Cyber-Attacks: The Most Significant Threats To The United States

By using the term ill prepared, I aim to convey that the United States is not equipped with enough protection to prevent every possible instance of the threat of cyberwarfare from occurring. I propose we are not where our nation should be in terms of dealing with all actual occurrences of the threat of cyberwarfare, were it to be fully realized. This can be carried over into our response capability to any such attack, which may manifest in many forms. For example, our response against perpetrators and those who aid or comfort

Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015) outline possible examples of cyber warfare between Canada and China (p. 844). According to Pfleeger, S. Pfleeger, and Margulies (2015), “the Canadian government revealed that several of its national departments had been victims of a cyber attack…” (p. 844). Eventually, the attack was unofficially traced to a computer in China (p. 844). Cyber warfare can be used negatively and positively. It is evident that China was seeking to gain protected information form Canada. Although a purpose of cyber warfare, it is not a conventional way of obtaining information. Additionally, cyber warfare can be used to collect intelligence on an enemy. Anyone seeking to gather intelligence on another individual or group can launch a cyber attack that gains access to protected files. This could be used to help future militant operations or expose critical information. Lastly, cyber warfare can be used to test systems internally. Acting with no malicious intent, “insiders” can utilizing cyber warfare tactics to attack their own cyber security barriers in order to test the strength of their systems. Seeking to expose the vulnerabilities in a system that contains important assets without actually harming the assets provides the system a diagnosis of what needs to be strengths and fixed. Identifying the problem or threats before an actual attack can ultimately save the protected

Adam Segal’s “The Hacked World Order” reveals many prevalent issues in today’s technologically centered society. Starting at Year Zero, June 2012 to June 2013, the battle over cyberspace witnessed world-changing cyberattacks. This was accomplished due to the fact that nearly 75% of the world’s population has easy access to a mobile phone, and the Internet connects nearly 40% of the total human population, which is nearly 2.7 billion people. With that being said, cyberattacks are becoming a more realistic form of terror.

Most ISIS practice customs from the 7th century, but the methods they use to fight a war are 21st century techniques. ISIS have an advanced computer network that uses social media to attract terrorists worldwide to help them attack countries like the United States. Many countries have been victims of cyber attacks but may not realize it until long after the security breach occurred.

Advances in cyber technology alone would seem like witchcraft. In the twenty-first century, violence remains the simplest understanding of “force”, but “force” can also take an extended meaning to include the effects of non-lethal and less violent tools. Even Clausewitz understood that “warfare eludes the strict theoretical requirement that extremes of force be

John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt published a paper in 1993 declaring that “Cyberwar is coming!” (Rid, 2016, p1) Rid says, “Since then, it seems to have arrived—at least by the account of the U.S. military establishment, which is busy competing over who should get what share of the fight.” (Rid, 2016, p.1) Fueling his argument Rid defines an act of war by stating “it has to be potentially violent, it has to be purposeful, and it has to be political.” (Rid, 2016, p.1) Furthermore, he says “There is no known cyberattack that has caused the loss of human life. No cyber offense has ever injured a person or damaged a building. And if an act is not at least potentially violent, it 's not an act of war. Separating war from physical violence makes it a metaphorical notion; it would mean that there is no way to distinguish between World War II, say, and the "wars" on obesity and cancer” (Rid, 2016, p.1) Rid reinforces his argument by presenting evidence such as analogies of past cyber-attacks and acts of war. He recounts cyberattacks on Estonia in April

cyber policy has embraced this idea. “The Plan declared that in order for it to succeed, government and the private sector must work together in a partnership. However since the regulation has been in place it has failed to provide the security necessary to protect U.S. critical infrastructure from a cyber attack. Even Congress has been slow to act regarding almost all aspects of cyber policy (Wolf, J. 12 July, 2012).” One of the problems facing a comprehensive cyber security bill is that computers have become so omnipresent in our daily lives that they cross every sector of the economy. It is not surprising that application of the laws of war to cyber attacks has recently been a popular topic in politics. Some have even analyzed whether a cyber attack can constitute an armed attack, it can but, whether a cyber attack with a specified effect constitutes a use of force. An example, if the U.S. could prove that Iran absolute sent a computer virus that infected a Wall Street, would dropping a bomb on Iran be justify? A responsible nation must always consider the possibilities of collateral damage in deciding whether an act of self defense is justified, be it cyber or kinetic. While the United States must undoubtedly increase its cyber defense capabilities, the nation cannot retreat behind a Line of firewalls. As in the fight against terrorism, the United States must be vigilant and aggressive in the face of both cyber attacks and

