Jim Miller and Neal Pollard offer an important and positive assessment of the strategy of persistent engagement. Here, the authors engage their perspective on how to describe cyber activity short of armed attack.
Latest in Cybersecurity and Deterrence
The New York Times’s report that the U.S. has deployed code inside Russia’s grid casts doubt on the premise that a demonstration of an offensive cyber capability will destroy its future value as an operational asset.
U.S. Cyber Command and the Russian Grid: Proportional Countermeasures, Statutory Authorities and Presidential Notification
A blockbuster article by David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth in the New York Times reports U.S. Cyber Command operations to hold at-risk at least some aspects of the electric power grid in Russia. The story raises a host of legal and policy questions.
The U.S. and its allies have embraced a deterrence-based approach combined with a high degree of ambiguity regarding questions of law and policy in cyberspace. But this ambiguity undermines attempts to develop clear binding norms for state conduct in cyberspace.
The U.S. may have to operate in allied networks to adequately check its adversaries. Allies may not be so keen.
It’s not clear whether criminal charges against hackers deter foreign adversaries, but they are still valuable.
After years of focusing on counterterrorism, the U.S. intelligence community must now adapt to a long-term cyber struggle with nation-state adversaries. Success against these threats requires a shift in approach
America’s cyber adversaries are catching up to it. NOBUS no more.
The call for persistent engagement in the 2018 Cyber Command Strategic Vision is not as much an articulation of a new stand-alone strategy as it is a counterargument against the deterrence-based and norms-based strategies of the Obama administration.
CYBERCOM is maturing rapidly thanks to developments including a new presidential memorandum, the most-recent National Defense Authorization Act, and Gen. Nakasone’s persistent-engagement and defending-forward operational concepts.