1. 1 Gus T. Rankin
‘Cyberwar will not take place.’ Discuss
‘Known knowns,therearethingswe know thatweknow.We also know there are known unknowns,
thatis to say thereare somethingsthat wedo notknow.Butthere are also unknown unknowns,the
oneswe don’tknowwedon’tknow’
– DonaldRumsfeld –US Secretaryof Defence.1
To beginwe muststate that there are differingviewssurroundingcyberwarwithmostof them
of a hypothetical nature.DonaldRumsfeld’squotationon ‘knownunknowns’ resonateswiththe
hypothetical nature of these arguments.Thus,inanera of Moore’sLaw - and therefore increasing
‘knownunknowns’ and‘unknownunknowns’ –the argumentswe are presentingare thatmuchmore
fallible. Aswe will see, some argue thatcyberwarisalreadytakingplace,butthe majorityof thisessay
will be outliningthe twoprevailingarguments: thatcyberwarwill come,andthatcyberwaris
overhyped.We willlargelyassessthe realistperspective inThomasRid’s‘Don’tfearthedigital
bogeyman’,alongside MyriamDunnCavelty’s Cyber-Security and ThreatPolitics, alongside her‘A likely
as a visitfromE.T.’. Onthe contrary,we will assessRichardClark’scatastrophicperspective,with,in
tangentthe worksof JohnArquillaandJamesMcGregor.Thisessayis therefore artificiallycreatingtwo
sidesof the debate inorderto clarifyananswerto the clear-cutpresumptionsof the question. From
this,we will analyse the argumentsputforwardastwopropositions,andcritique themaccordingto
otheracademicsviewontheirviability. Before we starttoassesswhethercyberwarwillorwill nottake
place,we mustaccept that eachacademichas theirowndefinitionof whatcyberwarcanbe definedas.
Whetheryoucan define cyberwarwhenusedalongside physical militaryequipmentinaidof military
gain,or for economicmeans;orwhetheryoucan merelydefine cyberwarwithinthe parametersof
cyberspace,these are discussionthatwe will assessonce all argumentshave beenconsidered.
1
P.W.SingerandAllanFriedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar:Whateveryoneneedsto know (New
York, 2014) p255

2. 2 Gus T. Rankin
To begin,we can lookat RichardClarke’scatastrophistview,thatcyberwarhasbeguninhis
workon ‘Who Was Behind the StuxnetAttack’.Clarke statesthatsince the Stuxnet’svirus,weaponised
malware can be obtainedonlinebyanybody,stating ‘itwasgiven the worldforfree’.2
Followingon
fromthis,Clarke believeshe hasgoodevidence forthistobe the case, as we will explore late; he is
suggestingthatany‘whizkid’couldcreate theirown‘Stuxnet’.A trulyterrifyingthought,thatsucha
weapon, whichcaused suchdivertactionas‘seizingthe control of the machinesrunningcentrifuges
and… desynchronizethe speedsatwhichthe centrifugesspin,causingnearlyathousandof themto
seize up,crashand otherwise self-destruct’.3
Clarkeisstatingthatthismalware isnow accessible to
anybody;howeverwithsuchanarrow perception,Clarke asacatastrophistonlyseestrouble ahead.
