Drama. Drama is the cornerstone of reporting. We need to take a good look around that particular stone to capture the real impression of the virtual. We need to look around and understand what CyberWar is or how it is defined.
When it comes to cybernate, hyperbole and metaphor are the rule, not the exception. Cyberthis, cyberhat – you may have noticed that the virtual world is populated by nouns and verbs taken from the material world, and that cyberthings in news stories have dramatic images of physical things, not the electrons that make up the cyberworld. Images of coins populate stories of purely virtual cryptocurrency, such as BitCoin. An exception to this rule may be the journals of Physics, where readers are actually interested in electrons and mathematics since cyberrealm.
But when we read cyberwart stories, we see images of soldiers, firearms, and materials accompanying the story. When we read people sitting at desks and computers to figure out how to hack rather than be hacked, we call them CyberWarriors and the pictures of men in jackets and helmets that accompany those stories. I wonder what the images of tanks and bombers will follow with CyberItem.
Aside from the dramatic illustrations and photos, what is CyberWar? In 2010, Richard Clarke, a former special adviser to the President on cyber security, defined cyber warfare as "actions by a nation-state to break into computers or networks of another nation for the purpose of causing harm or disruption." The fact that the nation-state has to identify itself as a delinquent is highlighted. If this is true, we have obviously already been involved in long-standing cyberwars, with attacks from and to / from China, Russia, the US, Israel, Georgia, Ukraine, Korea, Syria, Iran, Estonia and others. And although states always deny it, there were clear indicators, which is proof that these countries have set their digital attackers on each other's networks, computers and data. Damage to these networks, computers, and data has occurred.
So, surely there were attacks on states and on states. But is it CyberWar? Dr. Thomas Reid, a professor of security studies at King's College, says there is no Cyberwar. It tends to define cyberwarts in terms of physical infrastructure catastrophes – scenarios where water stops "flowing, lights go off, trains go off, banks lose financial records, roads descend into chaos, elevators collapse and planes fall from the sky." And he says that's not going to happen. In fact, he has a 2013 book called, "The Cyber War Won't Take place."
Others are not so sanguine about the subject and the possibilities. In the United States, amid a fall in government spending in most places, the budget for cyber command is growing. It has almost doubled in one year: $ 118 million in 2012, $ 212 million in 2013 and $ 447 million in 2014. It buys a lot of electrons, a lot of code and a lot of cyberwarriors (sans flak jackets). . These increases lead to similar, though not dramatic, cyber budget inflation in other countries.
With all the cybertools on hand and the ones being created, will anyone be tempted to use them? Is CyberWar inevitable or is there a way out? This is an issue that is taken seriously by ethicists. Great thinkers like Patrick Lin, Fritz Alhoff, and Neil C. Rowe have written several articles, such as "Is It Right to Have a Just Cyber War?" and War 2.0: Cyberweapons and Ethics to explore alternatives. There are (conventional) war laws and there must be similar guidelines for cyber-conflict. It is not too early yesterday for us to begin to take these issues seriously.
When we try to answer the phrase that is the title of this article, it must be read across the map, because a definition of cyberwars like this article is a whole map. This is actually literally all over the world. The definition of cyber war varies from country to country and from organization to organization. Entitled (Flying full of metaphors), The Wild West of Cyber Warfare is trying to seriously flag such diverse ideas on the subject, regardless of their title. His discussion is useful, but its conclusion is necessarily amorphous.
The 302-page Tallinn Handbook is the result of three years of research by experts on the subject trying to set such definitions. It can be read for free. However, not all of the potential parties to cyber conflict adhere to the conclusions reached here.
So what is the best answer we can give to the state of CyberWar in the world? Cyber attacks are full worldwide. They are conducted by multiple state actors and stateless ones. They are transmitted by state actors who shift blame to other states and stateless actors over whom they claim to have no control or contribution, but who are nevertheless politically aligned. They are conducted by hacktivists, who seek political change by disabling or defrauding websites, networks and information. They are conveyed by those with a net profit motive. And they are pursued by no-er-do-wells who just find joy in minor injuries.
All such attacks are increasing, although the vast majority remain relatively unconfirmed acts such as Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS). However, there is little evidence that physical infrastructure is much affected. There is little evidence that these physical injuries are such attacks. It is unknown whether such events will actually happen.
Dr. Reed says they won. Drs Lin, Alhoff and Rowe point to ways to avoid such damage. Richard Clarke and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta say this is inevitable and we need to prepare ourselves – to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Albert Einstein famously said, "You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time." Let's hope it was incorrect in the case of cyber war.