Chapter Overview
This chapter argues that there are many parallels between discussions of cyber terrorism and cyber war on the one hand, and discussions of terrorism and state terrorism on the other. The chapter begins by tracing these parallels. Next, the chapter explores the development of cyber war capabilities by the major powers and others and focuses on the changes in United States cyber war doctrine. It concludes by considering the consequences of these increasing capabilities and doctrinal decisions, arguing that it is only by convention that these state behaviors are labeled as cyber war rather than cyber terror.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Stohl, M. (1985) presented at the Defense Intelligence College Symposium on Terrorism, Washington, DC, December 3, 1985. Later published as Stohl, M. 1988. “States, Terrorism and State Terrorism: The Role of the Superpowers” in Slater, R. and Stohl, M. (eds.) Current Perspectives on International Terrorism, Macmillan, London, and St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 155–205.
- 2.
For an illustration see the debate between Wight (2012) and Stohl (2012).
- 3.
See also Debrix (2001).
- 4.
See also Stohl 2007.
- 5.
Sic, as written in the original.
- 6.
Capitals in original.
- 7.
The Spectrum of State Responsibility
1. State-prohibited. The national government will help stop the third-party attack
2. State-prohibited-but-inadequate. The national government is cooperative but unable to stop the third-party attack
3. State-ignored. The national government knows about the third-party attacks but is unwilling to take any official action
4. State-encouraged. Third parties control and conduct the attack, but the national government encourages them as a matter of policy
5. State-shaped. Third parties control and conduct the attack, but the state provides some support
6. State-coordinated. The national government coordinates third-party attackers such as by “suggesting” operational details
7. State-ordered. The national government directs third-party proxies to conduct the attack on its behalf
8. State-rogue-conducted. Out-of-control elements of cyber forces of the national government conduct the attack
9. State-executed. The national government conducts the attack using cyber forces under their direct control
10. State-integrated. The national government attacks using integrated third-party proxies and government non-state actors. These behaviors thus serve to undermine the norms which underlie the international law regime
Further Reading
Bamford J (1983) The puzzle palace. Penguin, New York
Bamford J (2001) Body of secrets: anatomy of the ultra-secret National Security Agency. Doubleday, New York
Bamford J (2012) The NSA is building the country’s biggest spy center (watch what you say). In: Wired 15 March 2012. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/
Cimbala SJ (1984) U.S. strategic C3I: a conceptual framework air university review November/December 1984. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/nov-dec/cimbala.html
Cimbala SJ (2005) Transformation in concept and policy. Joint Force Q 38(Summer 2005)
Stevens T (2012) A cyberwar of ideas? Deterrence and norms in cyberspace. Contemp Secur Pol 33(1):148–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2012.659597
Stohl M (2006) Cyber terrorism: a clear and present danger, the sum of all fears, breaking point or patriot games? Crime Law Soc Change 46(4–5):223–238
Warner M (2012) Cybersecurity: a pre-history. Intell Natl Secur 27(5):781–799. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2012.708530
References
Arquilla J, Ronfeldt D (1998) The Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico. Rand, Santa Monica
Arquilla J, Ronfeldt D (1999) The advent of netwar: analytic background. Stud Conflict Terrorism 22:3
Arquilla J, Ronfeldt D, Zanini M (1999) Networks, netwar and information age terrorism. In: Lesser A, Hoffman B, Arquilla J, Ronfeldt D, Zanini M (eds) Countering the new terrorism. Rand, Santa Monica, pp 39–84
Aquino S (2009) Should Obama control the Internet? In: Mother Jones 2 April 2009. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet
Bamford J (1983) The puzzle palace. Penguin, New York
Bamford J (2001) Body of secrets: anatomy of the ultra-secret National Security Agency. Doubleday, New York
Bamford J (2012) The NSA is building the country’s biggest spy center (watch what you say). In: Wired 15 March 2012. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/
Bumiller E (2013) Pentagon expanding cybersecurity force to protect networks against attacks. The New York Times 27 January 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/us/pentagon-to-beef-up-cybersecurity-force-to-counter-attacks.html?_r=0