Thisis notwhat trulyworriesClarke,whatworrieshimisthisideaof a‘deathof a thousandcuts’,4
where he describesthe theft of Americanresearchanddevelopmentasaway of removingtheir
competitiveness;butalsothe impactthiscouldhave uponopeningmilitaryequipmentto Chinese
cyberintervention.Clarketherefore believesthe UnitedStatesmilitarytobe inadequate when
weaponizedmalware suchasStuxnetcanbe usedina waythat providesmilitaryequipmentuseless,or
evencounter-productive. ThisisfurtheremphasisedbyPeterSinger andAllanFriedmanintheirbook
on Cybersecurityand Cyberwarfare,wheretheystate thatthe U.S.has 8,000 PredatorandReaper
drones,all controlledfrommilitaryroboticprograms,whichinturnallowsthemtobe opentoattack.5
Again,we mustbearin mindthat thisisof the catastrophicperspectivewhichfundamentallyfailsto
see the humanrace as one of cooperation.Which tosome extentislegitimisedwhenlookingatactions
takenby the Chinese state,andthe thenrecognitionbythe U.S.governmentof thisthreat;itishere
2
Rosenbaum,Ron,featuringRichardClarke, Richard Clarkeon Who WasBehind theStuxnetAttack,
The Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-
Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html?c=y&story=fullstory p6
3
Rosenbaum,Ron,featuringRichardClarke, Richard Clarkeon Who WasBehind theStuxnetAttack,
The Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-
Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html?c=y&story=fullstoryp2
4
Rosenbaum,Ron,featuringRichardClarke, Richard Clarkeon Who WasBehind theStuxnetAttack,
The Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-
Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html?c=y&story=fullstory p6
5
P.W.SingerandAllanFriedman,CybersecurityandCyberwar:Whateveryone needstoknow (New
York, 2014) p130

3. 3 Gus T. Rankin
where we can ascertainthe problemsof cybersecurity,and putClarke’sviewintoperspective. We see
some recognitionof Chinese economicespionage, demonstratedbyMichigan’s8th
District
representative Michael Rogers, whenhe stated,‘China’seconomicespionagehasreachedan
intolerablelevel andIbelieve thatthe UnitedStatesandouralliesinEurope andAsiahave an
obligationtoconfrontBeijinganddemandthattheyputa stopto thispiracy’.6
Thisstatement
recognisesthatChinaare indeedcoercinginsuchactivities,butona widernote givessome perspective
to the catastrophicworldinwhichClarke describes. The opposingside of the argument,the realist,
woulddismissChineseespionageasone thatis overhyped,andwoulddefine theirperceptionsof ‘war’,
or potential future ‘war’,alongthe parametersof death;whichtheywouldargue,cyberwarhasfailed
to deliveron. Nevertheless,beforedismissingClarkes view,we willdelve deeperintoChinese actions,
assessingwhetherClarke’sview iswarranted.
We see fromnumeroussourcesthatChinahack for the purpose of espionage,andalthough
thisessayisnot basedaroundwhetherornot Chinahack the UnitedStates,itgoessomewayto
validatingRichardClarke’snotionthatcyberwarisinfact takingplace,or rather,isa possibility.Firstwe
see fromexamplesinJamesMcGregor’swork,thatJoe Stewart,directorof malware atDell
SecureWorks,state that‘Chinese spieshave rentedorhackedforthe purpose of espionage’;7
which
withthe verydefinitionof ‘espionage’servestoindicate alevel of militarythreat.Fromthiswe cango
on to state that Mandiant,a private cybersecuritycompany,foundthe same results,havingtracedthe
‘the mostprolificcyberespionagegroupsintermsof sheerquantityof informationstolen’.8
According
to Mandiant,the companieswhere the datawasstolen,matcheddirectlythe ‘industriesthatChinahas
6
Mike Rogers, “Mike Rogers,Statementtothe U.S.House,PermanentSelectCommittee on
Intelligence,OpenHearing:CyberThreats andOngoingEffortstoProtectthe Nation,Hearing,October
4, 2011,
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/100411CyberHearingRoger
s. pdf accessedFebruary6, 2013
7
JamesMcgregor,The Atlantic,April 27th
2013: ‘Is thespecter of a cyber cold war real?’
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/04/is-the-specter-of-a-cyber-cold-war-real/275352/
8
JamesMcgregor,The Atlantic,April 27th
2013: ‘Is thespecter of a cyber cold war real?’
