CYBER STABILITY?

PS370F

PROF. BENJAMIN BARTLETT

MIAMIUNIVERSITY

WHAT IS “STABILITY”?

  1. Low probability of major conflict breaking out, or oflow-level conflict escalating.
  2. Generallynotasituationwhereeveryoneis“friendly”.“Cold” absence of conflict rather than a “warm” peace.
  3. Anything thatmakesconflict or escalation of conflictmore likely reduces stability.

WHATARESOMEFACTORSTHATCREATESTABILITY?

  1. Time to evaluate situation, consider responses.
  2. Information.
  3. Clear“redlines”.
  4. Difficultforaccidents tooccur.
  5. Obviously unacceptable costofconflict.

HOWDOTHESE FACTORS LOOK IN CYBERSPACE?

  1. Thingshappenveryfast;little time to evaluate.
  2. Hardtogatherinformationinatimelymanner.
  3. No clear “red lines” about what is acceptable or not.
  4. Accidentaleffectshappenallthetime; sometimes state-relatedactors “freelance”.
  5. Costsdonotobviouslyoutweigh benefits.

SPECIFICASPECTSOF CYBER WEAPONS THATMAKE CYBERSPACE LESS STABLE

  1. Asymmetric advantage
  2. Plausible deniability
  3. Offensive advantage
  4. Ease ofuse
  5. “Use it or lose it”

ASYMMETRIC ADVANTAGE

Claim: cyber disproportionately helps weaker states,making them more likely to start wars againstadversaries with stronger conventional capabilities.

ASYMMETRIC ADVANTAGE?

  1. We do see some evidence of this (Iran, North Korea).
  2. But, more powerful state actors still have a lot of power tobring to bear against weaker actors, both cyber andotherwise. This should dissuade weaker states.
  3. Not clear that cyber is more useful for non-state actors thanother types of asymmetric attacks.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

Claim: plausible deniability (the ability to blame anattack on others, or even pretend to be another actorwhen launching an attack) makes conflict more likely.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY?

  1. May not be as easy to get away with this as onemight think.
      • States might not be willing to take the risk.
  2. If you want to use an attack coercively, you needto claim responsibility.

OFFENSIVE ADVANTAGE

Claim: difficulty of defending against cyberattacksmake states vulnerable to surprise attacks, and sostates have an incentive to strike first, increasing theprobability of conflict.

OFFENSIVE ADVANTAGE?

Even if this is true within cyberspace, it does notsignificantly change the conventional balance ofpower.

EASE OF USE

Claim: cyber weapons are more likely to be usedthan conventional weapons because a) they arecheaper, and b) they are harder to deter. They alsoare easy to proliferate, so more states have them.

EASE OF USE?

Even if this is the case, cyber weapons may not be anappealing choice because:

  1. Hard to predict or measure success.
  2. May be unintended consequences, including self-inflicted damage.

“USE IT OR LOSE IT”

  1. For cyber, “geography” of target may shift overnight.
  2. If attack is anticipated, easy for defender to change geography tomake attack impossible.
  3. Cyber weapons are not fungible; cannot easily switch to use adifferent cyber weapon to achieve the same effect.
  4. Cyber weapons are specific; if you do not use a cyber weapon in aspecific attack, cannot simply use it on a different target.

“USE IT AND LOSE IT”

  1. Cyber weapons are information. They can be analyzed tofigure out how they work.
  2. Someone hit by a cyber weapon can alter the “geography”of their system to prevent future attacks with that weapon;can share this information with others.
  3. As a result, may only be able to use a cyber weapon once.

CONCLUSION

  1. There are a number of reasons to think that cyberspace isinherently instable; many of the features that provide stability donot exist there.
  2. Thereareargumentsthat the nature of cyber weapons alsocontributestothisinstability.
  3. However, there are also reasons to doubt each of thesearguments.