World War I saw the emergence of tanks and machine guns. The Second World War saw the prominent use of flame throwers and the introduction of long range guided ballistic missiles. The Cold War was a standoff centered on nuclear bombs. The Persian Gulf War was won through extensive bombing via stealth fighter-bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles. So what is the world’s newest way to wage or threaten war?
The internet.
As large nations—such as the United States and many of its allies—become ever more reliant on electronic assets to function, those tasked with waging war or defending against war—whether domestic agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defense or elements of foreign groups such as the Islamic State—dedicate increasing amounts of …show more content…
Likewise, the training needed to execute some degree of cyber warfare is minimal. For instance, the aforementioned civilian group Anonymous has published a “NoobGuide” for hacking the Islamic State, with a goal of increasing the civilian involvement in their war on the Islamic State. However, just as cyber warfare allows for more direct influence on war by civilians, it also allows for more direct influence on civilians by …show more content…
An article from The New Yorker goes as far as to compare the rash implementation and potentially devastating global response to cyber warfare—particularly Stuxnet—to the Cold War nuclear arms race. However, this comparison falls short for one key aforementioned reason; accessibility. Civilians or small—whether by physical size, manpower or resources—militant groups cannot often afford to develop or procure nuclear weapons, thus the risk for large and developed nations that can afford those technologies is relatively low, compared to a high risk for those who cannot afford the technologies. However, those same civilians and small groups can utilize much of the same technology that larger nations can with regards to cyber warfare, thus reducing the risk for themselves and maximizing the risk for the large nations with everything to
The internet.
As large nations—such as the United States and many of its allies—become ever more reliant on electronic assets to function, those tasked with waging war or defending against war—whether domestic agencies such as the U.S. Department of Defense or elements of foreign groups such as the Islamic State—dedicate increasing amounts of …show more content…
Likewise, the training needed to execute some degree of cyber warfare is minimal. For instance, the aforementioned civilian group Anonymous has published a “NoobGuide” for hacking the Islamic State, with a goal of increasing the civilian involvement in their war on the Islamic State. However, just as cyber warfare allows for more direct influence on war by civilians, it also allows for more direct influence on civilians by …show more content…
An article from The New Yorker goes as far as to compare the rash implementation and potentially devastating global response to cyber warfare—particularly Stuxnet—to the Cold War nuclear arms race. However, this comparison falls short for one key aforementioned reason; accessibility. Civilians or small—whether by physical size, manpower or resources—militant groups cannot often afford to develop or procure nuclear weapons, thus the risk for large and developed nations that can afford those technologies is relatively low, compared to a high risk for those who cannot afford the technologies. However, those same civilians and small groups can utilize much of the same technology that larger nations can with regards to cyber warfare, thus reducing the risk for themselves and maximizing the risk for the large nations with everything to