastructure can also enable offensive cyber capabilities for cyberwar. The relationship between cyberwar and cybersecurity is complex, as both offensive and defensive cyber technologies shape the dynamics of conflict and rivalry between states.

Cyber War and International Relations

Cyber warfare has a significant impact on international relations, affecting various aspects such as security, global governance, and the geopolitical landscape. The rise of the cyber domain has led to a revolution in military affairs, changing how societies and nations interact.

Realism has been a dominant paradigm in the international relations field and is based on a general set of assumptions about international security, which is now being challenged and reshaped by the emergence of cyber conflict. The war in Ukraine, for example, has revealed the extensive impact of cyber operations on modern warfare and international dynamics.

Cybersecurity and its impact on international relations are evolving quickly, presenting both opportunities for research and significant challenges due to the speed of change. The interconnected nature of cyberspace and its implications for national and international security have become a crucial focus within the field of international relations.

Geopolitics and cyber power are intertwined, and states need to adapt to the new threats posed by cyber warfare, which operates through technology and provides information and power to states. Cyber diplomacy plays a vital role in safeguarding national interests, promoting peaceful relationships, and mitigating the consequences of cyber aggression and attacks. Therefore, cyber warfare is intricately linked to various aspects of international relations, and its impact continues to shape the global political and security landscape.

The Impacts of Cyber War on Rivalry

• During a rivalry, all options should be on the table. Even war becomes a viable foreign policy option. Due to the nature of rivalry, should we expect that cyber tactics are frequently used? YES. Because cyber tactics allow for plausible deniability as to the origin of attacks.
• When cyber tactics are used, they should exacerbate the rivalry & result in the escalation of tensions between the states engaged in the operations. The ability to disguise the source of attacks is a key advantage of cyber warfare. A state can launch damaging operations against a rival while avoiding direct attribution or responsibility.
• This plausible deniability emboldens states to take more aggressive actions in cyberspace. At the same time, the target state will likely suspect its rival as the perpetrator, even without proof. This breeds distrust and propels escalating retaliations between rivals, whether in cyberspace or through conventional means.
• In short, the very nature of cyber warfare fuels greater hostility and turbulence within rivalries. The value of chaos & fear is a key issue for cyber strategies in international relations. The ability to launch offensive cyber attacks alone might be enough to modify the behavior of a state.

The Value of Chaos & Fear

Fear and chaos are key pillars in a cyber strategy when it comes to international conflict between nations. The ability for a state to launch devastating offensive cyber attacks alone might be enough to modify the behavior of rival states without ever having to actually deploy them.

Simply attaining a minimal level of security to deter large-scale cyber attacks could motivate an enemy to launch a cyber technology arms race in order to gain the upper hand. This cyber arms race, like traditional arms races for weapons and military capabilities, reduces confidence between rival states and escalates tensions further.

The value for a state is in the chaos, confusion, and fear that cyber capabilities evoke. By keeping rival nations off-balance and questioning their own security, a state with cyber attack abilities shapes the decision making and policies of its enemies. Whether used overtly or not, the presence of advanced cyber warfare presents a powerful tool for states engaged in geopolitical rivalries and conflicts.

Cyber Deterrence

Deterring large-scale cyber attacks against rivals is a crucial capability for states engaged in conflict. The ability to withstand and respond to cyber attacks could be enough to dissuade enemies from launching devastating operations. Even attaining a minimal level of cybersecurity to prevent infrastructure shutdown or data theft can be an effective deterrent.

Knowing that a rival has strong network defenses and can counterattack may compel adversaries to avoid provocation. However, the inherent anonymity of cyber operations makes deterrence complicated. If attribution is unclear, threats of retaliation are less credible. States must demonstrate both resilience and power projection in cyberspace to achieve cyber deterrence.

Adversaries may also be tempted to test defenses and escalate if they believe critical systems are vulnerable. Building robust security, backup systems, and response plans are key to avoiding tempting targets. While deterrence through punishment is ideal, denial through strong defenses is essential. Ultimately, comprehensive cyber capabilities are needed to prevent reckless aggression and signal the resolve to impose costs on attackers. With cyber risks ever-present during rivalry, credible defenses provide necessary assurance.

Cyber Arms Race

The escalating development of offensive and defensive cyber capabilities between rival states can lead to a cyber technology arms race. Much like a nuclear arms race during the Cold War, the competitive building up of cyber arsenals can reduce confidence and trust between rivals and escalate tensions.

The ability to launch crippling offensive cyber attacks alone might be enough to modify the behavior of an adversary. Or attaining a minimal level of security to deter large-scale cyber attacks could motivate an enemy to accelerate efforts to gain the upper hand in cyberspace through more advanced technologies.

