drama. Drama is the touchstone of reporting. We need to look carefully at this particular stone in order to notice a real impression of virtual reality. We have to look around it until we understand what CyberWar is or how it is defined.
When we talk about cyberwarfare, excessive metaphor and metaphor is the rule, not the exception. Cyberthis, cyberthat – You may have noticed that the virtual world is inhabited by names and actions taken from the physical world, and that images of electronic hacks in the news tend to have dramatic images of physical objects rather than the electrons that make up the cyber world. Images of currencies inhabit stories of purely virtual cryptocurrency, such as BitCoin. Physical journals, where readers are actually interested in electrons and cybernetic mathematics, may be the exception to this rule.
But when we read stories about cyberwarfare, we see images of soldiers, firearms and accompanying material. When we read about people sitting on desks and computers to learn how to hack and not to hack, we call them CyberWarriors warriors and pictures of men in jackets and helmets accompanying these stories. I wonder what will accompany CyberItem with pictures of tanks and bombers.
Apart from illustrations and erotic images, what is CyberWar? In 2010, Richard Clarke, former president's special adviser on cybersecurity, defined cyberwar as "actions by a nation state to infiltrate computers or networks of another country for purposes of causing harm or disruption." The salient point is that the nation-state must be identified as the culprit. If this is true, it is clear that we have already engaged in cyber warfare that has lasted for years, with attacks to and from China, Russia, USA, Israel, Georgia, Ukraine, Korea, Syria, Iran, Estonia and others. Although countries always deny this, there have been clear indications, similar to the evidence, that these countries have placed digital attackers on networks, computers and data of each other. These networks, computers and data may be damaged.
Certainly, there have been cyber attacks on states. But is it CyberWar? Dr. Thomas Reid, a professor of security studies at King's College, says there is no cyber warfare. It tends to define cyberwar in terms of physical infrastructure disasters – scenarios where water stops "flowing, lights go out, trains go off the rails, banks lose our financial records, roads descend into chaos, elevators fail, planes fall from the sky." He says it won't happen. In fact, he has a 2013 book called "Electronic Warfare Will Not Happen".
Others are not optimistic about the subject and the possibilities. In the US, amid low government spending in most regions, the e-leadership budget is rising. It almost doubled on an annual basis: $ 118 million in 2012, $ 212 million in 2013, and $ 447 million in 2014. This buys a lot of electrons, lots of blades, and a lot of electronic warriors (jacket without jacket). These increases lead to similar inflation for electronic devices in other countries, if not.
With all the electronic tools available and those created, isn't someone tempted to use them? Is CyberWar inevitable, or is there a way out? It is a question that moralists take seriously. Many thinkers such as Patrick Lane, Fritz Alof and Neil C. Rowe have co-authored several articles, such as Is it possible to launch a just cyber war? And War 2.0: Internet weapons and ethics to explore alternatives. There are laws of war (conventional) and there must be similar guidelines for cyber conflict. Yesterday is not the time yet to begin to seriously consider these issues.
When we try to answer the phrase that is the title of this article, you must be around the map, because the definition of cyberwarfare is, like this article, throughout the map. It is actually and literally all over the world. The definition of cyberwarfare differs from country to country and from organization to organization. An article titled (Full Metaphors Flying), The Wild West of Cyberwarfare, attempts to seriously point to such different ideas on the subject, despite its title. Its discussion is useful, but its conclusion is not necessarily amorphous.
The 302-page Tallinn Guide is the result of a three-year study by experts on the subject that attempts to establish such definitions. It can be read for free. But the conclusions reached here are not adhered to by all potential parties to cyber conflict.
Well, what is the best answer we can give to CyberWar in the world? Cyber attacks are widespread throughout the world. They are implemented by multi-state actors and by stateless. They are carried out by government actors that blame other states and stateless actors who claim to have no control or input, but are nonetheless politically defiant. They are implemented by hackers, who seek political change by disabling or distorting sites, networks and information. It is implemented by those who have a pure profit motive. They are carried out by wells who find joy in simple chaos.
All of these attacks are on the increase, although the vast majority are still relatively uncomplicated actions such as distributed denial of service (DDoS). However, there is little evidence that much in the way of physical infrastructure is affected. There is little evidence that people are physically abused by these attacks. It is not known whether these events will actually end.
Dr. Reid says they won't win. Drs. Lynn, Hoff and Roo point to the way to avoid such damage. Richard Clark and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta say it is inevitable and we must prepare – in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Albert Einstein famously said: "You can not prevent war and prepare for it simultaneously." Let's hope that in the case of cyber war, it was incorrect.