The Coming Internet Cyber War: Can We Continue to Computerize Society without Opening Pandora’s Box?

The Battlefield of the 21st Century: Cyberspace

There is an underground war going on between nations, terrorists, corporations and private individuals, even You. This war is fought in a language that few know how to read, and an even smaller number know how to write. It is waged between two forces Architects and Wolves. Defensive fortresses are designed by Architects that have skills and training to protect our most precious treasure. Cunning wolves probe every opening of these cyber fortresses and with enough time, can find a passageway inside, break down the walls from within, and gain access to the fortress keep. This underground war if fought every day on cyber space, becoming more sophisticated and competitive. Increasing numbers of experts fight to protect computer systems from those who attempt to hack into those systems. This is the new battleground of the twenty-first century: Cyberspace.

These battles can be simple or sophisticated, whether from identity theft and password cracking, to attacks on banking or state infrastructure.  Cyber hackers are sometimes the “good guys” in this war, they can fight for justice. These hacker heroes are found in China where the state oppresses and hides search engine results, shuts down dissident websites, and continues its oppression through censorship.  Chinese hackers probe the fortresses of firewalls and blocks set up by Chinese authorities and bypass them to continue their fight for political freedoms.

This warfare can be a tit for tat battle. During the Iranian uprising in the summer of 2009, the Iranian government during their suppression campaigns attempted to block news and media from leaving and entering the country, specifically censoring social networking sites that were becoming the backdoor for dissent and protestors. In response, Iranian hackers were able to circumvent these barriers and bring moment by moment news to the world through social networking sites like twitter. Iranian hackers also went on the attack, disabling the government of Iran’s official and propaganda sites.

What our society should be concerned about is the increase in private and state terrorism in the field of cyber warfare and the effect it will have as American and World Society. As we move to greater dependency on the internet/computers for trade, banking, infrastructure, communication, socialization, news, and information, these systems are becoming more vulnerable when before they were unwired to the net or computer systems.

Military Warfare on the Internet

The attacks listed below are cyber attacks that illustrate catastrophic and threatening cyber attacks, which draw into question our continued wiring of our society opening ourselves up to these attacks. Large scale battles in this war include:

The first unclassified nation vs. nation cyber warfare attack occurred between an unknown entity (believed to be Russia but still unknown) and Estonia in 2007. Estonia, a highly wired society, was bombarded for a period of 3 weeks with cyber attacks which took control of government websites, computers, and critical state operations. The entire online banking system of Estonia was disabled for weeks.

Russia attacks on Georgian government websites, emails, news sites, and internet infrastructure occurred in August 2008. Georgia’s connection with the outside world was cut off, and the government was put in turmoil as Russian tanks moved across the border. Georgia was left helpless resulting in its military defeat. Russia’s victory demonstrates the effect of cyber bombs can have in combination with military and political operations.

The most significant and sophisticated cyber weapon to date, was discovered this summer and designated Stutnex. This computer worm was discovered in national infrastructures throughout Europe and Asia, as well as Iranian nuclear computer systems. Recent research on the weapon shows that it is a highly sophisticated weapon designed to shutdown and disable state infrastructure by taking control of those computer systems. The worm was highly covert and jumped through portable media drives to once thought isolated systems. It was intended for a specific target which is yet unknown.

Warnings for America

The disabling of Estonia’s economic sector and crippling of its national computer systems and the complete disabling of Georgia’s cyberspace in preparation for military attack, show a clear vulnerability of cyber, economic and political infrastructure. The recent release of the Stutnex virus shows an even scarier possibility that real world infrastructure that we rely on for our survival; electrical systems, nuclear power plants, dams, safety programs, water, sanitation, can be sabotaged through cyber attacks.

In an age where individual’s daily lives are becoming increasingly wired onto electronic devices and increasingly computerized infrastructure to sustain those lives is the trend, the possibility of catastrophic cyber attack increases. If we continue this progress, a future American or Europe could be brought to a complete halt, shutting down our banking, online business’s and electrical power. The increasing calls for a smart grid for power and resource management makes this possible reality even more real. While the benefits for the system are realized through decreased costs and conservation of energy, a major security risk could arise where our electrical grid can become an easier target for cyber attacks.

We don’t have to worry about terminators turning on humanity but we must be prepared to deal with man’s most dangerous enemy, his fellow man. If we continue to allow an increased wiring of infrastructure that keeps people alive, the risks of falling victim to attack and real world detriment increases. Every encryption can eventually be broken with enough time and persistence, so defense will never be foolproof. This does not mean we should not take advantage of this computerized information age! Planners should consider keeping parallel and when able, manual hack-proof backups to sustain us. Let us be cautious when we follow a path of “progress” and integration and ignore the threats of increasing cyber attacks.

Sources:

Stuxnet Virus Info Christian Science Monitor

US Cyber Warfare and Smart Grid Wall Street Journal

Iran Cyber Warfare BBC

Estonia Cyber Attacks The Guardian

Playing the Jester- A Need for a New Plan To Stop Iran

Just to preempt this post: This is a continuation of yesterdays post “International Affairs for Thought! Where do you stand?”

