Webster’s Dictionary defines war as an “armed conflict between nations.” In today’s context, this definition does not fully capture the scope of conflict that is possible or already present on the strategic landscape. There is assumption built into this definition that soldiers, weapons, and physical attacks on a country’s population are a prerequisite to “war.” Recent cyber events such as the targeted ransomware that affected more than 60 countries, and the social media campaign conducted by some nations to influence elections around the world call for a complete rethinking of the meaning of the term war.
Let’s deconstruct construct this idea: history provides a host of examples that parallel this train of thought. When Germany attacked France, they used a new weapon—the tank—and a new employment method unheard up before: blitzkrieg. The Japanese use of carrier-based aircraft to attack Pearl Harbor was a similarly unexpected event where new weapons were employed using new tactics. When the United States attacked Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Tomahawk missiles were the new weapons of choice and within hours they wiped out the entire air defense and communications infrastructure of the country. The goal in each case was to exploit vulnerabilities, weaken the country’s leadership, and impose the will of the invading country on the targeted societies. How might this apply today?
New Threats
Suppose a country with no regard for rules of war, freedom of speech, or personal choice developed a comprehensive plan to use social media and target the business and military side of the Internet— the way aircraft, tanks, and Tomahawks were used in the past. The next war could (and is not unlikely to) begin with a sudden, massive cyber invasion of a country to lock down financial institutions, the traffic grid, the power grid, and military communications using malware or denial of service attacks.
As in other military campaigns, an additional tactic is to ensure that one means of communication is kept open to allow targeted information to spread freely—perhaps the attackers leave Facebook and Twitter unaffected but these accounts are then quickly manipulated to provide a false narrative. At this point, several scenarios are possible, including continued cyber attacks to devalue currency, taking control of air traffic control, and stirring civil unrest. These attacks could be enough to weaken the government to the point where attack by more conventional means is possible. Alternatively, the country turns upon itself, loses face faith in its government, and installs a new government that is amenable to the needs and wants of the invaders.
New Vulnerabilities
The incredible transparency and open sharing of information—including capabilities and limitations of our military systems, infrastructure, and social fabric, are both a great strength and a huge vulnerability.
The goal of Germany in World War II was to increase its territory and influence over the world. In the past, rapid deployment of unforeseen weapons and tactics contributed to the rapid success of hostile invasions. This occurred because the scope of a threat and the intentions of the invading country caught an unwary citizenship by surprise. The leap from “hardware”—weapons made of steel—to weapons consisting entirely of software, is perhaps no greater than the gap between the horse and the tank, but presents an even greater threat.
War Redefined
Maybe a simple change: “War—an attack, physical or virtual…” is in order. Is this approach an overreaction? Perhaps, but history has a robust track record of punishing those who do not learn from their past; failure to recognize this and revisit the definition of war in the future could be a mistake—one with tragic consequences for democracy.