Bumiller E, Shanker T (2012) Panetta warns of dire threat of cyberattack on U.S. The New York Times 11 October 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/world/panetta-warns-of-dire-threat-of-cyberattack.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Carroll W (2008) Cyber War 2.0—Russia v. Georgia. 13 August 2008. Available via DefenseTech. http://defensetech.org/2008/08/13/cyber-war-2-0-russia-v-georgia/#ixzz2PJhri1hS
Choe S-H (2013) Computer networks in South Korea are paralyzed in cyberattacks. The New York Times 23 March 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/world/asia/south-korea-computer-network-crashes.html
Cimbala SJ (1984) U.S. strategic C3I: a conceptual framework air university review November/December 1984. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/nov-dec/cimbala.html
Cimbala SJ (2005) Transformation in concept and policy. Joint Force Q 38(Summer 2005) 28–33
Conway M (2005) Terrorist “use” of the internet and fighting back. Paper prepared for presentation at the conference Cybersafety: safety and security in a networked world: balancing cyber-rights and responsibilities. Oxford Internet Institute (OII), Oxford University, Oxford, 8–10 Sept 2005. http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/cybersafety/extensions/pdfs/papers/maura_conway.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2006
Crypt Newsletter (2009) http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/other/harbor.htm
Dean J (2001) Nation unprepared for cyber war, experts say December 17, 2001. Government Executive. http://www.govexec.com/defense/2001/12/nation-unprepared-for-cyber-war-experts-say/10725/
Debrix F (2001) Cyberterror and media-induced fears: the production of emergency culture. Strat J Theor Cult Polit 14(1):149–168
Deibert R (2011) Tracking the emerging arms race in cyberspace. Bull Atom Scient 67:1
Denning DE (2000) Activism, hacktivism, and cyberterrorism: the Internet as a tool for influencing foreign policy. http://www.nautilus.org/info-policy/workshop/papers/denning.html. Accessed 4 Feb 2000
Epstein K (2009) Fearing ‘Cyber Katrina,’ Obama candidate for Cyber Czar urges a “FEMA for the Internet”. Business Week 18 February 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/02/fearing_cyber_k.html
Gellman B (2002) Cyber-attacks by Al Qaeda feared: terrorists at threshold of using internet as tool of bloodshed, experts say. Washington Post 27 June 2002:A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50765-2002Jun26. Accessed 1 Dec 2005
Giacomello G (2004) Bangs for the buck: a cost-benefit analysis of cyberterrorism. Stud Conflict Terrorism 27:387–408
Giles J (2010) Are states unleashing the dogs of cyber war? NewScientist 16 December 2010. http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/cyber-attack-country
Grabosky P, Stohl M (2003) Cyberterrorism. Reform 82:5–13
GReAT (Global Research & Analysis Team) (2012) Gauss abnormal distribution. http://www.securelist.com/en/analysis/204792238/Gauss_Abnormal_Distribution
Green J (2002). The myth of cyber terrorism. Washington Monthly. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.green.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2006
Guitton C (2013) Cyber insecurity as a national threat: overreaction from Germany, France and the UK? Eur Secur 22(1):21–35
Hansen L, Nissenbuam H (2009) Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen School. Int Stud Q 53:1155–1175
Healey J (2011) The spectrum of national responsibility for cyberattacks. Brown J Int Aff 18(1):43–56
Hollis, D (2011) Cyberwar case study: Georgia 2008. Small Wars J. http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/cyberwar-case-study-georgia-2008
Judge P (2013) CeBIT: Red October had EU and German crypto codes—Kaspersky. TechWeek Europe 7 March 2013. http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/cebit-2013-red-october-encryption-kaspersky-109713
Kent J, Steiner K (2012) Ten ways to improve the security of a new computer United States Computer Emergency Response Team. http://www.us-cert.gov/
King R (2012) U.S. Defense Chief Warns of Digital 9/11. 11 October 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2012/10/11/u-s-defense-chief-warns-of-digital-911/
Kushner D (2013) The real story of Stuxnet: how Kaspersky Lab tracked down the malware that stymied Iran’s nuclear-fuel enrichment program Spectrum: Mar 2013. http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/the-real-story-of-stuxnet
Landler M, Markoff J (2007) In Estonia, what may be the first war in cyberspace. New York Times Monday 28 May 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-cyberwar.4.5901141.html?pagewanted=all