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/04/is-the-specter-of-a-cyber-cold-war-real/275352/

4. 4 Gus T. Rankin
identifiedasstrategictotheirgrowth’,whichwasidentifiedwithinthe mostrecentChineseFive Year
Plan.9
Furthermore,withinanofficialdocumentissuedonbehalf of the DepartmentforHomeland
Securityandeighteenothernational bodies,the 2013 Data Breach InvestigationsReport,compiledby
Verizon’sRiskTeam,notedthat‘state-affiliatedactorstiedtoChinawasthe biggestmoverin2012,’
whowenton to state, ‘theireffortstosteal IPcomprise aboutone-fifthof all breachesinthisdataset’
and thiswasmerelyinIPaddresses.10
Whereasonawidernote,itwasstatedthat 96% of espionage
caseswere attributedtothreatactors in China,andthe remaining4% were unknown.11
Thistherefore,
go some way to suggestthere are claimsthat back upRichard Clarke’snotionthatChinaare stealing
U.S. data; yet,we can go no furtherinexplainingtheirtrue intentions,whichiswhatwill trulydeclare
whetherornot a cyberwarwill take place.Fora cyberwarto take place,the UnitedStatesmustmake a
perverse actiontorespond,somethingwhichClarke believesthe U.S.isunwilling/incapable todo.
Despite this,NickHopkinsof the Guardian,statesthe U.S.andChinahave beenreactingtoone-an-
other,statinginhisarticle on cybercrime,thatamidthe risingangeroverthe scale andaudacityof
Beijing-co-ordinatedcyberattacks,the USand Chinahave beenengagingin‘wargames’.12
Though,as
statedinHopkinsarticle,of the countriesactivelyinvolvedincyberespionage, Chinaisthe onlyone
likelytobe a militarycompetitortothe UnitedStates,13
thereforegoingsomewaytosuggestfor
9
JamesMcGregor, The Atlantic,April 27th
2013: ‘Isthe spectreof a cybercold warreal?’
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/04/is-the-specter-of-a-cyber-cold-war-real/275352/
10
VerizonEnterprise, 2013 Data Breach InvestigationsReport,2013,
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-
2013_en_xg.pdf accessed03/12/2015
11
VerizonEnterprise, 2013 Data Breach InvestigationsReport,2013,
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-
2013_en_xg.pdf accessed03/12/2015
12
NickHopkins, USand China engagein Cyber ‘wargames’,16th
April 2012,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/16/us-china-cyber-war-gamesaccessed
27/11/2015
13
NickHopkins, USand China engagein Cyber ‘wargames’,16th
April 2012,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/16/us-china-cyber-war-games accessed
01/12/2015

5. 5 Gus T. Rankin
cyberwarto actuallytake place,there needstoajointthreatof bothmilitarilyandcyber,otherwise,as
Ridstates,it’sjustan inconvenience.14
To assessthe viewthatcyberwarwill infacttake place,we will lookatthe worksby David
RonfeldtandJohnArquilla,intheir Networks,Netwars,and theFightfortheFuture, 2001. Here they
presentthemselvesasrationalists,thatbelieveanevernetworkcentricworldcanbenefitthe world,
howevertheyhave reservationsjustlike PeterSingerandAllanFriedmanhave intheir Cybersecurity
and Cyberwar. The reservationsthatRonfeldtandArquillahold,lie inthe rise of networks andwhat
thismeansintermsof mitigatingpowertononstate actors;whichis alsoimpliedinSingersbookwhen
he usesthe metaphor,‘the nationsmostskilledatthrowingrockslive inthe biggestglasshouses’,15
referringtothe interconnectednature of nationstatessuchas the UnitedStates. The term‘netwar’
that RonfeldtandArquillacoinedin1993, is meanttocall attentiontothe prospectthat network-
basedconflictandcrime will become amajorphenomenoninthe decadesahead.16
Yet, althoughthey
have redefinedthisthreatonthe basisof non-state actorsintheir2001 work,thisdoesnot affectthe
basisof the argument,andthat still lieswiththe rejectionof the propositionthat‘cyberwarwill not
take place’.The ambivalentnature thatRonfeldtandArquillaprovide tothisdefinitionof ‘netwar’is
testamenttothe ambivalentnature of the evergrowingcapabilitiesof anopenlygrowingnetwork,
whichprovides,asRumsfeldindicates, evermore ‘unknownsunknowns’.Withthis,we canargue that
stateswill become factorsinthis‘netwar’thatRonfeldtandArquilladescribe,whethertheychose toor
not; therefore,we cancontradictthe question,andstate thatcyberwarwill take place –it’sisjust a
matterof whoit will be between,non-state orstate,andaccordingly,whetherornotphysical military
will be involved.
