JuliaPennington

December13th,2014
AnalysisofOpposingViewpoints
1) Source(inMLAformat):
AStuxnetFuture?Yes,OffensiveCyberWarfareIsAlreadyHere."InternationalRelationsAnd
SecurityNetwork.N.p.,23Oct.2012.Web.12Dec.2014.
Abstract(briefsummaryoftheargument):
ThearticlestartsbydiscussingtheconcernsandconfusionthataroseduetoStuxnet,
concludingthatnowarcanbefoughtwithcybercapabilitiesalone.Theauthorthengoesonto
discussthethreelargestadvantagestodevelopingoffensivecybercapabilities:theadvantageit
bringsincripplinganenemysintelligenceandtechnologies,thelackofabilitytoreceive
internationalcondemnationforattacks,andtheabilityofattackerstoavoidbeingpenalizedby
theinternationalcommunityaswellasthethreelargestdisadvantagestodevelopingoffensive
cybercapabilities,whicharedetailedinthethreereasonsbelow.Itthenappliestheseadvantages
anddisadvantagestomilitarystrategy,criticalinfrastructure,andespionage.Theauthorendsthe
argumentbyassertingthatregardlessoftheadvantages,disadvantages,andimplications,
cyberwarfareisheretostay.
MainClaim:
Highlevelcyberwarfareintheformofoffensiveattackscreatesseveraldisadvantagesfor
theattacker.
Reason1:

Highlevel,highqualitystyleattacksarebothincrediblyexpensiveandtimeconsuming.

Grounds:
OneexampleofahighlevelcyberweaponoftenreferredtoinmyotheressaysisStuxnet.
FSecurelabsestimatesthatStuxnettookaround10manyearstocreateandeffectivelytest.Itis
importanttorememberthatStuxnetistheproductoftwohighlytechnologicallyadvanced
nationstheUnitedStatesandIsrael.Mostnationsdonothavetheresourcesandmanpower
requiredforthisnewtypeofwarfare.
Warrant:
Nationsshouldtrytopreserveasmanyoftheirresourcesaspossible,soastyleofattack
thatisexpensiveandtimeintensiveshouldbesteeredawayfrom.
Reason2:
Effectivecyberweaponshavelittletonorepeatability.
Grounds:
Everycomputersystemisdifferent.Therefor,ifaparticularmalware(malicious
software)weretobebuiltwithaparticularsysteminmind,itwouldonlybeeffectiveinthat
system.Eventhen,ifthetargetsystemwaspatchedsothatthevulnerabilitiesthatthemalware
targetednolongerexist,thatmalwarewouldbecomeuseless.
Warrant:
Alackofrepeatabilitymeansthattheattackerwouldspendlargeamountsoftimeand
moneyconstructingineffectiveprojects,thusputtingthematadisadvantage.
Reason3:
Itisincrediblydifficulttopreciselypredicttheeffectofanattack.
Grounds:

ThemalwareprogramstuxnetwasoriginallyintendedtoinfiltratethesystemofIrans
nuclearfacilityNatanz,yetitspreadoutintotheworldwidewebresultinginapresenceofthe
virusinseveraldifferentsystemsinternationally.
Warrant:
Notbeingabletopredicttheconsequencesofanattackresultsinputtingtheattackerata
disadvantagebecausetheycannottrulyknowwhatexactlytheoutcomeoftheattackwillbe.
Qualifiers:
Thisargumentpertainsmostlytostateonstatecyberwarfare.Italsoonlyaddresseslarge
scaleattacks,leavingeverydaysmallscaleattacksoutoftheargument.
RebuttalStrategy:
Theauthorstatesthesolereasonwhyanoffensivestrategyisthebestapproachintheir
concludingparagraph:cyberwarfareisheretostay.Noformofwarfarehasadvantageswithout
disadvantages,butthelargestdisadvantageofallwouldbetosetourselvesbehindtherestofthe
worldbyturningawayfromthewarfareofthefuture.Cyberwarfareisnotgoingawayitis
onlygoingtobecomemoreprominent.ThebestpathforAmericawouldbetoacceptthisanddo
allwecantoensurewedonotfallbehindthetechnologicalcapabilitiesofourenemies,because
ifwechoosenottodevelopeourcyberwarfarecapabilitiesonallfronts,ourenemieswilltake
advantageofthis.
2) Source(MLAFormat)
Jr.,JosephS.Nye."NuclearLessonsforCyberSecurity?"NuclearLessonsforCyber
Security?(n.d.):n.pag.Web.11Dec.2014.
Abstract(briefsummaryoftheargument):

