United States Policy Toward Cyber-Warfare

Cyber-war, the use of computers and the internet in conducting warfare in cyberspace, has been introduced as both an effective offense and defense towards modern warfare. Presently many countries have developed a policy towards cyber-warfare. The US, although a strong influence to the world, has yet to step up and create an effective policy towards warfare. One that should state what the military would do to respond to a cyber-attack, what defines a cyber-attack and what the government will do to take effective measures against a catastrophic attack. Along with that, what advantages does this new type of warfare have against modern warfare and is it worth the massive amounts of training and investments. Also, in what circumstances should a
cyber-attack be used?
The US should come forth with an efficient policy discussing the matter directly and including its future uses of cyber-intelligence. Presently, cyber-attacks are uncommon; however they still pose a risk in the future of war and security of a nation. Every country should take measures in ensuring they will be ready for an attack. Because of this extraordinary hazard, the US should make considerable ventures in organizing methods to secure itself and its nation against it.
Three cyber security experts say, “US policies toward defending against cyber-warfare need to take a different approach than the government has against other forms of attack.” It would be difficult for the US to have a fight in cyber-warfare as it is “difficult to identify attackers, especially when some nations appear to be sponsoring private attackers.” If the US were to follow other nations with using private assailants, other nations could possibly see this as unethical and even malicious. As a nation, the US is presented as the country some look up to. Its image has to stay clean, or it could cause uproar with other nations. One problem that not only the US but other countries face is that there is no strict definition of a cyber-attack. Martin Libicki, a senior management scientist specializing in cyber-security said, “One problem with a cyber-warfare policy is the lack of definition of what constitutes an act of cyber
war, there’s no line separating what constitutes a simple cyber-attack from cyber-war.” He also added, “with no definitions in place, it’s hard to have a public debate about what the US government’s cyber warfare policy should be.” The US, among other nations in the UN, should come together and discuss the issues faced with defining a cyber-attack and what would be an acceptable response towards an attack. “Article 51 of the UN charter states that a country has the right to engage in self-defense when it suffers an armed attack,” made effective in 1945, it did not create clear classifications to cyber-attacks. Not doing anything about the dilemma has its consequences. “In December 2008, there was a cyber-attack on a U.S. military classified computer network. The attack led the Pentagon to ban the use of external hardware devices because that was the source of the breach. Although it is not publicly known if this attack was “state sponsored,” media reports attributed the attack to either the government of China or Russia. Regardless of who perpetrated the attack, there was little that the U.S. could do to respond.” Had the US had the knowledge to investigate the attack further, it could have traced the attack and find the perpetrator.

“The U.N. should not wait for a cyber-attack of epic proportions – on par with 9/11 – to mobilize the international community,” as it is possible that an extreme cyber-attack could be more devastating than a traditional one. An attack like that could “shutdown the target’s government and ruin its economy. As a result of the interdependence of the world economy, the cascading affect would be felt worldwide.” “Warfare must be viewed in a new way because the old definitions and framework are impermissibly limited. First, we must derive a definition to determine when a cyber-attack is an act of war. Second, we need a broad definition of whom (including individuals, nations and groups) can be held accountable for such acts.” With masses at stake, it would be illogical to disregard this issue and not invest in a higher intelligence.

Modern warfare, strongly associated with guns, bombs and tanks, causes many deaths and large amounts of money put forth to succeed. Cyber-warfare can easily become the next modern warfare, causing less deaths and violence. Even though the effects of an attack could be more catastrophic than what we are currently experiencing today, the reverse effects even it out. Using this cyber-intelligence could prevent many attacks from happening, both traditional and cyber. All we need is a stronger devotion towards the subject and more focus towards a greater peace amongst the world.