14
Thomas Rid, ‘ThinkAgain:CyberwarDon'tfearthe digital bogeyman.Virtualconflictis still more hype
than reality.’ ForeignPolicy,March/April 2012.
15
P.W.SingerandAllanFriedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar:Whateveryoneneedsto know (New
York, 2014) p152
16
DavidRonfeldtandJohnArquilla, Networks,Netwars,and theFightfortheFuture (RAND,2001)
Chapter10

6. 6 Gus T. Rankin
Furtherto this,JohnArquillausesthe Russo-Georgianconflictin2008, as a way of
foreshadowingthe risingdominance of cyberwar;implyingthatitwill onlybecome more destructive
overtime.The evidence forthis,andthroughhisrebuttal of ThomasRid’shypothesisethatCyberwaris
all hype,comeswiththe notionthatphysical warwill still take place,andcyberwarwillbe afunction
towardsachievingmilitarygains –he callsthis Network-centricwarfare - 17
therefore,Arquillahasa
differingdefinitionof cyberwarthansayThomasRid.We can state thisbecause Ridacknowledgesthat
cyberwarwill playapart of alongside physical warfare,Rid’sonlyproblemishe doesn’tsee itasa
capable threat,whereasArquillaseesitonlyasa credible threatalongsidemilitaryequipment.Bothdo
not followthe argumentof RichardClarke,whosideswithothersinthe U.S.governmentlikeLeon
Panetta,the FormerDefense Secretary,whocoinedthe term‘CyberPearl Harbour’.18
SowhatIam
gettingat here,isthat, because Arquillastatesthatcyberwarisalreadyhere,itdoesnotmeanhe is far
away fromwhatRid issuggesting,rathertheyjusthave differingdefinitionsof cyberwar.Movingon,
we can see that there are those whobelieve cyberwarisathreat inand of itself,andwe have those
whobelieve itisathreatalongside physicalmilitaryequipment –bothof whichIam arguingare
cyberwarfare.Nevertheless,bothRidandArquillaare ondifferingsidesof the debate,asadirectresult
of theirownwording, asRiddoesnotdenythat cybersecuritywillnotbecome afactorwithinwarfare,
he is merelypointingoutitsthreathasbeenoverhyped,similarlytoMyriamDunnCavelty.Therefore,
it istheirperspectiveonhumannature thatsplitsup both Ridand Arquilla,forRidisquite obviouslya
realist,whereasArquilla,asstatedbyhimself,‘illuminatesthe potentialof cyberwar’.19
Something
whichMyriam DunnCaveltygoesonto criticisesheavilyinherbookon Cyber-Security and Threat
Politics, as we will assesslater.
