The compositional dichotomy of virtual space creates a dynamic that, among other things, can cause states to lack a unified language and vision of virtual warfare. A large part of this division is driven from their divergent interests and relative power. An anecdote of this was showcased at the Budapest Conference on Cyberspace (2012) as well as the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai (2012), when both conferences were back-to-back episodes of continual disagreements between predominantly Western caucuses holding a conception of virtual space as an international space for the free exchanges of information and non-Western predominantly authoritarian caucuses who advocated for national control of information spaces and
…show more content…
The research question considers: How do states see virtual spaces? How do their perceptions affect their political-military decisions? The research concludes that states perceive virtual conflicts in different ways. A secondary conclusion was that as a result, states respond to virtual conflicts with perverse, dissimilar behaviors. In studying the cases of the US, Russia, China; the research showed that states were divided on their interpretation of virtual space and lacked a shared understanding of to act within it. The essay begins with a general overview of virtual conflict and a description of important concepts related to this new conflict space, to illustrate the absence of a common view and terminology between major players in virtual space. From these considerations the paper attempts to frame the ways in which states respond to virtual conflicts by examining the ways that Russia, China and the US, have acted in and responded to virtual attacks. By first looking at the differences in the way that states’ perceive virtual spaces, and how they consequently react, this paper explains how the contradictions in their views are reflected in virtual conflicts. Overall the objective of is to describe and define the causes, dynamics and consequences of contemporary virtual conflicts by examining the global responses …show more content…
The US DoD further elaborates this definition as both offensive and defensive cyber operations that include cyber attacks, cyber defense, and cyber enabling actions. The US perspective of virtual warfare seems to be based on a techno-military, industrial perspective. The greatest proof of this was in the militarization of their response mechanisms to virtual conflicts, which took place in 2010 with the US launch of USCYBERCOM – their new military “Cyber Command”, which ‘brought together the cyber components of the US Navy, the US Marines, the army and air force into a unified
The research question considers: How do states see virtual spaces? How do their perceptions affect their political-military decisions? The research concludes that states perceive virtual conflicts in different ways. A secondary conclusion was that as a result, states respond to virtual conflicts with perverse, dissimilar behaviors. In studying the cases of the US, Russia, China; the research showed that states were divided on their interpretation of virtual space and lacked a shared understanding of to act within it. The essay begins with a general overview of virtual conflict and a description of important concepts related to this new conflict space, to illustrate the absence of a common view and terminology between major players in virtual space. From these considerations the paper attempts to frame the ways in which states respond to virtual conflicts by examining the ways that Russia, China and the US, have acted in and responded to virtual attacks. By first looking at the differences in the way that states’ perceive virtual spaces, and how they consequently react, this paper explains how the contradictions in their views are reflected in virtual conflicts. Overall the objective of is to describe and define the causes, dynamics and consequences of contemporary virtual conflicts by examining the global responses …show more content…
The US DoD further elaborates this definition as both offensive and defensive cyber operations that include cyber attacks, cyber defense, and cyber enabling actions. The US perspective of virtual warfare seems to be based on a techno-military, industrial perspective. The greatest proof of this was in the militarization of their response mechanisms to virtual conflicts, which took place in 2010 with the US launch of USCYBERCOM – their new military “Cyber Command”, which ‘brought together the cyber components of the US Navy, the US Marines, the army and air force into a unified