Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Carl von Clausewitz in his essay Principles of War
Clausewitz: the nature of war
War definitionessay thesis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Carl von Clausewitz in his essay Principles of War
In the article, Thomas Rid’s main argument other than the contention that cyber war will not happen is that cyber war is completely misplaced if not entirely misunderstood. He argues that the concept of cyber war is not in tandem with the historical definition and understanding of what constitutes ‘’war’’. Rid’s definition of war, borrowed from Carl von Clausewitz, is that war must constitute three elements: violence, instrumental and political. (Rid, Cyber War Will Not Take Place, 2012) Therefore, his main argument against the possibility for cyber war is premised on the idea that cyber war can never have or express the above three elements. He further argues that at best, cyber war can achieve some of the above criteria such as violence but only through intermediaries; however, he does not see how cyber war can meet all the three criteria.
To provide evidence for his argument, Rid first establishes the meaning of war based on history after which he thoroughly examines contemporary events that have been largely referred to as embodiments of cyber warfare. For example, he cites the cases of Georgia, Estonia and Siberian pipeline explosions as incidences that have been considered cyber war. (Rid, Cyber War Will Not Take Place, 2012) However, he goes on to analyze each case as to whether they embody any of the three elements that define war. For instance, in the case of Georgia he argues that despite the war rhetoric by the international press, there was no actual violence that could be directly linked to the cyber-attack itself. In addition, there was not political attribution as no one accepted responsibility and no one was conclusively adjudged responsible. (Rid, Cyber War Will Not Take Place, 2012) He therefore concludes that ...
... middle of paper ...
...nfluence while for Israel it would be to ensure their internal security. As the Chinese economy attempts to catch up with the US economy, they are under increasing pressure to bolster the technological capability of Chinese enterprises resulting in increased espionage activities. On the other hand, the US attempts to sustain its economic and military power and espionage will play a critical role. The U.S. has virtually limitless resources in advancing their cyber capabilities, both to protect economic interests and domestic security. In the case of Israel, their geopolitical positions necessitated the need to use any means possible to ensure their national security and espionage and sabotage will continue to play a critical role in threat. Israel’s cyber capability has been refined to become one of the most effective counter-intelligence programs in the world.
The pros of electronic surveillance are extensive. The ability for agents of the United States Intelligence Community (IC) to intercept and process communications and information from foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, international terrorist organizations, and others who seek to engage in activities with such groups, provides the ...
According to a recent article by Scott Shane, “The U.S. is pushing to make sure that cyber programs comply with international law and international standards.” This quote shows that the government wants to make sure that cyber programs protect the citizens to the same degree as other international laws. The government wants cyber programs to have the same standards as international law and international standards to give citizens the sense of security that they are being protected. According to a recent article by David Francis “...Congress retroactively immunized the nation’s telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein’s claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court.” This quote means that telecom giants such as Verizon and AT&T participated in Domestic Surveillance in order to help protect citizens. Telecom giants play a role in giving US citizens a sense of security by helping the National Security Agency. Others may believe that the tracking of our phone calls does not give US citizens a sense of security; however, according to a recent article by Marshall Honorof, “Counterterrorism is not the only function of the NSA's widespread surveillance. Although it cannot report exact numbers, Lewis theorizes that the data-mining has allowed the NSA to put a stop to a number of international espionage plots.”
At this juncture, it may be somewhat difficult to accept the proposition that a threat to the telecommunications grid, both wired and wireless, in the United States could potentially be subject to a catastrophic cyber attack. After careful research on the subject, it appears the potentiality of an event of such magnitude, which either disrupts one or the other grids for a long period or destroys either, is both theoretically and realistically impossible. It may be that proponents—those who advance such theories—equate such “doomsday” scenarios as if a cyber attack would or could be of the same magnitude as a conventional or nuclear military strike. Terms such as “cyber Pearl Harbor,” “cyber 9/11” and “cyber Vietnam” have been used to describes potential catastrophic cyber attacks and yet, “Though many have posited notions on what a ‘real’ cyber war would be like, we lack the understanding of how such conflicts will be conducted and evolve.” (Rattray & Healey, 2010, p. 77). Yet, the U.S. government continues to focus on such events, as if the plausibility of small-scale cyber attacks were not as pressing.
