Within the Department of Defense, terms such as “information warfare” and “psychological operations” have elastic and ambiguous meanings. What does this reveal about the Department’s approach to non-kinetic operations?
Latest in Cyber Warfare
As Bobby Chesney recently discussed, President Trump on Aug. 15 reportedly substituted a new classified order for a classified Obama-era presidential directive governing the interagency review and decision process for cyber operations.
As I noted in my post yesterday, the Chinese government has declined to clarify how and whether it believes the international law governing the use of applies to cyber warfare. Its refusal to do so has drawn sharp criticism from the U.S. and other cyber powers.
Forcing China to Accept that International Law Restricts Cyber Warfare May Not Actually Benefit the U.S.
This past June, after U.N.-sponsored negotiations on the application of international law to cyber warfare collapsed, lead U.S. negotiator Michele Markoff released a blistering statement criticizing those that “believe their states are free to act in or through cyberspace to achieve their political ends with no limits or constraints on their actions. That is a dangerous and unsupportable view.”
Last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal (November 10, 2015) carried a front-page story titled “Ukraine: Cyberwar’s Hottest Front.” A few weeks earlier, the Journal had carried a related front-page article, “Cyberwar Ignites a New Arms Race” (October 11, 2015) – subtitled “Dozens of countries amass cyberweapons, reconfigure militaries to meet threat.” Militaries and policy-makers around the world have awoken to the fact that cyberwarfare is already a r
Editor’s Note: Cyber attacks and the appropriate response are new territories in national security. On the one hand, most attacks do little damage, and their perpetrators are often unclear. On the other hand, the potential risk is growing, and no one wants to wait until it is too late to draw a line.