网络战及国际关系概述
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Cyberwarfare and International Relations
Cyberwarfare is a relatively nascent phenomenon; it is a new ponent of warfare that is paratively lacing in research and continually increasing in significance. Its rise is both undeniable and unavoidable: All major militaries are now developing cyberwarfare programs. A 2021 survey of hundreds of experts found 57% believed the world is in the midst of a cyber arms race, and 84% saw cyberattacs as a threat to national and international security, and to trade.However, 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 es 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 security.For this reason, the primary research question of this paper is the following: What is cyberwarfares impact on international relations?
However, is cyberwarfare a potent enough threat to impact international relationsOne of the most important features of cyberwarfare is its asymmetric nature, which is not only ey to its role in warfare generally but also important from an international relations outloo. The Chinese military, for instance, views cyberwarfare as a way of evening the landscape in conflicts with the United States (U.S.), and the reason for this view is its asymmetric nature.As more weaer; states develop their cyberwarfare capabilities, a question naturally rises as to its efficacy. This paper aims to demonstrate cyberwarfares asymmetries mae it a viable weapon for weaer states to use againststronger adversaries and, in consequence, cyberwarfare brings new challenges to international relations.
This paper examines cyberwarfares asymmetries and organizes them into three categories, providing a new framewor for understanding cyberwarfares strengths and weanesses. The first asymmetry category is a significant offensive advantage; that is, it is much easier to attac 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. Unlie traditional warfare in which types of weapons and their capabilities are mostly public nowledge, in cyberwarfare, secrecy is ey 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 attacer to inflict great financial loss on the defender, relative to the cost of the attac. Of course, it is not necessarily the case a weaer state is more liely to attac, has a more opaque government, and is poorer than a stronger state, but there is often a correlation: Relative to stronger adversaries, a weaer state might not be as concerned with the consequences of initiating a cyberattac, they often have less transparent governments, and they often have less moneyor, at least, have less money dedicated to the development of technologically sophisticated infrastructure.
1.2 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 cyberspace.The term originated in a wor of science fiction and there are questions about its merit; however, the fact is there exists no better term to describe the phenomenon.Moreover, 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 puters municate, 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. Clare, a U.S. government security expert, defines cyberwarfare as actions by a nation-state to perate another nations puters or wors 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 wor of different experts in the field, as they are all discussing the same phenomenon. Further, oseph S. Nye, r., 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 outes through use of the electronically interconnected information resources of the cyberdomain.;Additionally, this paper frequently uses the term cyberattac. Cyberattacs includes cyberwarfare, cyberespionage, or any other attac mitted through cyberspace; it is not limited to any particular actorboth states and individuals can perpetrate a cyberattac. Finally, cybersecurity is the security of puters against cyberattacs, whereas cyberdefense is a broader term that includes both cybersecurity and also other aspects of defense in cyberspace, lie cyberretaliation capability and cyberdeterrence.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Relevant Research
The following chapter discusses the literature on cyberwarefares asymmetries, the structure of cyberspace as a domain of warfare, and the nature of cyberpower. The asymmetries demonstrate the inherent advantages in cyberwarfares use by weaer states in conflicts with stronger states (here it is important to note wea 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 groundwor for the final analysis.
The research format here has several advantages over other efforts to understand cyberwarfare. These categories of asymmetries provide a new framewor for examining the viability of cyberwarfare a weapon; other treatments of the subject detail the different ponents of these asymmetries, but this research piles them into a classification system that clearly connects their benefits to weaer states. Further, other research efforts might loo at either cyberwarfares asymmetries, the structure of cyberspace, or the nature of cyberpower, but this paper connects them together in a holistic approach: By bining 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.
2.2 The Asymmetries in Cyberwarfare
The following table summarizes this sections classification of cyberwarfares asymmetries into categories that favor the weaer state. It is important to note weaer states might not have the benefit of all these asymmetriesbut there is a general correlation.
2.2.1 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 weanesses.Franlin D. ramer explains the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated the U.S.s unmatched conventional warfare capabilities; consequently, U.S. adversaries will liely attempt to use asymmetric means in conflicts with the U.S., and cyberwarfare provides one of these asymmetries.The U.S. has been aware of this lielihood for a number of years, and it is certainly reasonable for the worlds 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
3.1 The Role of Cyberwarfares History ................ 25
3.2 A History of Cyberattacs ........ 25
3.3 The Development of Cyberwarfare Programs ........... 32
3.4 Cyberwarfares Rise and International Security .......... 35
Chapter 4: Cyberconflict And Political Will .............. 39
4.1 The Realities of Cyberwarfare .............. 39
4.2 Pivotal State-Sponsored Cyberattacs ......... 39
Chapter 5: Analysis ............. 52
5.1 Analytical Process ................. 52
5.2 Cyberwarfare as a Weapon for Weaer States .................. 52
5.3 Cyberwarfares Impact on International Relations .................... 54
Chapter 5: Analysis
5.1 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 relationsFirst, as a necessary precursor to answering this question, the chapter demonstrates the validity of cyberwarfare as a weapon for weaer 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 framewor 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 patibility between cyberwarfare and the field of international relations. Together, these sections present a new conceptual framewor for analyzing cyberwarfare, bing the technical, political, and environmental aspects of cyberwarfare with international relations schools of thought.
5.2 Cyberwarfare as a Weapon for Weaer 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. Unlie a conventional weapon, the strength of a cyberweapon correlates to the sill of its operator. This empowerment grows alongside the worlds increasing dependence on technology, from critical infrastructure to military operations. It is natural, then, groups of individuals woring 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 cyberattacs. The Gulf War in 1991 demonstrated the U.S. militarys immense power to the world, and its adversaries will attempt asymmetric means to pensate; cyberwarfare offers one of these asymmetric means.
Chapter 6: Conclusion
6.1 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 weaer 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 patible with these issues cyberwarfare raises.
Regarding cyberwarfare as a viable weapon for weaer states, it has three different groups of asymmetric advantages: It favors the attacer over the defender, it favors opaque governments over transparent governments, and it favors poor states over wealthier adversaries. These advantages typically favor a weaer state over a stronger adversary. Additionally, the structure of cyberspace suggests it is unliely to change to minimize weaer states cyberattac capability. Further, the nature of cyberpower suggests dominance in cyberspace is infeasible and bans on cyberattacs are unliely. Moreover, a state does not have to fear major repercussions for perpetrating an attac, either by international condemnation or cyberretaliation. Finally, China provides a pelling example of a state that understands and depends on cyberwarfares 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 weaer states to employ against stronger adversaries, and not just for the short term.
reference(omitted)