A major problem with modern international affairs theory and its application is the failure of individuals, leaders and society from one country to recognize the different playbook their counterparts in other countries use to determine policies. Some nations practice realist political theory in their international affairs, seeking to grow their power and survive against their neighbors and other nations who strive to outpace them in competition. Others attempt to reach out to other nations for global cooperation, seeking to build a more internationalized world under a flag of liberal internationalism and partnerships for cooperative prosperity.

Nations today especially in the West seem to form bad policy when their leaders and policymakers pursue policies without considering the philosophical understanding and political theory of their counterparts. Policy makers constantly project on their counterparts their own political philosophies rather than determining the inner motivation of their fellow statesmen. Liberal Internationalist policies cannot succeed when nations in mutual debate believe in policies that reflect realist political theory without appealing to their sense of power.

The recent diplomacy between Iran and the United States clearly illustrates this breakdown. Barack Obama is a Liberal Internationalist in foreign affairs. He believes that international cooperation is the key to solving conflicting political, economic, military and strategic problems between nations. His actions throughout his entire administration in his desire for “sitting down at the table” with the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, illustrate this misconceived notion of Liberal Internationalists. He avoids threatening military force or national power to subdue Iran, instead he is focusing on dialogue without implementing any strong policy whether soft or hard power. He constantly leaves the door open for the Iranians to rejoin negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Obama stated at his UN Assembly meeting speech, an hour before Ahkmadinejad made his outrageous comments (calling 911 an inside job):

“In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East – then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that Treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future not belong to fear.”

What International obligations does Iran have to the world? Who decided these arbitrary international standards? Why must Iran be held accountable? These are the questions that are the focus of Iran’s opposition. Unlike Obama the Iranians view the world in realist power politics terms.

With the historical experience in the weakened position of colonial subjects under British and Russian rule, the Iranians have a deep understanding of the fate of nations who do not adopt and follow realist political strategies to grow more powerful than their potential enemies. This understanding compels the Iranians to strengthen their nation through the achievement of national power through nuclear weapons development. Nuclear weapons are an insurance measure for defense against the future possibility of a challenge to Iran’s actions from World powers whose interests may not coincide with Iran’s. It is also a means to enter world politics from a position of strength from which it can use that power base to control and dominate Middle Eastern politics for its own survival and vitality. This is most certainly the thinking and strategy of the Iranians. Any attempt to hinder this weapons development is seen by Iran as an attempt to diminish the power of Iran on the world stage. “If Iran is weak they can be exploited” is how their leaders view the situation of not having the ultimate deterrent of nuclear weapons.

Yet, the Obama administration continues to misunderstand their adversaries and assume that they can appeal to the Iranians sense of duty and honor as members of a fantasy coalition of cooperative world nations. By playing the Obama administration for fools, by canceling, restarting and procrastinating talks, the Iranians have been buying the time they needed for weapons develop. The modus operandi of the Obama administration needs to change to reflect the reality of how Iranians view the internal game playing out, or Iran will surely continue to run circles around the US, until the bomb is acquired.

To achieve US strategic interests of preventing Iran from acquiring the bomb, the US must present a position to the Iranians that will force them to choose sustainment of national sovereignty in giving up the bomb instead of pursuing their quest to achieve more national power through Nukes. The US must be willing to convince the Iranians that the threat of their nation’s existence is at stake, and the US is willing to use its military, economic, and diplomatic might to hurt the Iranian nation to the point of its collapse. If they can show a clear powerful threat the Iranians will see the only option is to back down. We need to make them an offer they cannot refuse! (Does not mean we cannot offer incentives to go along such as economic integration and deals as long as they are treated as secondary motivations). The lessons of Iraq as well as other occupations are fresh in the minds of Iran’s leaders and they desire national growth and survival above all else. War with the US will only set them further back. The development of nuclear weapons is a gamble by the Iranians to build the bomb before the US adopts a strong position. The Iranians understood the weak position of Liberal internationalist, it is time Obama learned that Iran is playing games and has exploited them to allow their scientists to develop the bomb.

In diplomacy, one should always know their opposition as well as themselves. The Iranians knew Obama’s strategy and exploited a weakness of liberal internationalist strain, with great success. The United States must be willing to determine if such approaches will work with non-democratic states and states in which their vested interest is in growth through power. The only way to force a realist policy to change in your favor is to exploit its calculations on power to your own desired outcome. An appeal to the moral traditions and values of liberalism will only work when it is the best option of a nation for national self-interest. The Iranians clearly view the development of the bomb as a means to achieve their interest. Nations will always act in their interest and the assumption that liberal international cooperation can always secede in settling disputes denies power political realities.

Time For a Change of Strategy in Iran, don’t you think?

Source for Obama’s Speech at the UN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/obama-un-speech-text_n_296017.html

Source for Political Cartoon Above: http://www.floppingaces.net/wp-content/gallery/political-cartoons/cowboy_diplomacy_big.jpg