Although an act of cyberterrorism has yet to occur, officials and scholars continuously study the possibilities of such an attack. As our physical and virtual worlds continue to intertwine the risk of such an event rapidly increases. Everything from our transportation systems to pharmaceutical manufacturing are computer controlled. The closest the world has come to an act of cyberterrorism was in 2000. Known as the Maroochy Shire case in Queensland, Australia was committed by Vitek Boden. Boden was an engineer for Pacific Paradise, a sewage pumping in Australia. He was able to successful hack into a control system modifying the operations and dumping millions of litres of raw sewage into the local waterways. Boden’s motivation was the only reason the act was not classified as cyberterrorism was his motivation. It was personal rather than political or religious in nature (Sharp Parker, 2009). The only reason this wasn’t the first act of cyberterrorism was motivation. As companies invest in upgrading their technological capabilities, they too need to invest in security structure to protect their systems and the public from threats of terrorism. Our government must also decide how to address public safety in regards to cyberterrorism. On September 11th, 2001 America was reminded how vulnerable we are when it comes to acts of terrorism. The sheer complexity and varying design of attacks often makes it very difficult to create a catch-all defense in fighting terrorism. To improve the disruption of terrorist activities by government agencies in the United States many laws needed to be updated to include the latest areas of electronic communications.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
In this book Sterling discusses three cyberspace subcultures known as the hacker underworld, the realm of the cyber cops, and the idealistic culture for the cyber civil libertarians. At the beginning of the story Sterling starts out with discussing the birth of cyberspace and how it came about. The Hacker Crackdown informs the readers of the issues surrounding computer crime and the people on all sides of those problems. Sterling gives a brief summary of what cyberspace meant back then and how it impacted society, and he investigates the past, present and future of computer crimes. For instance he explains how the invention of the telephone led to a world that people were scared of because the telephone was something that was able to let people talk to one another without actually being in the same area. People thought that it was so strange and so different because they didn’t understand all of the information behind it. Back then people thought of the telephone as a tool that allowed others to talk to them in a way that was so personal yet impersonal. Sterling then goes on to explain how “phone phreaks” played such an important part in relating the telephones to computer crimes and how they were so closely related back then.
The term “cyber terrorism” refers to the use of the Internet as a medium in which an attack can be launched such as hacking into electrical grids, security systems, and vital information networks. Over the past four decades, cyber terrorists have been using the Internet as an advanced communication tool in which to quickly spread and organize their members and resources. For instance, by using the instantaneous spread of information provided by the Internet, several terrorist’s groups have been able to quickly share information, coordinate attacks, spread propaganda, raise funds, and find new recruits for their cause. Instantaneous and unpredictable, the technological advantages these terrorists have obtained from using the Internet includes
The hackers, if they are successful, can gain information on developments in firepower and even worse the nuclear bomb codes. So cyber security is crucial for the government to keep their sensitive information safe. This was shown when a Chinese hacker hacked government email accounts with a form of phishing. Phishing is the attempt to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details often for malicious reasons, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication (Wikipedia). This led to government officials shutting down most alerts on employee accounts to prevent this form of hacking. Phishing is often present in emails mostly. Such as if someone was to receive an email from their boss on an important task the hacker could have hidden malware in the email. Then even though they opened what appeared to be an informational email from their boss they let a hacker into their computers and they will be able to access anything on your computer they have the skills to
Cyber Security as an International Security Threat National and International Security is a sum of the actions taken by countries and other organizations that can guarantee the safety and well being of their population. It is vital for a nation to pre-emptively discover what issues could affect their security, and take action to prevent any detrimental or harmful events from happening. With the development of technology and the transition into a more technologically savvy society, cyber security has become one of the most prevalent and important economic and national security issues that the United States will come to face. United States President Barack Obama has identified cyber security as a key issue the nation will face. President Obama declared that the “cyber threat is one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation” and that “America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cyber security (“Foreign Policy Cyber Security,” 2013).”
