Drinking from a Fire Hydrant: Information Overload As a Cyber Weapon

  • Craig Greathouse
Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)


The foundation of this chapter is based in the fact that information, as argued by Clausewitz, can by a weapon whether too little or too much. This chapter is presents a revised typology of cyber war within the international system. It addresses the limitations of a previous typology given the revelations that have occurred in the international system over the past several years. The typology addresses important issues including the type of attack, the actor involved, and the level of disruption that is generated by the attack. The resulting outcomes allow for better understanding and plotting of the impact of cyber war within the international system.


Cyber weapons Information overload Fog of war Cyber espionage Information warfare Typology of cyber war Clausewitz 


  1. Auchard E, Bate F (2017) French candidate Macron claims massive hack as emails leaked. Reuters.
  2. Betts RK (1978) Analysis, war, and decision: why intelligence failures are inevitable. World Polit 31(1):61–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cetron MJ, Davies O (2009) Ten critical trends for cyber security. Futurist 43(5):40–49Google Scholar
  4. Clarke RA, Knake RK (2010) Cyber war: the next threat to national security and what to do about it. Ecco, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Clausewitz C (1984) On war. Howard M, Paret P (eds). Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  6. Colarisk A, Janczewski L (2012) Establishing cyber warfare doctrine. J Strat Sec 5(1):31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danadio R (2017) Why the Macron Hacking Attack Landed with a Thud in France. The New York Times.
  8. Greathouse CB (2014) Cyber war and strategic thought: do the classic theorists still matter? In: Cyberspace and international relations. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haggard S, Lindsay JR (2015) North Korea and the Sony Hack: exporting instability through cyberspace, Asia Pacific Issues no. 117. East-West Center, Honolulu. Scholar
  10. Handel M (1989) War, strategy and intelligence. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (2017) Lessons learned from the EU Referendum. House of Commons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Jervis R (1968) Hypotheses on misperception. World Polit 20(3):454–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kallber J, Cook TS (2017) The unfitness of traditional military thinking in cyber: four cyber tenets of undermines conventional strategies. IEEE Access.
  14. Kaplan F (2017) Dark territory: the secret history of cyber war. Simon and Schuster Reprint Edition, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerr PK, Rollins J, Theohary CA (2010) The Stuxnet computer worm: harbinger of an emerging warfare capability. Congressional Research Service.
  16. Kiesling EC (2001) On war: without the fog. Mil Rev 81:85–87Google Scholar
  17. Knake R, Segal A (2016) How the next U.S. president can contain china in cyberspace. J Int Aff 70(1):21–28Google Scholar
  18. Lindsay JR (2013) Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare. Secur Stud 22(3):365–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McMullen DA, Sanchez HM, O’Reilly-Allen M (2016) Target security: a case study of how hackers hit the jackpot at the expense of customers. Rev Bus Financ Stud 7(2):41–50Google Scholar
  20. Miladi N (2016) Social media and social change. Domes 25(1):36–51. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhostCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nakashima E (2015) Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say. The Washington Post.
  22. New York Times Archive (2016–17) Russian hacking in the U.S. election.
  23. Owens B (2001) Lifting the fog of war. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaap AJ (2009) Cyber warfare operations: development and use under international law. Air Force Law Rev 64:121–174Google Scholar
  25. Shane S, Rosenberg M, Lehren AW (2017) Documents said to reveal hacking secrets of C.I.A. New York Times, 8 March 2017Google Scholar
  26. Syal R (2017) Brexit: foreign states may have interfered in vote, report says. The Guardian.
  27. Tikk E, Kaska K, Vihul L (2010) International cyber incidents: legal considerations. Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence, Tallinn. NATO. Scholar
  28. Uitermark J (2016) Complex contention: analyzing power dynamics within anonymous. Soc Mov Stud.
  29. Valeriono B, Maness RC (2014) The dynamics of cyber conflict between rival antagonists, 2001–11. J Peace Res 51(3):347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Waldman T (2010) Shadows of uncertainty: Clausewitz’s timeless analysis of chance in war. Def Stud 10(3):336–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North GeorgiaDahlonegaUSA

Personalised recommendations