Thomas Rid’s book is rich in analysis and detail. He draws on a range of thinkers, including Thomas Hobbes and Prussian military philosopher, Carl von Clausewitz, to illustrate his thesis that “cyberwar” distracts attention from how nations should debate and address cyberattacks. He delves into the implications of how Internet-based capabilities affect violence, sabotage and espionage. Rid’s book is compelling, though at times the wealth of detail distracts the reader from his central argument. getAbstract recommends Rid’s insights to policy makers in the public and private sectors and to those interested in the security challenges wrought by the Internet.
Losing Control
Some effects of cyberattacks may be more benign – or, at least, not as violent – as popular conceptions would suggest. For instance, an enemy might render an air defense system harmless through a cyberattack instead of a bombing. Though Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz’s ideas predate the Internet by many decades, they help cut through the hype surrounding “cyberwar”:
- Clausewitz argued that war is always a violent act. It attempts to force an enemy to obey your will. If an action is not violent, calling it “war” is metaphorical, like the war on poverty.
- In a war, one side coerces the other side to accept its will through force or the threat of force.
- War is always political. That means “a political entity or a representative of a political entity...has to have an intention, a will. That intention has to be articulated [and] transmitted to the adversary.”
According to Clausewitz, then, most cyberattacks are not acts of war. In a war, the decision to target something is directly connected to causing human casualties. If an aggressor launches a cyberattack that paralyzes a city and causes fatalities by...
Thomas Rid, a reader in war studies at King’s College London, writes extensively on security questions.
Comment on this summary or Iniciar a Discussão