Thepremiseofthisargumentrevolvesaroundcomparingcyberwarfaretonuclear
warfareandtheColdWar,andthenfromthismakesaseriesofconclusions.Theseconclusions
includehowcontinuingcyberchangewillcomplicatecyberwarfarestrategy,howtherewillbeno
empiricalcontentavailableforthesestrategies,howcyberwarfarewillcreateanewgreyareain
civilmilitaryrelations,andhowlearningtodevelopandimplementcyberwarfarestrategieswill
beextremelydifficult.
MainClaim:
Cyberwarfare,broughtaboutbytheoffensivestrategy,wouldbeextremelydetrimental.
Reason1:

Cyberwarfarewillcausemuchmorecollateraldamagethanphysicalwarfare.

Grounds:
Inthisdayandage,severalnationsrelyonthecyberworldforthewelfareoftheir
citizens.Estonia,forexample,hasessentiallybecomeadigitalsocietyinwhichthemajorityof
allofthenationsdataisonline.Acyberattackcouldimpactapopulationsaccesstocleanwater,
healthcare,andotherpublicnecessitiesonamuchlargerscalethanaphysicalattack.
Warrant:
Collateraldamageisoneofthemostunfortunateeffectsofwarandshouldbeavoided
becauseitonlycausesharm.
Reason2:
Thereisnoempiricaldatatosupporttheoffensivestandpoint.
Grounds:

AttackssuchasStuxnethavegivenussmallindicationsofwhatacyberwarmaylook
like,butthereisnowaytotrulytelltheextentatwhichacyberwarwouldshaketheinternational
community.Thereremainsnowayofknowingwhatthefullrangeofconsequencesoffullblown
cyberattackswillbe.
Warrant:
Goingwithastrategythathasnoempiricaldataisriskyandhasamorelikelychanceof
causinganegativeeffect.
Reason3:
Cyberwarfarewillovercomplicatemilitarypolicy.
Grounds:
Acyberattackcanoccurinamatterofmilliseconds.Whenanetworkisunderattack,
therespondermustreactquicklyandconfidently,leavingnoroomforajoint,directorapproved
decisiontobemade.Thelackoftimetorespondwithapprovalfromupthefoodchainwhile
underattackwillcomplicatepolicy,becausedecisionswillbemadebyindividualsandnotby
thegovernment.
Warrant:
Itismorebeneficialtohaveonesuccinctgovernmentalstrategyasopposedtorelyingon
decisionsmadebyindividuals.
Qualifiers:
Thisargumentregardsthemilitariesofnationsconsideringthepossibilitiesof
cyberwarfare.Itisinapplicabletocyberattacksregardingtheprivatesector,orgovernmentled
attacks.