Lewis JA, Timlin K (2011) Cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. CSIS, UNIDIR, Washington DC
Lynn III WJ (2010) Defending a new domain: the Pentagon’s cyberstrategy. Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2010. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain
Nakashima E (2010) Pentagon considers preemptive strikes as part of cyber-defense strategy. The Washington Post 28 August 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/28/AR2010082803849.html
Nakashima E (2011) List of cyber-weapons developed by Pentagon to streamline computer warfare. The Washington Post 31 May 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/list-of-cyber-weapons-developed-by-pentagon-to-streamline-computer-warfare/2011/05/31/AGSublFH_story.html
O’Connell ME (2012) Cyber security without cyber war. J Conflict Secur Law 17(2):187–209
Panetta L (2012) Remarks by Secretary Panetta on Cybersecurity to the Business Executives for National Security, New York City U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). News Transcript 11 October 2012. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5136
Perlroth N (2013) Security firm discovers cyber-spy campaign. The New York Times 14 January 2013. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/security-firm-discovers-global-spy-campaign/
Richards J (2009) Denial-of-service: the Estonian Cyberwar and its implications for U.S. National Security. International Affairs Review 18:1. http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/65
Sanger DE (2012) Obama order sped up wave of cyberattacks against Iran. The New York Times 1 June 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?pagewanted=all
Sanger DE, Shanker T (2013) Broad powers seen for Obama in cyberstrikes. The New York Times 3 February 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/broad-powers-seen-for-obama-in-cyberstrikes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sanger DE, Barboza D, Perlroth N (2013) Chinese army unit is seen as tied to hacking against U.S. The New York Times 18 February 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/technology/chinas-army-is-seen-as-tied-to-hacking-against-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Smith GC (2002) Compumetrically speaking, chapter 2. 10 January 2002. https://vmyths.com/column/2/2002/1/10/
Stark R (1999) Cyber terrorism: rethinking new technology. Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Washington, DC
Stevens T (2012) A cyberwar of ideas? Deterrence and norms in cyberspace. Contemp Secur Pol 33(1):148–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2012.659597
Stohl M (1985) States terrorism, and state terrorism. Paper presented at the Defense Intelligence College Symposium on Terrorism, Washington, DC, 3 December 1985
Stohl M (1988) States, terrorism and state terrorism: the role of the superpowers. In: Slater R, Stohl M (eds) Current perspectives on international terrorism. Macmillan, London, pp 155–205
Stohl M (2006) Cyber terrorism: a clear and present danger, the sum of all fears, breaking point or patriot games? Crime Law Social Change 46:223–238
Thomas TL (2003) Al Qaeda and the Internet: the danger of “cyberplanning”. Parameters 33(1):112–23, From Carlisle http://www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/thomas.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2006
Traynor, I (2007) Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia The Guardian Wednesday 16 May 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia
Warner M (2012) Cybersecurity: a pre-history. Intell Natl Secur 27(5):781–799. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2012.708530
Webster SC (2012) Pentagon may apply preemptive warfare policy to the Internet. The Raw Story 29 August 2010. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/29/pentagon-weighs-applying-preemptive-warfare-tactics-internet/
White CKC (1998) Cyber-terrorism: modem mayhem. U.S. Army 639 War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. http://stinet.dtic.mil/dticrev/a345705.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2006
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stohl, M. (2014). Dr. Strangeweb: Or How They Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Cyber War. In: Chen, T., Jarvis, L., Macdonald, S. (eds) Cyberterrorism. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0962-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0962-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0961-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0962-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)