This kind of cyber race, like other arms races throughout history, is destabilizing for interstate relations and can lead to greater potential for misunderstandings and misperceptions between rivals. The uncertainty and insecurity fueled by the cyber arms buildup makes diplomatic solutions more difficult and increases the chances of rash decision-making.

Thus the dynamics of an unchecked cyber arms race, whether in offensive or defensive capabilities, carry substantial risks and costs. Finding ways to limit this arms race through arms control agreements or confidence building measures may be essential to preventing greater escalation between rivals.

Case Study: Russia vs Georgia 2008

In August 2008, tensions that had been escalating between Russia and Georgia erupted into an armed conflict over the disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, this conflict was not confined only to conventional military operations. There was also a significant cyber component to the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

In the weeks leading up to the armed conflict, a series of cyber attacks were launched against Georgian government, financial, and media websites. These distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks made many Georgian websites inaccessible, disrupting communications. According to some reports, Russian hackers and cybercriminals assisted the Russian government in carrying out these attacks.

During the armed conflict, cyber attacks continued to target key Georgian digital infrastructure. More Georgian government websites were taken down by DDoS attacks. There were also attempts to penetrate Georgian government computer networks, potentially to access sensitive information.

Though Russia denied direct involvement in the cyber attacks, post-conflict investigations found evidence that many of the attacks originated from Russian IP addresses. Some cybersecurity experts believe the attacks were coordinated by Russian intelligence agencies and/or cybercriminal groups sympathetic to Russia.

The cyber attacks on Georgia demonstrated how cyber operations could be an integral part of modern hybrid warfare. By combining kinetic military force with disruptive cyber attacks, Russia was able to undermine Georgia on two fronts simultaneously. The cyber element enhanced the effectiveness of Russia’s overall military campaign.

While the long-term impacts of the cyber attacks were limited, they highlighted vulnerabilities that nation states need to urgently address. Protecting key digital infrastructure and assets from cyber attacks is now an important consideration for national security. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 marked one of the first instances of cyber warfare becoming part of state-on-state conflict.

Case Study: Israel vs Iran 2010

In 2010, a malicious computer worm known as Stuxnet was used to target Iran’s nuclear facilities. Stuxnet is believed to be the work of Israel, likely with support from the United States. The goal was to sabotage Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure by causing centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear plant to spin out of control and break.

Stuxnet took advantage of zero-day vulnerabilities and a sophisticated attack strategy. It spread via infected USB drives, network shares, and through four previously unknown flaws in Microsoft Windows to infiltrate computers controlling centrifuge motors. Once inside, Stuxnet periodically changed rotor speeds to induce excessive vibrations and damage equipment over time.

The Stuxnet attack impaired Iran’s nuclear program for months or potentially years. But it remained hidden until the worm escaped Natanz and started infecting computers worldwide. Stuxnet shed light on the secret cyber war between Israel and Iran amid rising tensions over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It demonstrated the ability to use cyber weapons for kinetic physical destruction of critical infrastructure.

While neither country publicly acknowledged responsibility, Stuxnet appears to be part of a covert cyber campaign by Israel and the U.S. to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. The attack crossed new thresholds and escalated an ongoing cyber conflict between the rival nations. Iran accused Israel and the West of acts of “nuclear terrorism” and vowed retaliation. Stuxnet raised concerns about the potential for cyber war to spiral out of control.

The Future of Cyber War

The future of cyber warfare between rival states remains uncertain. We have yet to see a true unrestricted cyber war campaign launched against an enemy. Hopefully this restrained trend continues into the future.

Much depends on how rival states react to actual cyber conflict initiated by their adversaries. Will retaliations spiral out of control into all-out cyber war? Or will there be a tacit understanding of limits?

No one knows the potential targets and scale of infrastructure attacks possible in an unrestrained cyberwar. Power grids, financial systems, communications networks, military defenses and more could be fair game. The lack of ethical norms and rules of engagement in cyberspace makes the damage from cyber wars unpredictable.

The predictions that states with advanced cyber capabilities will inevitably use them against rivals in times of heightened tensions has not definitively come to pass. Perhaps there are certain limits and offline consequences that deter unrestrained cyber campaigns, even between bitter rivals. Or the cyber powers of the day have not yet felt desperate or threatened enough to fully unleash their capabilities.

Either way, the future of cyber war between rivals remains ambiguous. States must strategize and prepare for the widest range of possibilities, while hoping restraint and detente prevail. The use of cyber tactics in rivalry represents a critical test of their impact on international stability in the 21st century.