17
Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Cyber-Security and ThreatPolitics (Routledge,2008) p69
18
Leon Panetta, Leon Panetta warnsof 'cyberPearlHarbour', 12th
October2012,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19923046 accessed01/12/2015
19
JohnArquilla,Rebuttal: Cyberwarisalready upon us,butcan it be controlled? ForeignPolicy,
March/April 2012

7. 7 Gus T. Rankin
Anotherareathat islookedat byJohnArquillaalone inhisrebuttal of ThomasRid,ishow
destructive cyberwarwill becomeovertime.Here we cancontrastthe two differingexamplesboth
ArquillaandRiduse,andsee howtheypresenttheir argumentsaccordingultimatelydecidingwhois
the most convincing.Tobegin,we see Arquillause the example of the Russo-Georgianconflictof 2008,
statinghowtheirinvasionwas‘greatlyeasedbycyberattacksonTbilisi’scommand,control,and
communicationssystems’,20
effectivelywipingouttheirmilitaryoppositiontothe invasion. Arquilla
usesthisas a perfectindicatorasto where the future of warfare lies,he associatescyberwarfare with
‘aerial bombing’,indicatingthata warcannot be won single handedlybyaerial bombardment;
associatingthe Russo-Georgianconflict,directlywiththe SpanishCivil War75 yearsago.21
Addingto
this,It is Arquilla’sbelief that,‘engagingindisruptivecyberattacksalone ishardlyawayto winwars’.22
However,adirectcomparisontoArquilla’sworkanda realistswork,wouldbe the view takenonthe
Israeli airraidon the Osiraknuclearreactor 30 yearsago, whichPeterSingerstates,killed ‘eleven
soldiersandcivilians’.23
The presentdayswayof coercive action,Stuxnet, however, didnothurta
single personnevermindkill one,24
there wassimplynocollateral damage,anditishardto see there
everbeingsowitha weaponssuchas Stuxnetwhichhasone simple aim.ThomasRidalsomakesthese
points,yethe usesfarmore examplesrangingfromEstoniatoStuxnet,statingsimplythatneitherfulfil
the criteriainthe definitionof war.25
He refutesArquilla’snotionthatthere willbe anescalationof
these threats,throughthe ideathatas we become more interconnected,we alsobecomemore aware
to the threats,and shouldthe likesof a‘Stuxnet’infectacomputersystem, itisverylikelythatitwasa
20
JohnArquilla,Rebuttal: Cyberwarisalready upon us,butcan it be controlled? ForeignPolicy,
March/April 2012
21
JohnArquilla,Rebuttal: Cyberwarisalready upon us,butcan it be controlled? ForeignPolicy,
March/April 2012
22
JohnArquilla,Rebuttal: Cyberwarisalready upon us,butcan it be controlled? ForeignPolicy,
March/April 2012
23
P.W.SingerandAllanFriedman,Cybersecurity and Cyberwar:Whateveryoneneedsto know (New
York, 2014) p119
24
P.W.SingerandAllan Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar:Whateveryoneneedsto know (New
York, 2014) p119
25
Thomas Rid,‘ThinkAgain:CyberwarDon'tfearthe digital bogeyman.Virtualconflictis still more hype
than reality.’ ForeignPolicy,March/April 2012.

8. 8 Gus T. Rankin
state-actordue to the sheercostand intelligence requiredtocreate one.Therefore,notonlyare
cyberattacks becominghardertoachieve,accordingtoRid,there isno evidence tosuggesttheyare
escalatingeither– forthe primarythreat to the U.S., as statedintheirmostrecentNational Security
Strategy,isthe threat of terrorism,Climate Change andthe spreadof Weaponsof Mass Destruction.26
Movingon fromthis,the realistMyriamDunn Caveltystatesthatthe ideaof a coming
cyberwarisnonsense.27
Inherbookon Cyber-Security and ThreatPolitics, she describesthe link
betweenperceivedthreatand vulnerabilities,andusesthe example of ‘rapiddevelopmentof
informationinfrastructure’asaprime example of this.28
Caveltystates,thatitisthe perceivedthreatof
the increasinglynetworkedglobal informationinfrastructure thatispartof the insecuritybehindthose
ingovernment,andthe reasonwhythe likesof RichardClarke argue that‘cyberwarhas already
begun’.29
Whatit seemsCaveltyissaying,isthatbecause governmentscannotcontrol the inherently
insecure nature of informationtechnology,theybelieve ittobe a threat,Caveltyreferstothisas an
‘unboundedsystem’.30
Inherarticle on‘A likelyasavisitfromE.T.’,she statesthat yeswe are
