网络战及国际关系概述
Chapter 1: Introduction Cyberwarfare and
International Relations Cyberwarfare is a relatively
nascent phenomenon; it is a new component of warfare
that is comparatively lacking in research and continually
increasing in significance. Its rise is both undeniable and
unavoidable: All major militaries are now developing
cyberwarfare programs. A 2012 survey of hundreds of experts
found 57% believed the world is in the midst of a cyber arms
race, and 84% saw cyberattacks as a threat to national and
international security, and to , although there is
an increasing amount of study into the nature of this
threat, researchers have mainly disregarded the impact
cyberwarfare has on international relations. As one expert put
it, the problem comes from both sides: On the one hand,
theorists of international relations have ignored the challenges
of the digital age, particularly from a security standpoint;
however, on the other hand, the literature on
cybersecurity issues also ignores the theories of
international relations and this reason, the
primary research question of this paper is the following: What
is cyberwarfare’s impact on international relations?
However, is cyberwarfare a potent enough threat to impact
international relations? One of the most important features of
cyberwarfare is its asymmetric nature, which is not only key
to its role in warfare generally but also important
from an international relations outlook. The Chinese
military, for instance, views cyberwarfare as a way of evening
the landscape in conflicts with the United States (.), and
the reason for this view is its asymmetric more
“weaker” states develop their cyberwarfare capabilities,
a question naturally rises as to its efficacy. This paper aims
to demonstrate cyberwarfare’s asymmetries make it a viable
weapon for weaker states to use against stronger adversaries
and, in consequence, cyberwarfare brings new challenges
to international relations. This paper examines
cyberwarfare’s asymmetries and organizes them into three
categories, providing a new framework for understanding
cyberwarfare’s strengths and weaknesses. The first asymmetry
category is a significant offensive advantage; that is, it is
much easier to attack than to defend. There are a number of
technical and legal reasons for this asymmetry. The second
category is cyberwarfare favors states with lower
government transparency. Unlike traditional warfare in which
types of weapons and their capabilities are mostly public
knowledge, in cyberwarfare, secrecy is key to its potency. The
last category of asymmetries is cyberwarfare favors
poorer states over wealthier adversaries: Wealthier countries
have a greater reliance on technology, which creates more cyber
vulnerabilities, and these additional vulnerabilities allow an
attacker to inflict great financial loss on the defender,
relative to the cost of the attack. Of course, it is not
necessarily the case a weaker state is more likely to attack,
has a more opaque government, and is poorer than a stronger
state, but there is often a correlation: Relative to stronger
adversaries, a weaker state might not be as concerned with the
consequences of initiating a cyberattack, they often have less
transparent governments, and they often have less money—or,
at least, have less money dedicated to the development
of technologically sophisticated infrastructure.
Definitions Cyberwarfare is often discussed in tortuous
metaphors because there is no consensus on its definition
and there are few concrete, historical examples of its use. To
illustrate this difficulty, one analysis found 28
definitions for the term term originated in
a work of science fiction and there are questions about its
merit; however, the fact is there exists no better term to
describe the , cyber is the term the
literature has adopted. In order to create an effective
analysis and not fall into a semantic quagmire, cyberspace here
is defined as the domain in which computers communicate, and
cyber- is what occurs in that domain: Cyberwarfare is
warfare in cyberspace, cyberpower is power in cyberspace, and so
on. However, greater specificity on the meaning of
certain terms will be valuable. Richard A. Clarke, a .
government security expert, defines cyberwarfare as “actions by
a nation-state to penetrate another nation’s computers or
networks for the purposes of causing damage or
disruption.”For this endeavor, his definition suffices.
The existence of differing definitions of cyberwarfare does not
preclude being able to draw from the work of different
experts in the field, as they are all discussing the
same phenomenon. Further, Joseph S. Nye, Jr., one of the
founders of the neoliberal school of international relations
theory, provides a helpful definition of cyberpower. He
writes, “Defined behaviorally, cyberpower is the ability
to obtain preferred outcomes through use of the
electronically interconnected information resources of the
cyberdomain.”Additionally, this paper frequently uses the
term cyberattack. Cyberattacks includes cyberwarfare,
cyberespionage, or any other attack committed through
cyberspace; it is not limited to any particular actor—both
states and individuals can perpetrate a cyberattack. Finally,
cybersecurity is the security of computers against cyberattacks,
whereas cyberdefense is a broader term that includes both
cybersecurity and also other aspects of defense in
cyberspace, like cyberretaliation capability and
cyberdeterrence. Chapter 2: Literature Review
Relevant Research The following chapter discusses the
literature on cyberwarefare’s asymmetries, the structure of
cyberspace as a domain of warfare, and the nature of
cyberpower. The asymmetries demonstrate the inherent
advantages in cyberwarfare’s use by weaker states in
conflicts with stronger states (here it is important to note
weak and strong refer to the relative strengths between two
states rather than an objective measurement of strength).
Additionally, an understanding of both cyberspace and
cyberpower is necessary for determining environmental
influences on cyberwarfare. As such, this chapter lays
the groundwork for the final analysis. The research format here
has several advantages over other efforts to understand
cyberwarfare. These categories of asymmetries provide a
new framework for examining the viability of cyberwarfare a
weapon; other treatments of the subject detail the different
components of these asymmetries, but this research compiles them
into a classification system that clearly connects their
benefits to weaker states. Further, other research efforts
might look at either cyberwarfare’s asymmetries, the
structure of cyberspace, or the nature of cyberpower, but
this paper connects them together in a holistic approach:
By combining the technical and political aspects of cyberwarfare
with its environmental conditions, a broader and more
substantial viewpoint emerges. Moreover, this research
directly relates these subjects to their impact on
international relations in chapter 5. The
Asymmetries in Cyberwarfare The following table summarizes
this section’s classification of cyberwarfare’s
asymmetries into categories that favor the weaker state. It is
important to note weaker states might not have the benefit
of all these asymmetries—but there is a general
correlation.
A General Overview The term asymmetry has
many uses, but at its core it connotes gaining the
advantage over an adversary by minimizing their strengths
and exploiting their D. Kramer explains
the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated the .’s unmatched
conventional warfare capabilities; consequently, .
adversaries will likely attempt to use asymmetric means in
conflicts with the ., and cyberwarfare provides one of these
. has been aware of this likelihood for a
number of years, and it is certainly reasonable for the world’s
strongest military to be concerned with asymmetric
disadvantages. The following 2001 dialogue with Defense
Intelligence Agency director Thomas R. Wilson demonstrates
an instance of this concern: Chapter 3: The Rise Of
Cyberwarfare .......... 25 The Role of Cyberwarfare’s
History ................ 25 A History of Cyberattacks
........ 25 The Development of Cyberwarfare Programs
........... 32 Cyberwarfare’s Rise and International
Security .......... 35 Chapter 4: Cyberconflict And Political
Will .............. 39 The Realities of Cyberwarfare
.............. 39 Pivotal State-Sponsored Cyberattacks
......... 39 Chapter 5: Analysis ............. 52
Analytical Process ................. 52 Cyberwarfare
as a Weapon for Weaker States .................. 52
Cyberwarfare’s Impact on International Relations
.................... 54 Chapter 5: Analysis
Analytical Process This chapter assimilates and analyzes
the information from the previous chapters in order to address
the primary research question: How does cyberwarfare
impact international relations? First, as a necessary
precursor to answering this question, the chapter demonstrates
the validity of cyberwarfare as a weapon for weaker states to
use in conflicts against stronger adversaries. The next section
then illustrates the challenges cyberwarfare brings to
international relations. It categorizes the issues this
paper previously explored and provides a framework for
understanding these challenges. The final section is a
discussion on how international relations theory might
incorporate cyberwarfare for analysis, in order to demonstrate
the theoretical compatibility between cyberwarfare and the field
of international relations. Together, these sections present a
new conceptual framework for analyzing cyberwarfare, combing the
technical, political, and environmental aspects of
cyberwarfare with international relations schools of
thought. Cyberwarfare as a Weapon for Weaker States
Beginning in the 1980s, the ubiquity of cyberspace
empowered the individual to be able to inflict an amount of
damage disproportionate to any previous time in history.
Unlike a conventional weapon, the strength of a cyberweapon
correlates to the skill of its operator. This empowerment grows
alongside the world’s increasing dependence on technology, from
critical infrastructure to military operations. It is natural,
then, groups of individuals working together would be more
powerful than individuals in cyberspace, and nations would be
the strongest of all actors. Nations have the most resources
and the largest talent pool to draw from, and they have
more time to devise and execute cyberattacks. The Gulf
War in 1991 demonstrated the . military’s immense power to
the world, and its adversaries will attempt asymmetric
means to compensate; cyberwarfare offers one of these
asymmetric means. Chapter 6: Conclusion
Summary of Findings The discussions throughout this
paper demonstrate cyberwarfare is an important factor in
international relations, and its significance continues to
grow. Due to its asymmetries, cyberwarfare is an effective
tool of warfare for weaker states to employ against stronger
adversaries; moreover, its quality of proximity irrelevance
allows any state to target any other. As a result,
cyberwarfare brings a number of unfamiliar challenges to
international relations. Further, international relations
theories are compatible with these issues cyberwarfare raises.
Regarding cyberwarfare as a viable weapon for weaker
states, it has three different groups of asymmetric
advantages: It favors the attacker over the defender, it
favors opaque governments over transparent governments,
and it favors poor states over wealthier adversaries.
These advantages typically favor a weaker state over a stronger
adversary. Additionally, the structure of cyberspace suggests
it is unlikely to change to minimize weaker states’
cyberattack capability. Further, the nature of
cyberpower suggests dominance in cyberspace is infeasible and
bans on cyberattacks are unlikely. Moreover, a state does not
have to fear major repercussions for perpetrating an attack,
either by international condemnation or cyberretaliation.
Finally, China provides a compelling example of a state
that understands and depends on cyberwarfare’s
asymmetries, and that views cyberwarfare as a weapon offering
great tactical flexibility. In summary, the evidence indicates
cyberwarfare is a viable tool of conflict for weaker states to
employ against stronger adversaries, and not just for the short
term. reference(omitted)