The nation has become dependent on technology, furthermore, cyberspace. It’s encompassed in everything we deliver in our daily lives, our phones, internet, communication, purchases, entertainment, flying airplane, launching missiles, operating nuclear plants, and implicitly, our protection. The more ever-growing technology empower Americans, the more they become prey to cyber threats. The United States Executive Office of the President stated, “The President identified cybersecurity as one of the top priorities of his administration in doing so, directed a 60-day review to assess polices.” (United States Executive Office of the President, 2009, p.2). Furthermore, critical infrastructure, our network, and internet alike are identified as national assets upon which the administration will orchestrate integrated cybersecurity policies without infringing upon and protecting privacy. While protecting our infrastructure, personal privacy, and civil liberties, we have to keep in mind the private sector owns and operates the majority of our critical and digital infrastructure.
Many countries have already embraced the power of cyber space. “In Japan, a new strategy has been put forward that includes the use of cyber space in defense policy and military doctrine” (Olender 1). The strange thing about cyber warfare is that the larger and more advanced countries are the countries that are most at risk. Those countries, such as the United States, have become so dependent on technology that if they were attacked, they would have the most to lose. Works Cited Crowther, G. Alexander, and Shaheen Ghori.
There poses a great conflict between the cyber security and human rights hence my sub topic will aim to argue that whether the right to protection from cybersecurity should be guaranteed to every individual as a human right under The Universal Declaration of Human Rights or not. I will put forward the arguments and show that how various features of internet can be use both positively and negatively. In this paper I will put forward the key tensions or problem between human rights of the people and the cyber security implemented by the states. Basically, this paper will explore three key tensions between the two and also show how these both can go parallel with each other. In today’s time there are several challenges that states face due to internet. Arguably, it is a challenge to state sovereignty and governmental legitimacy. It is becoming highly difficult for the governments around the globe to control, regulate the internet. Moreover, the flow of information is so large that it is difficult for the states to protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms as due to the massive flow of the data through internet it becomes difficult to uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms together at the same time as both in many ways clash with each other so there poses a great conflict between the cyber security and human rights.
It is difficult to define cyberculture because its boundaries are uncertain and applications to certain circumstances can often be disputed. The common threads of defining cyberculture is a culture which has evolved and continues to evolve from the use of computer networks and the internet and is guided by social and cultural movements reflective of advancements in scientific and technological information. It is not a unified culture but rather a culture that exists in cyberspace and is a compilation of numerous new technologies and capabilities, used by diverse people in diverse real – world locations. Cyberculture, a twentieth century phenomenon, has brought challenges unlike any other that the United States has seen in the areas of cyber security and its impact on our most critical institutions. This presentation will focus on the aforementioned three entities where national security is in jeopardy, in part due to cyberculture and its intentional use for disruptive and destructive purposes.
In just three decades cyber security has risen to the forefront of discussion due to its use as an informational substrate that fosters industrial and economic growth. However, in this short amount of time is has also became a predominate domain of conflict to the United States government. Cyber space is notably worrisome because it withholds the ability to obscure identity because it lacks physical existence and instead is composed of software architecture. Furthermore, it increases the volume and range of immediate communicatory abilities to both individuals and other actors. The cyber realm creates a great paradox, as the level of interconnectedness facilitates commercial opportunities, as well as a strong civil society. However, as our society progresses into a predominantly technological realm, scientists must adapt to all dimensions of connectivity, which involves many channels for new threats. Cyber opportunities creates potential for strategic cyber war actions which are arguable very difficult to defend and deter. Cyber war represents both inter-state, and terrorism tactics. Throughout this paper I will outline in what ways policy makers use analogical reasoning and metaphors in order to create public policy regarding the complexities of cyber security. Furthermore, I will define the predominant analogies used, while explaining their strengths, failures, and vitality. The protection, and availability of cyber networks is a rather new political realm which can be understood better by linking the unknown to elements such as war, public health and possession. In what ways are policy makers using analogical reasoning and metaphors in order to create public policy regarding the complexities of cyber security?