vulnerable,butthatdoesnotmeanit islikely,warningthatthe drive of resourcesawayfrom projects
that are ‘integral toourdefense andsafety’,iswhatisthe real threat. 31
Caveltygoessome wayto
dismissArquilla,andagreeingwithRid,bystatingthatthe ‘hackingof websitesisnotwar’,‘noteven
sabotaginganindustrial plantwithsophisticatedmalware iscyberwar’. 32
She goesfurtheragreeing
26
Presidentof the UnitedStates, NationalSecurity Strategy,February 2015
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf accessed
02/12/2015
27
Myriam Dunn CaveltyThe European‘Aslikely asa visit fromE.T.’, Jan2011:
http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/myriam-dunn-cavelty--2/6128-cyberwar-and-cyberfear
28
Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Cyber-Security and ThreatPolitics (Routledge,2008) Chapter4
29
Rosenbaum,Ron,featuringRichardClarke, Richard Clarkeon Who WasBehind theStuxnetAttack,
The Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-
Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html?c=y&story=fullstory p1
30
Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Cyber-Security and ThreatPolitics (Routledge,2008) p67
31
Myriam Dunn CaveltyThe European‘Aslikely asa visit fromE.T.’, Jan2011
http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/myriam-dunn-cavelty--2/6128-cyberwar-and-cyberfear
32
Myriam Dunn CaveltyThe European‘Aslikely asa visit fromE.T.’, Jan2011
http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/myriam-dunn-cavelty--2/6128-cyberwar-and-cyberfear

9. 9 Gus T. Rankin
withRid,bybelievingthata war still standsfor‘violence,destructionandsuffering’,somethingshe
believesisimpossible withcyberwarfare.Here however,Caveltyisseparatingconventional warfare
and cyberwar,withnoinclinationthatone couldassistthe other,whichisacriticismArquillahadfor
Rid,and thisissomethingwhichislackinginCavelty’scriticismof the future of cyberwar.Despite this,
Caveltyplaysdownthe importance of cyberwar,byrenouncingsome of the misconceptions - that
cyberwaris‘completelyunsuitableasa weaponforthe weak’due to the sheercostand intelligence
neededforaweaponof thiskind, whichwouldalsohave tobe tailoredtoa specificattack,makingit
impossible tohave anarsenal of such weapons.33
Sowe can state by the evidence provided,that
cyberwarisoverhypedbya wayof potential threatdue tothe ‘unboundednature’of cyberspace;but
we can criticise the realistswhosimplyignore the practicalitiesof cyberwarwithinconventional
warfare,sowhat we are reallydismissinghere,isthe realitiesthatthere will everbe aneventlike Leon
Panettastated,a ‘CyberPearl Harbour’.34
To conclude,tostate what the future of cyberwarlookslike istotreadinto what Rumsfeld
wouldcall the unknown.However, forthe assumptionsof thisessay,Iwill be usingthe following
definitionof cyberwartoconclude whetherornotit will take place.The parametersof cyberwarfall
short of what we wouldconsiderconventional warfare.However,cyberwarcould, andhas beenused
alongside conventional forces;cyberwarcould alsobe definedas gaininganeconomicadvantage,as
longas both sidesare practicing,toa pointwherebyphysical confrontationmaybe inevitable. With
thisknowledge, we canstate that itis JohnArquilla’sargumentwhichalignsitself withthisdefinitionof
cyberwar,whilstalsoholding upagainstthe realistcritiquesof ThomasRidand Myriam Dunn Cavelty;
Arquilla’sargumentalsoconvincinglydismissesRichardClarke’scatastrophicinterpretation.Arquilla’s
interpretationof cyberwarusescontemporary andhistorical examplesinaconvincingway,whichserve
33
Myriam Dunn CaveltyThe European ‘Aslikely asa visit fromE.T.’, Jan2011
http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/myriam-dunn-cavelty--2/6128-cyberwar-and-cyberfear
34
Leon Panetta, Leon Panetta warnsof 'cyberPearl Harbour', 12th
October2012,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19923046 accessed01/12/2015

10. 10 Gus T. Rankin
to convince thathisperceptionof humannature andhispredictionsoutweighthe opposingarguments.
