sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cyberwarfare

Te New Nuke? by Yusuf Sezer

Over the past few decades, the major nations and set a new precedent for the possibilities of cyber of the world have readily adopted and integrated weaponry. Unlike the that came before it, computer technologies into their social, economic, “ wasn’t about : it didn’t political, and sectors. Trading on the stock manipulate, or erase information. Rather, Stuxnet’s market, conducting military operations, directing goal was to physically destroy a military target… the world’s fight trafc, and delivering electricity to literally” (Farwell and Rohozinski). millions of people are just a few examples of the many Although Stuxnet was successful in slowing ’s critical real-world processes that rely on computer nuclear program, the scale of the damage it caused is systems. As events in the past few years have shown, relatively small when compared to the full-potential these computer systems—and the real-world of cyber . In Te Basics of Cyber Warfare, processes that depend on them—can be exploited Jason Andress and Steve Winterfeld point out that with “‘illegal or legally ambiguous digital tools’ like cyber weapons could be employed as “Weapons website defacements, information thef, website of Mass Disruption.” Te idea is to use cyber parodies, DoS attacks, virtual sit-ins, and virtual weapons to disrupt computer systems that control sabotage” (Hampson 514). Tus, nations that have major infrastructure (Andress and Winterfeld 21). high levels of technological development—and thus In a speech at the Cybersecurity and Consumer high technological dependence—are vulnerable to Protection Summit, President Obama recognized cyber-attacks (Sanger). Tis fundamental weakness that: shared by major world powers has ushered in a new much of [America’s] critical infrastructure— type of militaristic that poses a to our fnancial systems, our power grid, health global peace. systems—run on networks connected to the Te defnition of a cyber weapon varies from , which is hugely empowering but source to source, but most agree that cyber weapons also dangerous, and creates new points of refer to the strategic use of malware—programs vulnerability that we didn’t have before. (Obama) that are designed to damage or disrupt computer Indeed, successful cyber-attacks on computer systems—for militaristic purposes. Perhaps the most systems that control major infrastructure could notable example of a cyber weapon is Stuxnet, a piece cripple the nation. Patrick T. Hemmer considers of malware that was designed to infltrate computer the ramifcations of a successful large-scale cyber- systems in Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment attack on infrastructure: “Supervisory control and plant (Farwell and Rohozinski). Although no data acquisition systems (SCADA) that control the government has ofcially claimed responsibility functions of power, nuclear, sewer, and air defense for the development and deployment of Stuxnet, systems (among others) could either be crippled or interviews with both former and current American, engineered to create massive nuclear and biological Israeli, and European ofcials strongly suggest that emergencies” (28). Hemmer goes on to state the attack was orchestrated by and the United that “government attempts to counter or defend States (Sanger). Farwell and Rohozinski explain that against an attack of this nature would be limited Stuxnet’s goal was to destroy the plant’s centrifuges and piecemeal” (28). Te cyber-attack situation by causing them to spin much faster than normal, described by Hemmer could have a devastating thus slowing Iran’s nuclear program—an objective toll on the military and civilian population of the that aligns with American and Israeli political goals. targeted nation. Tis is particularly concerning Stuxnet succeeded in destroying many centrifuges due to the strong correlation that exists between a

Aisthesis 31 Volume 8, 2017 Te New Nuke?

country’s level of technological development and its are closely guarded secrets. As such, it is very likely vulnerability to such cyber-attacks. Tis correlation that an adversary forms a potentially uneducated implies that the world’s major countries are also the opinion as to the efectiveness of their defenses” (20). most vulnerable. David E. Sanger of Te New York Tis fear of inadequate defenses could theoretically Times concluded that “no country’s infrastructure push major nations to develop more advanced is more dependent on computer systems, and thus weapons and defenses, thus fueling a cyber arms more vulnerable to [cyber-attack], than that of the race. Together, these factors would create a more ” (Sanger). volatile political climate with a higher potential for As such, the development of major cyber weapons signifcant destruction. by developed nations could in fact pose a similar Te thought of a future cyber is certainly situation to that of the nuclear of the Cold a frightening one. Cyber weapons have enormous War; developed nations could use cyber weapons as potential for destruction and, as we have seen, have deterrents. Te idea is that if one country initiates qualities that make them especially hazardous to attack, the other will respond in kind, thus resulting in world peace when used as militaristic weapons. It “mutually assured destruction”—a political doctrine appears, though, that world leaders are aware of the that characterized Soviet-American relations during potential risks of such weapons, at least to a certain the (de Castella). At frst glance, this extent. For example, when questioned about why he theory fts perfectly; cyber weapons do indeed have has not employed cyber weapons against political vast destructive capabilities, and President Obama targets like and , President has already referred to the feld of cyber security as Obama “has repeatedly told his aides that there a “cyber arms race” (Obama). However, there are are risks to using—and particularly to overusing— a few critical diferences between cyber weapons the [cyber weapon]” (Sanger). President Obama’s and nuclear weapons that make them particularly regarding the use of cyber weapons shows dangerous to world peace. that he is aware of the risks that such weapons carry. Unlike nuclear weapons during the Cold War, Namely, it shows that President Obama aims to cyber weapons can also be developed by groups or avoid triggering a cyber arms race between world people who are not afliated with a government, powers, an escalation that would further agitate an which creates the potential for cyber . As already tense political climate and could potentially early as 1991, a report by the National Research lead to destruction on a massive scale. On the other Council recognized that “tomorrow’s terrorist may hand, there is a great deal of concerning evidence be able to do more damage with a keyboard than suggesting that international afairs may indeed be with a bomb” (7). Furthermore, cyber weapons allow pushing the world towards a cyber war. In “Stuxnet the user to leverage “anonymity and deniability and the Future of Cyber War,” Farwell and Rohozinski while conducting military campaigns in ” point out that “the United States views cyberspace (Wilson); this makes it difcult to verify the origin of as a war-fghting domain that favours ofense. Its an attack and thus poses less risk of retaliation to the policy explicitly seeks superiority in that domain” user. Tis shield of anonymity—a weapon-trait that (Farwell and Rohozinski). Tis approach to cyber is not possessed by nuclear weapons—weakens the space resembles the deterrent-based diplomatic political doctrine of mutually assured destruction. approaches that characterized and fueled the nuclear Afer all, how can you retaliate against an enemy that arms race of the Cold War. More worryingly, recent you can’t even identify? When combined, these two cyber-attacks have already strained the relationship attributes can create a very tense climate between between the United States and other major world major world powers: Not only is the promise powers. At the beginning of October, for example, of mutually assured destruction a less efective the United States accused of meddling with deterrent, but there are also more potential sources the upcoming presidential election by hacking the of attack. Tis tension can be worsened by another Democratic National Committee’s computers—a attribute of cyber weapons that is summarized by cyber-attack that Russia is vehemently denying Hemmer: “Specifc capabilities of [cyber weapons]… involvement in. On the matter, Senator Ben Sasse

