WOULD STATES CHOOSE“CYBERWAR”?

POLITICS OF CYBERSECURITY

PROF. BENJAMIN BARTLETT

MIAMI UNIVERSITY

GARTZKE’S ARGUMENT

• We will not see “cyberwar” not because states are incapable of launchingdevastating cyber attacks, but because cyber capabilities are incapable ofserving the purposes of conventional warfare.
• In other words: we will not see cyberwar not because it is impossible, butbecause it is not useful.

THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT

• Whether or not “cyberwar” can happen is the wrong question.
• Therightquestion is whether or not cyber conflict might someday replaceconventional warfare.
• In order to answer the question of whether states would use cyber conflictinstead of conventional war, we have to ask two questions:
• What is conventional war used for?
• Can cyber conflict achieve the same things?

WHAT IS CONVENTIONAL WAR USED FOR?

1. Compellence.
• Can indirectly affect the state of the world by harming an enemy to make it dosomething that it would not do otherwise, or by discouraging change by raising the priceof aggression.
2. Conquest.
• Can directly impose one’s will by capturing and controlling inhabitants or resourcescontained in a given physical space.
• Short of robots, obviously cannot do this via cyber means, so we’ll focus on the first one.

TWO WAYS TO COMPEL

1. Degrade target’s capabilities so they know they will be in a worse positiongoing forward---they are more likely to submit.
• This is the type ofcompellencethat happens during war.
2. Threaten to cause harm unless the target takes the desired action.
• Usually this just involves thethreatof war, unless the target does not comply.

FEATURES OF CYBERWARFARE

1. Much of the damage caused by cyberwar would likely be temporary.
• Harm only matters in terms of political outcomes when it alters the subsequence balanceof power or indicates new enemy capabilities; difficult for cyber alone to pull this off.
2. Credibly threatening a specific cyber operation makes that operation easierto defend against.
• Need to demonstrate that you have the capabilities, which gives the target information itcan use to defend itself.

CAN CYBER COMPEL VIA HARM?

• Damage caused by cyber means is largely temporary, meaning it does notdegrade the target’s capabilities over the long-term.
• Thus, there is little reason for the target to submit to any demands, since itsfuture capabilities are largely unchanged.

CAN CYBER COMPEL VIA THREAT?

• Credibly threatening a cyber attack makes it easier to defend against thatcyber attack.
• Thus, in order to be effective, cyber attacks should besecret.
• But, if they are secret, they cannot be used as threats.
• So, cyber means are not good forcompellencevia threat either.

WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?

• We are unlikely to see “cyberwar”.
• This is not because states are not capable of launching major cyber attacksthat we might recognize as “cyberwar”, but because doing so would notachieve their objectives (compellenceor conquest) so there is no point.
• Important caveat: cyber capabilitiescanbe used effectively in combinationwith traditional military capabilities.
• So, they may alter the way wars are fought, but they will not replace war.

DEBATE

Claim: The creation of cyberspace and the resultant cyber capabilities havefundamentally altered the nature of warfare.

RULES

• 4 groups: pro, neg, pro-rebuttal, neg-rebuttal
• Each group has one spokesperson, who gives a ~3 minute statement.
• If there is extra time, we will have more of a back-and-forth questioning anddiscussion.

DEBATE

Claim: The creation of cyberspace and the resultant cyber capabilities havefundamentally altered the nature of warfare.