RebuttalStrategy:
Theauthorofthisargumentissimplyafraidoftheunknown.Itisunderstandablethatthe
offensivestancecanbefrightening,butrefusingtodelveintonewterritorieswillessentiallyset
ournationfarbehindothersinmilitaryandtechnologicalcapabilities.Theentirepremiseofthe
argumentrevolvesaroundthelackofworkingthroughthecomplicationsofnewtechnologies
andbeinghesitanttoapproachthenewtypeofwarfarethattherestoftheinternational
communityiswillingtoaccept.
3) Source(MLAFormat)
Timberg,Craig,EllenNakashima,andDanielleDouglasGabriel."CyberattacksTriggerTalkof
'hackingBack'"WashingtonPost.TheWashingtonPost,9Oct.2014.Web.12Dec.
2014.
Abstract(briefsummaryoftheargument):
Thisarticlefocusesondiscussingtheimplicationsofanoffensivecyberstrategyfromthe
financialindustrysperspective.Theauthorsdiscusshowthegrowingpropensityofrecent
cyberattacksonlargeUScompanieshascausedalouderdiscussionofcorporationshacking
back.Itthendiscussesthepitfallsofsuchanoffensivestrategy,particularlytheillegalityof
suchanapproachintheUnitedStates.Thediscussionthencontinuestoaddressthecontinual
hesitationoflargebusinessownersandthegovernmenttoemploysuchstrategies,andthen
concludesbydetailingotheralternativesthatprivateindustrieshaveconsideredusingtocombat
cyberattacks.
MainClaim:
Therisksofanoffensivestrategyoutweighthegains.

Reason1:

Itistoodifficulttopinpointtheexactoriginofahacker.

Grounds:
AccordingtoWhiteHousecybersecuritycoordinatorMichaelDaniel,hackerswith
maliciousintentusuallycorruptanduseinnocentthirdpartyinfrastructureinordertomake
theoriginoftheattackmoredifficulttodiscern.Infact,forthemajorityoflargescaleattacks
thattheentireinternationalcommunityhaspayedattentionto,thetruemastermindbehindthem
remainsunnamed.ParticularlyinEstonia,thelargescaleattackagainstthenationin2007is
expectedtobesanctionedbytheRussiangovernment.Yet,7yearslater,theonlyevidencewe
haveisskepticism.
Warrant:
Havingdifficultydeterminingtheoriginofahackcouldresultinretaliatingonthewrong
person,upsettingtheinternationalcommunityandcreatingenemiesforourselves,makingthe
outcomemuchmoredrasticthanthegain.
Reason2:
Wewouldhypocriticallybeviolatingourownlaws.
Grounds:
TheComputerFraudandAbuseActstatesthatenteringanotherpersonsorcompanys
networkwithoutpermissionisaclearviolationofprivacyandbasicrightsandfreedoms.
Offensiveattacksunquestionablyfallunderthiscategory,astheyrequiretheentranceofa
foreignnetworkwithoutpermissionfromtheowner.
Warrant:

Beingviewedasahypocritebytheinternationalcommunitywouldlowertheirrespect
forournationasawhole,andhavingtheworldlookdownuponusisnotworththegain.
Reason3:
Thisstrategyrequiresputtingyourowndataatrisk.
Grounds:
Usingoffensiveattackstobuildupsecuritynetworks,particularlyintheprivatesector,
putsthatcompanysdataatrisk.Theveryinformationthatthecompanyishopingtoprotect
becomessusceptibletobothintentionalandunintentionaldamageanddestruction.
Warrant:
Puttingtheverydatathatyouaretryingtoprotectatriskautomaticallymakestheentire
processpointlessinthefirstplace,anditsnotworthriskingwhatwearetryingtoprotect.
Qualifiers:
Thisarticlepertainslargelytofinancialandprivateindustryattacks,soitisirrelevant
whendiscussingcyberwarfarebetweentwoindependentnations.
RebuttalStrategy:
Thefinancialindustryhasbeenworkingtobuildupitscybersecuritysincethetermwas
born,yetcompaniesarecontinuallysufferingfromattacksnowmorethanever.Untilthereisa
changeinthestrategy,thecyberattackswillcontinuetotrendinthisunattractivemanner.The
strategymustbeupgradedtoincludehackingback,otherwisethecorporationswillbestuckin
thesamecycleofbeingattackedandscramblingtopatchthesecurityflaws,andthenwaitingfor
thenextattack.