The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not a just war. Each side is attacking the other knowing there will be retaliation. They know the capabilities of the other and are playing a game. Eventually one side will say enough and take things to another level, which could lead to a conventional war. Israel shut down the fuel in Iran so Iran reacts and shuts down power to a hospital. While they might seem like one is more extreme than the other they are both capable of causing death and suffering to the people of each country. Cyberwar has created a new battlefield that can be used to cloak the true intentions of another nation or even where the attacks or actions originated from. Each country is blaming each other when they actually don’t even know for sure who is committing the cyber attacks. This type of warfare could be done by proxy through another nation or just be another nation playing with both of them. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Ubuntu ethics shows that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because it is impacting the freedom’s and humanity of the civilians of each country. The government is launching attacks that cause retaliations directed towards the civilian populace. It’s clear that the goal is to attack the people and not the government based on the recent cyber attacks in both countries.
In the article “An analysis for a just cyber-warfare” by Mariarosaria Taddeo, the author tries to create an ethical framework for analyzing the ethical issues that cyberwarfare is creating by considering it against Just War Theory. Taddeo defines cyber warfare as “Cyber Warfare is the warfare grounded on certain uses of ICTs within an offensive or defensive military strategy endorsed by a state and aiming at the immediate disruption or control of the enemy’s resources, and which is waged within the informational environment, with agents and targets ranging both on the physical and non-physical domains and whose level of violence may vary upon circumstances” (Taddeo 2012, Information Warfare:114). Cyberwarfare is creating new ways of conducting and also hiding acts of war that deviate from traditional warfare. “Cyberwarfare shows to be different from traditional warfare, as it is not necessarily a violent and destructive phenomenon” (Arquilla 1999). Cyberwarfare can be a virus or worm that attacks systems to obtain information or to shut down infrastructure and disrupt society and maybe even lead to death and violence. The cyber battlefield is vast and not fully understood yet. Taddeo states “Cyberwarfare should be feared as much as traditional warfare as it can lead to highly violent and destructive consequences, which could be dangerous for both the military forces and civil society” (Taddeo, Pg. 5).
Taddeo tries to consider Cyberwarfare on the same standards as Just War Theory. The three principles of Just War Theory are war as a last resort, more good than harm and non-combatants immunity. Just War Theory does provide a good basis for gauging the actions of Cyber Warfare. Though Taddeo wants to elaborate and create another way of ethically gauging cyberwarfare by comparing it to some concepts of Information ethics. In this comparison the author notes that we have to take an ontocentric approach where all informational entities have the right to exist and they should be given respect. Taddeo discusses Information ethics by stating “Information Ethics states that an entity loses its rights to exist and flourish when it comes into conflict with the rights of other entities or with the well being of the Infosphere. Therefore, any entity that causes entropy in the Infosphere loses its informational rights as it conflicts with the well being of the other entities and ultimately of the Infosphere” (Taddeo, Pg. 8). I think the biggest point in this view of information ethics is that entropy is used to discern what would not be ethical. So a country who is attacking another country in anyway but trying to do it without being seen or through another country would be considered unethical and an act of war. So, from this example we can also see that it would then become the duty of other inhabitants, users or countries who see this activity to remove it. Taddeo expresses this by saying “It is a moral duty of the other inhabitants of the Infosphere to remove such a malicious entity from the Infosphere, as it is a cause of entropy, or to impede it to perpetrate more evil” (Taddeo, Pg.9). When something like this occurs then under the principle of information ethics the cyberwar would be just since it is being used to stop entropy within the infosphere. Looking at cyberwarfare through Taddeo’s work and considering information ethics would show that the cyberwar between Iran and Israel is not just, both parties are committing acts that cause entropy and are unjust. Looking at it through the perspective of Ubuntu we can also see that it is unjust because of how the actions of both countries are affecting its own populations. One country attacks the other knowing there will be retaliation and it will be against their own people.