Aisthesis 32 Volume 8, 2017 Te New Nuke?

has expressed his belief that the United States must Langner, Ralph. “Stuxnet: Dissecting a respond with “a strong diplomatic, political, cyber Weapon.” IEEE Security and Privacy, vol. 9, no. 3, and economic response” (qtd. in Nakashima). 2011, pp. 49-51. Equally troubling is that Iran has responded to the Stuxnet attack by forming a military cyber unit Nakashima, Ellen. “U.S. Government Ofcially that is similar in purpose to that of the United Accuses Russia of Hacking Campaign to In- States Cyber Command. On the matter, “Brig. Gen. terfere with Elections.” Te Washington Post, 7 Gholamreza Jalali, the head of Iran’s Passive Defense Oct. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/world/ Organization, said that the Iranian military was national-security/us-government-ofcially-ac- prepared ‘to fght our enemies’ in ‘cyberspace and cuses-russia-of-hacking-campaign-to-influ- Internet warfare’” (qtd. in Sanger). ence-elections/2016/10/07/4e0b9654-8cbf-1 While computer systems and cyber space have 1e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_ter- allowed us to vastly improve nearly every aspect m=.3bf9632c6d48. Accessed 28 Oct. 2016. of human existence, they have also lef us with an existential crisis. Te more we incorporate technology National Research Council. “Overview and into real-world processes, the more we put ourselves Recommendations.” Computers at Risk: Safe at risk of serious cyber-attacks. As President Obama in the . Te National put it, “it’s one of the great paradoxes of our time that Academies Press, 1991. the very technologies that empower us to do great good can also be used to undermine us and infict Obama, Barack. “Remarks by the President at the great harm” (Obama). What remains clear is that the Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection future role of cyber weapons in political and military Summit.” Cybersecurity and Consumer afairs is largely uncertain and remains dynamic. Protection Summit, 13 Feb. 2015, Stanford Going forward, we can only hope that major world University, Stanford, CA. Accessed 30 Oct. 2016. leaders consider the tremendous implications of cyber weapons and cyber warfare when conducting Sanger, David E. “Obama Order Sped Up Wave of diplomacy. Afer all, the cyber weapon may very Against Iran.” Te New York Times, well be the greatest revolution in weapon technology 1 June 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/ since the Manhattan Project. world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of- cyberattacks-against-iran.html. Accessed 30 Works Cited Oct. 2016. de Castella, Tom. “How Did We Forget about Mutually Assured Destruction?” BBC Wilson, Clay. “Cyber Weapons: 4 Defning News, 15 Feb. 2012, www.bbc.com/news/ Characteristics.” GCN, 4 June 2015. Accessed 29 magazine-17026538. Accessed 31 Oct. 2016. Oct. 2016. Farwell, James P., and Rohozinski, Rafal. “Stuxnet Winterfeld, Steve, and Jason Andress. Te Basics of and the Future of Cyber War.” Survival, vol. 53, Cyber Warfare: Understanding the Fundamentals no. 1, 2011, pp. 23-40. of Cyber Warfare in Teory and Practice. Syngress, Hampson, Noah C.N. “: A New Breed 2012. of Protest in a Networked World.” Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, 6th ser., vol. 35, no. 2, 2012, pp. 511-42. SSRN. Accessed 30 Oct. 2016.

Hemmer, Patrick T. Deterrence and Cyber-weapons. Dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, 2013. Accessed 30 Oct. 2016.

Aisthesis 33 Volume 8, 2017