FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Cyberspace: The New Field for War in the XXI Century

The use of cyberspace as a tool of war has changed the nature of conventional warfare. This not only poses problems in terms of how to respond to those threats but also how to develop agreements among countries to curtail its use.
Richard A. Clarke, former counterterrorism adviser on the National Security Council defined “cyberwarfare” in his book Cyber War as “actions by a nation state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purpose of causing damage or disruption.”

The Lipman Report, which offers insights from private sources on national security risks, warns that several sectors of the U.S. economy are seriously endangered, including cyber threats to public and private facilities, banking and finance, education and government, and other sectors which depend on computers for daily operations.

“The United States is ill-prepared to defend itself from cyber espionage when its adversary is determined, centrally coordinated, and technically sophisticated, as is China’s government,” stated a U.S. Congressional advisory body in November 2015.

Cyber attacks can wreck havoc in a country’s defense system and on its economy. One of the best known incidents was perhaps the one caused on Iran’s centrifuges by the Stuxnet worm in its Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, which probably delayed its nuclear development activities by several months. Many consider this worm the most advanced piece of its kind, one that significantly increases the profile of cyberwarfare.

“We have entered into a new face of conflict in which we use a cyberweapon to create physical destruction, and in this case, physical destruction in someone else’s critical infrastructure,” declared Ret. Gen. Michael Hayden to the CBS’s 60 minutes. Hayden, who served as CIA director under President George W. Bush, acknowledges that he knows more about the attack on Iran than he is willing to discuss publicly.

There are also potential problems with this kind of warfare, however. Malware modeled after Stuxnet could also be used to target critical infrastructure in the U.S. such as electrical power grids and water-treatment plants, in addition to Department of Defense facilities and banks. All these actions could adversely affect security installations and cause enormous economic damages.

According to Defense officials, Pentagon computers are targeted about 5,000 times per day. Although so far the extent of the damage has been controlled, there are no assurances that in the future this kind of activity may not cause significant and long-lasting effects. In a public notice, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has alerted that the U.S. electrical grid is exposed to cyberattacks, which could cause enormous damage.

In this regard, Richard A. Clarke stated to National Public Radio (NPR), “We’re probably doing things on lot of networks around the world to get ready for cyberwar, and yet we don’t have a military strategy that has been shared with the Congress or the public. And I suspect we don’t really have a military strategy at all.” And he added, “We have extremely good cyber-offensive capabilities – and almost nothing in the way of cyberdefense.”

Because the U.S. has proved unable to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks, a U.S. Congressional group has suggested that U.S.-based companies “hack back” to recover stolen data, making these attacks more costly to carry out. U.S. laws don’t allow corporations or private citizens to carry out retaliatory cyberattacks.

China, along with Russia, Iran and North Korea have reportedly developed plans to disrupt the critical infrastructure of electrical grids, water purification plants, air traffic control units, subways systems and telecommunications.
The real dilemma is how to reach international agreements to limit military attacks in cyberspace. A Ukrainian professor of international law, Alexander Merezhko, has developed a project, the International Convention on Prohibition of Cyberwar in Internet, and an American General, Keith B. Alexander believes that talks should be carried out between the U.S. and Russia on ways to avoid military attacks in cyberspace.

In September 2015, President Barak Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping, agreed that neither country would carry out cybertheft of intellectual property for commercial gains. They also agreed to work together with other countries to establish international rules for conduct in cyberspace. Unless agreements among the leading world powers are reached soon, the consequences on international commerce and world peace will be devastating.

More articles by:

Dr. Cesar Chelala is a co-winner of the 1979 Overseas Press Club of America award for the article “Missing or Disappeared in Argentina: The Desperate Search for Thousands of Abducted Victims.”

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
December 06, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Eat an Impeachment
Matthew Hoh
Authorizations for Madness; The Effects and Consequences of Congress’ Endless Permissions for War
Jefferson Morley
Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn’t a ‘Managed Massacre’
Andrew Levine
Whatever Happened to the Obama Coalition?
Paul Street
The Dismal Dollar Dems and the Subversion of Democracy
Dave Lindorff
Conviction and Removal Aren’t the Issue; It’s Impeachment of Trump That is Essential
Ron Jacobs
Law Seminar in the Hearing Room: Impeachment Day Six
Linda Pentz Gunter
Why Do We Punish the Peacemakers?
Louis Proyect
Michael Bloomberg and Me
Robert Hunziker
Permafrost Hits a Grim Threshold
Joseph Natoli
What We Must Do
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Global Poison Spring
Robert Fantina
Is Kashmir India’s Palestine?
Charles McKelvey
A Theory of Truth From the South
Walden Bello
How the Battle of Seattle Made the Truth About Globalization True
Evan Jones
BNP Before a French Court
Norman Solomon
Kerry’s Endorsement of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters of the Iraq War
Torsten Bewernitz – Gabriel Kuhn
Syndicalism for the Twenty-First Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: From Banja Luka to Sarajevo
Thomas Knapp
NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog. Euthanize It.
Forrest Hylton
Bolivia’s Coup Government: a Far-Right Horror Show
M. G. Piety
A Lesson From the Danes on Immigration
Ellen Isaacs
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Monika Zgustova
Chernobyl, Lies and Messianism in Russia
Manuel García, Jr.
From Caesar’s Last Breath to Ours
Binoy Kampmark
Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble
Jill Richardson
Marijuana and the Myth of the “Gateway Drug”
Muzamil Bhat
Srinagar’s Shikaras: Still Waters Run Deep Losses
Gaither Stewart
War and Betrayal: Change and Transformation
Farzana Versey
What Religion is Your Nationalism?
Clark T. Scott
The Focus on Trump Reveals the Democrat Model
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Do Bernie’s Supporters Know What “Not Me, Us” Means? Does Bernie?
Peter Harley
Aldo Leopold, Revisited
Winslow Myers
A Presidential Speech the World Needs to Hear
Christopher Brauchli
The Chosen One
Jim Britell
Misconceptions About Lobbying Representatives and Agencies
Ted Rall
Trump Gets Away with Stuff Because He Does
Mel Gurtov
Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and the Insecurity of China’s Leadership
Nicky Reid
Dennis Kucinich, Tulsi Gabbard and the Slow Death of the Democratic Delusion
Tom H. Hastings
Cross-Generational Power to Change
John Kendall Hawkins
1619: The Mighty Whitey Arrives
Julian Rose
Why I Don’t Have a Mobile Phone
Elliot Sperber
Class War is Chemical War
December 05, 2019
Colin Todhunter
Don’t Look, Don’t See: Time for Honest Media Reporting on Impacts of Pesticides
Nick Pemberton
Gen Z and Free Speech
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail