Advertisment

Is the risk of cyber warfare overstated?

author-image
DQI Bureau
New Update

The RAND Corporation in one of its papers published in the year 1993 predicted that "The Cyberwar is coming".

Advertisment

The paper defined cyber war as "conducting, and preparing to conduct, military operations according to information-related principles. It means disrupting if not destroying the information and communications systems." A more elaborate definition of cyber warfare is "actions by a nation-state or its proxies to penetrate another nation's computer or networks for the purposes of espionage, causing damage or disruption." Between 1993 and 2013 many instances have occurred that have made many policy makers and experts believe that cyber warfare is increasingly becoming a reality.

Most recently, the stuxtnet attack took the world by surprise and awe - it destroyed reportedly a tenth of the Iranian centrifuges. Many believe that the capability required to design such a ‘cyber weapon' can only be developed only by a nation state. Proponents of cyber warfare, often site scenarios such as the crippling of critical infrastructures (power grids, financial systems) to highlight the seriousness of the issue. The US Defense Secretary last year warned of a ‘cyber-pearl harbor' - "that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability." In view of these rising cyber threats, the US has gone to the extent of authorizing ordering of a ‘pre-emptive' cyber-attack and even using traditional military force. The US has also established a cyber command and many other countries are emulating US in this aspect.

Those who believe that cyber warfare is far from reality, criticize US for blowing the issue out of proportion and creating unnecessary ‘cyber arms race' in the world. They claim that no cyber-attack till date has claimed life or endangered national security and that impact of cyber-attacks as witnessed in Estonia and Georgia is short-lived - it cannot be considered as equivalent of a conventional attack which may cause violence / loss of life.

Further, the software vulnerabilities that are exploited in cyber-attacks, can be quickly fixed and defenses can be made strong to avoid similar attacks in future. Another argument against cyber warfare is that countries that have good trade relationships will not indulge in disruption or destroying of critical infrastructure at the risk of putting their mutual economic benefits in peril. However, such countries may indulge in cyber espionage, which may not be considered as an act of war.

Hostile nations, may also not indulge in such attacks, as they may invite military action from mighty countries (even though attribution remains a challenge in cyberspace).

Whether cyber warfare is a reality or hype, but it is universally recognized that the cyber capabilities will play essential role in supporting other forms of war. The use of ICT may give strategic advantage but not alone ensure victory.

The Chinese call this capability as ‘informationalization' - "weakening the information superiority of the enemy and operational effectives of enemy's computer equipment."

Advertisment