Switch to Desktop Site
 
 

Cyberattacks challenge ideas of war – and peace

If the US, China, and others adopt hidden methods of aggression like cyberwarfare, the nature of conflict will change rapidly. So, too, must peacemaking.

Image

The logo of the Department of Homeland Security is reflected in the eyeglasses of an analyst at the agency's secretive cybersecurity facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The center is tasked with protecting the nation’s power, water and chemical plants, electrical grid and other facilities from cyberattacks.

Mark J. Terril/AP Photo/file

About these ads

For anyone trying to promote peace, these are confusing times. Not because there is more war. Indeed, violence between states or within states has fallen sharply from the last century. Rather, the very nature of conflict is changing rapidly.

To avoid invasions with troops, for example, many countries plan to follow the United States in the use of unmanned predatory drones. Instead of violent airstrikes, they impose crippling economic sanctions, relying on the digital tools of global finance. And if sanctions don’t work, they devise computer viruses or other types of cyberwarfare.

The US, for example, joined with Israel to launch secret cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear program, according to The New York Times. Another cyberweapon called Flame forced Iran to cut off its oil ministry rigs from the Internet last month.

Many countries are searching for new, less visible methods of aggression. The offensive cyberwar techniques now being readied or practiced by the US, China, and others could be only the latest method of conflict.

This trend toward hidden and almost endless war raises troubling questions. When does war start and peace end? Who in government should approve such aggression and be held accountable for it? And how can citizens respond if the nature of conflict doesn’t fit old concepts of war?

Indeed, the idea of a “declared war” was shattered by the cold war, which lasted 45 years with periods of hot war (Korea, Vietnam, Granada). The post-9/11 “war on terrorism” continues in an ambiguous nature despite the killing of Osama bin Laden. Congress and the White House struggle over the legal authority to use new types of attack. Courts have a hard time defending “wartime” suspensions of civil liberties if a conflict has no clear end and no defined geographic boundaries.

Next

Page:   1   |   2

Share