For thousands of years warfare remained relatively unchanged. While the tactics and weapons have changed as new methods of combat evolved, men and women or their weapons still had to meet at the same time and place in order to attack, defend, surrender or conquer. However, the advent of the of the internet has created a new realm of combat in which armies can remotely conduct surveillance, reconnaissance, espionage, and attacks from an ambiguous and space-less digital environment. Both state and non-state actors have already embraced this new realm and utilized both legal and illegal means to further facilitate their interests. What complicates cyber security further is as states attempt to protect themselves from cyber-warfare, private

Cyber warfare is a battle without causalities, a war waged only by written words, fought digitally by those who are bent at disrupting the infrastructure of a nation built on sweat, labor and concrete. Digital battles that are being fought not for money, not for a simple website defacement proclaiming you are the most ‘l33t hax0r on the interwebs’. One of the most major, yet under reported example of this; a lowly worm named Stuxnet. A worm, by the most mundane of definitions, is a self-replicating program, usually malicious, and whose

Richard A. Clark, an expert in security sector governance in his book Cyber War (May 2010), defines Cyber War as an act of penetration of a country against other computer network with the intent of causing damage and disruption. The Economist magazine explained that cyber war is the fifth domain of warfare, after land, sea, air and space. Cyber warfare, (also known as cyber war and Cyber warfare), is a war with the use of computer networks and the Internet in cyberspace (cyber space) in the form of defense and attack information. Cyber warfare is also known as cyber warfare refers to the use of the World Wide Web and computer to conduct warfare in cyberspace. Although sometimes relatively minimal and lightweight, so far cyber warfare could potentially cause a serious loss of data and information systems, military activity and other service disruptions, cyber warfare means can pose as disaster risk worldwide.

The most important thing that needs to be done before taking the debate on the status of cyber attacks under international laws of war any forward is to specifically define a “cyber attack”. Scholars generally use the terms such as “information warfare”, “cyber warfare”, “cyber threats”, “computer network attacks”, etc as alternatives for “cyber attacks” without a reference to any particular definition or limitation of scope. Perhaps this is done on a supposition that a standard definition of this term is already prevalent. This unfortunately is not true. Speaking specifically about the literature on cyber attacks, the term is comprehended primarily in two ways: while some talk about technology and computer networks as instruments of the attack, others use computers and information & technology networks as the objects of the attack.

Somewhat echoing president Obama’s concerns. (Cyberwar: The Challenge to National Security Nathalie Caplan 2013, Volume 4)

In reality, attacks in cyber-space happen all the time. Over 20 million cyber-attacks happened within Utah in 2013 each day, and this was from Utah’s government websites, not including businesses. (“Fortis Blog”) Just imagine the various ways one could hack a website. Someone can even look up how to do it nowadays, and with at least half of the population in the U.S. using a computer, there are an untold number of people who use hack from inside the country. There are also those who hack from outside the country, and that is at least enough to accumulate up to 20 million attacks a day. Unfortunately, there are fewer ways to secure ourselves from these attacks, but

If this is true, the way in which states see the use of power in the form of information or attacks on a state’s informational structure such as a cyber-attack is crucial to the thinking and reaction of a state. Moreover, the frequency by which states experience more cyber-attacks than another will influence the thinking of the state. If a state sees a threat, like cyber-attacks, it is going to act accordingly. Different frequencies of cyber-attacks for different states will provoke different reactions to this threat within the international system. Unlike traditional, physical attacks against a state which are tangible, cyber-attacks are a new medium of state warfare. Valeriano and Manses explain that countries are considering cyber-attacks as acts of war. Determining why a state experiences more cyber-attacks than another state is important because they can theoretically have the same repercussions as conventional warfare but not necessarily be considered legally as an act of war.

Clausewitz states that “War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.” Others may take war to mean it is necessary for physical violence between two people in order to fall into traditional classification of war. Webster’s defines war as “open armed conflict as between nations; any active hostile activity or struggle; or military operations as a science.” Noting the depths of discussion from Clausewitz to modern theorists, plus the various dictionary terms, there is clear evidence that cyber war can be very real and very possible activity in this day and age.