The Need For RoE In Cyberwarfare

In simpler times long ago, an act of war was easily defined as an incident of purposeful, and harmful, violence directed against one country from another. This made it rather easy to figure out if war was being made on you, or if you were making war on someone else. For example, the War of Jenkin's Ear. A Spanish boarding party cut off the ear of a British captain, and a 10 year war ensued in which 20,000 men were lost, and 407 ships destroyed.

Times have obviously changed a bit since then. Notably, computers and cyberspace have dramatically changed our lives. With the advent of cloud-computing, the internet has become an essential tool. Ever increasing in ubiquity, the internet now controls massive amounts of infrastructure, news outlets, and financial institutions. A feature of this new system is that most of the previously mentioned edifices are accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

The problem with this is that those who would do us harm are not barred from this access. Several times in all-too-recent history, governmental and commercial websites have been maliciously attacked by self-proclaimed "hacktivists", such as Anonymous, with the general agenda of bringing about an anarchistic landscape on the net. In addition to these groups, entire governments have become involved. Therein lie several big questions: What exactly constitutes an act of war in cyberspace? Is it the same as in the "real world"? What sort of retaliation, if any, is required or justifiable? To what extent should cyber-attacks influence international relations?

Consider this: Chinese commandos land in Seattle and burn down Amazon.com's headquarters. Obviously this is an act of aggression, and would be treated as a declaration of war. However, if Chinese hackers bring down Amazon.com's website, little is said about the matter. If American fighter jets and bombers destroyed an Iranian nuclear facility, it would obviously be an act of war. But if American and Israeli computer scientists devise the nastiest computer worm invented and launch it on an Iranian nuclear facility, no accusations are made.

Ourselves and our enemies have done more than cut off each other's ears, yet war has not broken out, and the perpetrators have gone unpunished. Thoughts, anyone?

They're Rioting in Africa

So... Anyone seen the news lately? It seems that violent protests have rocked the Old World. From Tunisia to Egypt to England to Syria, something is lighting both cars and people on fire.

The world is burning!

People are angry!

But why?


Well, it really depends on the particular situation. For example, in England, the unrest appears to be race-based. In Egypt, we can infer that the riots started out of a difference in governmental philosophical theories between the people and, well, the government.


But, which one of these is the best case-study? I would contend that Syria gets the prize for that. Here's why:

• A brutal government
• An angry populace
• Rising death tolls
• No physical international support
• Continuing violence over several months

You will probably notice that Syria is the only country that meets all of the above criteria. An uprising in these conditions is very hard to sustain, yet the Syrians are doing it. This requires extreme dedication to their cause, rivaled only by the IRA at the worst periods of The Troubles. They shouldn't be able to do this, but they are. Why?

Ain't no party like a Boston party!

Perhaps we can glean the answer to this mighty poser from a look at American history. It seems that in the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers found themselves in precisely the same position.

When people do things that defy reason or safety, when they take risks without hope of survival, they are either insane or they are idealists. Then again, a lot of idealists are insane. But the American revolutionaries were fighting for something bigger than themselves, and worth dying for. That is, they were fighting to destroy an illegitimate government that stood against everything they believed in.

Sound familiar? The riots in Syria are the cries of freedom from the those oppressed by an illegitimate government. This is why these people continue to fight, even when it makes no sense to continue. America should take a strong stand for the Syrian people, and for liberty everywhere. If we ignore the people here, where they are fighting for a uniquely American cause, what exactly are we willing to fight for?