Advertisement

Deterrence in Space and Cyberspace

  • Ryder McKeown
  • Alex Wilner
Chapter
Part of the Canada and International Affairs book series (CIAF)

Abstract

Deterrence is an enduring concept. And yet the way it is put into practice changes with the times and circumstances. This chapter examines the challenges and opportunities Canada faces in applying deterrence by punishment, denial and delegitimization to space and cyberspace. Building off American approaches to deterrence in both of these emerging strategic domains and with a focus on doctrine and policy, we outline a Canadian approach to space and cyber deterrence that recognizes Canadian limitations, builds on Canadian strengths and serves Canadian interests. We argue that Canada must develop international norms of responsible behaviour in space and cyberspace to help curb certain behaviour (delegitimization), work with allies and the private sector to develop space and cyber systems that are resilient to attack (denial) and explore the utility of retaliatory measures—kinetic or otherwise—in both domains (punishment). By way of conclusion, we suggest Canada place greater attention to the strategic interplay between space, cyberspace and other traditional military domains and re-examine the perennial debate between defence autonomy and integration as it relates to the relationship between American and Canadian deterrence in space and cyberspace.

References

  1. Admiral Cecil Haney. 2015. Edward Teller Lecture. Aiken, SC.Google Scholar
  2. Admiral Cecil Haney. 2016. Strategic Deterrent Forces as a Foundation to 21st Century National Security. Washington, DC: Panel at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
  3. Air Force Space Command. 2013. White Paper: Resiliency and Disaggregated Architectures. Armed Services Subcommittees on Strategic Forces and Seapower and Projection Forces.Google Scholar
  4. Baines, Phillip. 2003. Prospects for ‘Non-Offensive’ Defenses in Space. Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Occasional Paper No. 12.Google Scholar
  5. Canadian Space Agency. 2014. Canada’s Space Policy Framework.Google Scholar
  6. CBS documentary. 2015. The Battle Above. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-battle-above/.
  7. Clapper, James. 2014. Statement for the Record: Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Appearance Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.Google Scholar
  8. Communications Security Establishment. 2018. Cyber Threats to Canada’s Democratic Process.Google Scholar
  9. Creedon, Madelyn. 2012. Space and Cyber: Shared Challenges, Shared Opportunities. Strategic Studies Quarterly 6 (1): 3–8.Google Scholar
  10. Deblois, Bruce, Richard Garwin, R. Scott Kemp, and Jeremy Marwell. 2004. Space Weapons: Crossing the U.S. Rubicon. International Security 29 (2): 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Department of Defense. 2011. Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.Google Scholar
  12. Department of Defense. 2014. Fact Sheet: DoD Strategy for Deterrence in Space.Google Scholar
  13. Department of Defense. 2017. DoD International Space Cooperation Strategy.Google Scholar
  14. Department of National Defence. 2017. Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defense Policy.Google Scholar
  15. Manual on International Law Applicable to Military Uses of Outer Space. 2016. About MILAMOS. http://www.mcgill.ca/milamos/home. Accessed January 2019.
  16. Ferster, Warren, and Mike Gruss. 2016. The Price of Space Dependence: Interview with Dough Loverro. Space News. http://www.spacenewsmag.com/feature/the-price-of-space-dependence/.
  17. Gartzke, Erik, and Jon Lindsay (eds.). 2016. Cross-Domain Deterrence: Strategy in an Era of Complexity (Unpublished manuscript). http://deterrence.ucsd.edu/_files/CDD_Intro_v2.pdf.
  18. Government of the United States of America. 2018. National Cyber Strategy.Google Scholar
  19. Gruss, Mike. 2016a. Carter: Pentagon Budget Will Do “Even More” for Space Protection. Space News. https://spacenews.com/carter-pentagon-budget-will-do-even-more-for-space-protection/.
  20. Gruss, Mike. 2016b. Satellites in the Crosshairs. Space News.Google Scholar
  21. Krepon, Michael. 2013. Space and Nuclear Deterrence. In Anti-Satellite Weapons, Deterrence and Sino-American Space Relations, ed. Michael Krepon and Julia Thomson. Washington, DC: Stimson Center.Google Scholar
  22. Krepon, Michael. 2015. Space Code of Conduct Mugged in New York. Arms Control Wonk.Google Scholar
  23. Long, Jerry Mark, and Alex Wilner. 2014. Delegitimizing al-Qaida: Defeating an ‘Army Whose Men Love Death’. International Security 39 (1): 126–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKeown, Ryder. 2015. Legal Asymmetries in Asymmetric War. Review of International Studies 41 (1): 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McKeown, Ryder. 2017. International Law and Its Discontents: Exploring the Dark Sides of International Law in International Relations. Review of International Studies 43 (3): 430–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pellerin, Cheryl. 2014. Stratcom, DoD Sign Space Operations Agreement with Allies.Google Scholar
  27. Pugliese, David. 2015. Ukraine Gets Radarsat Imagery While Military Faces Shortage of Data. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/ukraine-gets-radarsat-imagery-while-canadian-military-faces-shortages-of-data.
  28. Royal Canadian Mounted Policy. 2015. Cybercrime Strategy.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidle, Nicholas. 2018. The Digital Vigilantes Who Hack Back. New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/07/the-digital-vigilantes-who-hack-back.
  30. Tellis, Ashley. 2014. Does China Threaten the United States in Space? Testimony Before House.Google Scholar
  31. The White House. 2008. National Security Presidential Directive 54.Google Scholar
  32. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, Canada. 2017. Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security.Google Scholar
  33. US Department of Homeland Security. 2006. National Infrastructure Protection Plan.Google Scholar
  34. Wilner, Alex. Forthcoming. U.S. Cyber Deterrence: Practice Guiding Theory. Journal of Strategic Studies. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2018.1563779.
  35. Wilner, Expert Interview. 2017. Communication Security Establishment.Google Scholar
  36. Wilner, Expert Interview. 2018. Communication Security Establishment.Google Scholar
  37. Wirtz, James. 2017. The Cyber Pearl Harbour. Intelligence and National Security 32 (6): 758–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryder McKeown
    • 1
  • Alex Wilner
    • 2
  1. 1.Political ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations