Abstract
This chapter presents two frameworks for analysing the deployment of cyber weapons by nation states. Framework One examines the factors that comprise the deployment of cyber weapons through four categories of analysis. These categories are: (a) how the cyber weapon is deployed; (b) the effects that the cyber weapon creates; (c) the target against which the cyber weapon is launched; and (d) the objectives sought through the cyber weapon deployment. Framework One is illustrated through an examination of Operation Orchard—the cyber enabled Israeli strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007. Framework Two provides an alternative means to analyse the deployment of cyber weapons by nation states. This is achieved through an examination of the variables considered when determining whether cyber weapon deployment will be politically advantageous. Central to the analysis is a comparative calculation of the benefits and disadvantages (dis-benefits) arising from the use of cyber weaponry. Consideration of benefits focuses on the political value of objectives that can be achieved through the deployment of cyber weaponry, as well as the likelihood that these objectives will be achieved. Analysis of dis-benefits focuses first on the internal and external political constraints on state deployment of cyber weapons, then on the risk and impact of retaliation against the state initiating cyber weapon use. The utility of Framework Two is explored by examining the Stuxnet attack on Iranian nuclear enrichment capabilities.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arquilla J, Ronfeldt D (1993) Cyberwar is coming! Comp Strateg 12(2):141–165
Bachmann SD (2012) Hybrid threats, cyber warfare and NATO’s comprehensive approach for countering 21st century threats–mapping the new frontier of global risk and security management
Birdwell MB, Mills R (2011) War fighting in cyberspace: evolving force presentation and command and control. AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL AIR FORCE RESEARCH INST
Clarke RA, Knake RK (2011) Cyber war. HarperCollins, New York
Clemmons BQ, Brown GD (1999) Cyberwarfare: ways, warriors and weapons of mass destruction. Mil Rev 79(5):35
Dipert RR (2013) Other-than-Internet (OTI) cyberwarfare: challenges for ethics, law, and policy. J Mil Ethics 12(1):34–53
DoD US (2010) JP1–02: department of defense dictionary of military and associated terms. DoD, Washington, DC
Follath E, Stark H (2009) How Israel destroyed Syria’s Al Kibar nuclear reactor. Spiegel Online, 11. Lin, 2012
Hinsley M (2015) Playing for high stakes: the Archer’s stake and the battle of agincourt. Historian, London 127(Autumn):30–34
Kirsch CM (2011) Science fiction no more: cyber warfare and the United States. Denv J Int Law Policy 40:620
Langner R (2011) Stuxnet: dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Secur Priv 9(3):49–51. Denning, 2012
Laub Z (2015) International sanctions on Iran. CFR Backgrounders, Council on Foreign Relations 15
Libicki MC (2014) Why cyber war will not and should not have its grand strategist. Air University Maxwell AFB/Air Force Research Institute
Lindsay JR (2013) Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare. Secur Stud 22(3):365–404
Mahnken TG (2011) Cyber war and cyber warfare. Am Cyber Futur Secur Prosp Inf Age 2:53–62
Richardson J (2011) Stuxnet as cyberwarfare: applying the law of war to the virtual battlefield. J Marshall J Comput Inf Law 29:1
Rid T (2012) Cyber war will not take place. J Strateg Stud 35(1):5–32
Sanger DE (2012) Obama order sped up wave of cyberattacks against Iran. New York Times, 1, p A1
Schaap AJ (2009) Cyber warfare operations: development and use under international law. AFL Rev 64:121
Singer PW, Friedman A (2014) Cybersecurity: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Taddeo M (2012) An analysis for a just cyber warfare. NATO CCD COE/IEEE Publication
Turns D (2012) Cyber warfare and the notion of direct participation in hostilities. J Confl Secur Law 17(2):279–297
Waltz KN (2012) Why Iran should get the bomb: nuclear balancing would mean stability. Foreign Aff 91:2
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hughes, D.P. (2018). Archer’s Stakes in Cyber Space: Methods to Analyze Force Advantage. In: Prunckun, H. (eds) Cyber Weaponry. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74107-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74107-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74106-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74107-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)