Notonlydo Ridand Cavelty’sarguments dismissthe impactcyberwarcouldhave uponthe
conventional military,theydismissthe conventional exampleswhere the twotypesof warfare have
merged.AlthoughIrecognise Caveltyhasadifferinginterpretationof the definitionof war, whichis
one of ‘violence,destructionandsuffering’; Istill believethisdefinitionfitsArquilla’sargumentthat
‘cyberwaristakingplace’, andthus dismisses the premise of the question.Despite this,the fact
conventional warwill continue totake place asthe realistspointout,cyberwarcanand will continue to
assistinensuringthistakesplace;thuscontributingto,Cavelty’sdefinitionof war,which is‘violence,
destructionandsuffering’.ArquillaalsosuccessfullyarguesinhisworkwithDavidRonfeldt,through
the term netwar,thatwe are onlygoingto become more interconnected,more chaotic,therefore not
onlyare we inthe era of cyberwartoday,we will be inthe future,anditisonlygoingto get more
severe.
Word Count:3012

11. 11 Gus T. Rankin
Bibliography:
Arnuk,Sal.and Saluzzi,Joseph., Broken Markets:How High Frequency Predatory Practiceson Wall
Street Are Destroying InvestorConfidenceand YourPortfolio (FTPress,2012)
Arquilla,John., Rebuttal:Cyberwarisalready upon us,butcan it be controlled? ForeignPolicy,
March/April 2012
Cavelty,MyriamDunn., Cyber-Security and ThreatPolitics (Routledge,2008)
Cavelty,MyriamDunn.,The European‘Aslikely as a visit fromE.T.’,Jan 2011 http://www.theeuropean-
magazine.com/myriam-dunn-cavelty--2/6128-cyberwar-and-cyberfear
Hopkins,Nick., USand China engagein Cyber‘wargames’,16th
April 2012,
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/16/us-china-cyber-war-games
McGregor, James.,The Atlantic,April 27th
2013: ‘Isthe spectreof a cybercold warreal?’
http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/04/is-the-specter-of-a-cyber-cold-war-real/275352/
Panetta,Leon., Leon Panetta warnsof 'cyberPearl Harbour', 12th
October2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19923046
Presidentof the UnitedStates,National SecurityStrategy, February 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf
Rid,Thomas., ‘ThinkAgain:CyberwarDon'tfearthe digital bogeyman.Virtualconflictis still more hype
than reality.’ForeignPolicy,March/April 2012.
Rogers,Mike., Mike Rogers,Statementtothe U.S.House,PermanentSelectCommittee onIntelligence,
Open Hearing:Cyber Threatsand Ongoing Effortsto ProtecttheNation,Hearing,October4, 2011,
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/100411CyberHearingRoger
s. pdf
Ronfeldt,David.,andArquilla,John., Networks,Netwars,and theFightfortheFuture (RAND,2001)
Rosenbaum,Ron., featuringRichardClarke, Richard Clarkeon Who Was Behind the StuxnetAttack, The
Smithsonian:http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Richard-Clarke-on-Who-Was-
Behind-the-Stuxnet-Attack.html?c=y&story=fullstory
Singer,PeterW.andFriedman,Allan., Cybersecurity and Cyberwar:Whateveryoneneedsto know
(NewYork,2014)

12. 12 Gus T. Rankin
VerizonEnterprise, 2013 Data Breach InvestigationsReport,2013,
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-
2013_en_xg.pdf