In “Can there be a Just Cyber War?” by Michael Boylan, the author discusses how cyberware is changing how war is conducted, what is considered war and how it relates to just war theory. Cyberwar can be as simple as acquiring some information through violating the sovereignty of another nation or taking down electrical grids and sabotaging militaries, this new environment can create a lot of chaos and its effects can be minor or extreme. Boylan establishes that there is a difference between stealing information and impacting a nation’s infrastructure or military by saying “The difference between sabotage and cyber warfare is a matter of degree” (Boylan, Pg.11) Compromising the functionality of military or infrastructural components would be an act of war. Something like this can have devastating side effects on the nation that was targeted and lead to deaths of civilians.
In Boylan’s article, he wants to question the traditional understanding of war and how cyberware blurs the lines of what normally would constitute war. Boylan states that “the traditional understanding requires at least two components. 1. An aggressive act by one state against another against its territory or sovereignty, and 2. A telos of gaining land, resources, or strategic advantage “(boylan, Pg. 12). By traditional standards almost all types of cyber espionage would be considered warfare. Another example given in the article was how we perceive the attacks and what would actually justify going to war with another nation. Even though cyber espionage would be considered an act of war, was the information that was taken worth putting thousands of lives at risk? If one country is weaker than another it might put up with more that it would from a weaker nation because it has to be brought to lower depths to justify war with a more powerful nation which creates another gray zone of how cyberwar is conducted. Boylan also discusses how cyberware complicates matters when trying to figure out who did what and when. Because the cyberwarfare could take place by one country who is using systems in another country to attack a third or even more countries. trying to figure out who it is actually attacking you to justify escalation or retaliation is harder than in traditional warfare.
One of boylan’s main concepts is how do we determine what justifies cyberwarfare, how can we actually decide if one country has committed an act of war and there needs to be changes in the internet and how we define war and certain actions before we can begin to understand the new climate of war that cyberwarfare has created. If we consider Boylan’s view of cyberwarfare then the actions of Iran and Israel may not be considered a full blown war yet even though both sides are escalating their attacks they are not fully committing to war. Realizing the losses they might take will be greater than what they are willing to accept. So currently they have chosen the route of cyberwarfare and are defining it loosely, likely until one side crosses the line. Though considering the history of Iran and Israel I can’t see any of this ever changing. If we consider what Boylan has written and apply it to Ubuntu ethics the actions of Iran and Israel would be unethical. When looking at what they are doing they are gradually escalating a war that is affecting civilians through attacking infrastructure. Where the governments of each country are willing to put their own civilians at risk by treading on the verge of war through cyber conflicts.
Toddeo and Boylan acknowledged cyberwarfare is playing by its own rules and there needs to be an ethical analysis done to try and understand what is ethical in terms of cyberwarfare. Traditional warfare is established, rules are known and countries know what actions would constitute an act of war. But, with cyberwar things have become unclear, a country may overlook direct attacks on their country because they don’t have the means to fight back so no declaration of war is stated. Another major issue is the anonymity of the internet that is impacting how cyberwar is conducted, a country may not know who is actually attacking them and has no recourse or ability to identify the source of the attacks and deter them or come to an agreement. Iran and Israel are conducting a war where either side is taking full responsibility for their actions and trying to push the limits of cyberwar before it breaks out into a conventional war. The biggest problem with this is they are both involving and risking the civilian populace in pursuit of their own interests which should be the people of their countries. Ubuntu ethics states that the denial of freedom/humanity within any one person is a denial of freedom/humanity within us all. The fact that these countries are willing to risk the lives of their own people in a cyberwar makes it unjust.
References
Boylan, Michael. 2013. Can there be a Just Cyber War? Journal of applied ethics and philosophy, 5:10-17. 2013.
Taddeo, Mariarosaria. 2012. An analysis for just cyber warfare.
Taddeo, M. (2012). Information Warfare: a Philosophical Perspective. Philosophy and Technology, 25(1), 105-120.
Arquilla, J. (1998). Can information warfare ever be just? Ethics and Information Technology, 1(3), 203-212.