Brandon Vuono
Assignment 6
Phil355 Cyber Ethics
29Jan2022
Cyber Conflict
Right for all
No war is just. Meaning no cyber war is just. There is always a protagonist and antagonists. I would argue that protagonists are truly just on the other side of the spectrum not there for good but control. Essentially cyber war has no immediate life threatening dangers to humans the effects of it can. This is seen throughout our modern history in America and the conflicts with Iran and Israel. Cyber war cannot be just due to there being no good outcome for anyone. It is hard to define cyber war and what degree of attack or how many constitute a war. This is an ongoing history that is getting written everyday. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Deontology and Kantianism shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because while some outcomes may be good, doing wrong to get those results makes the whole outcome wrong.
Boylan starts off with defining cyber warfare. Defining cyber warfare as using the just war theory. What makes a war just? What makes it a war or just a malicious attack? These are the questions that are initially asked and have a wide range of insight. As explained, we are currently living in the new age of cyber warfare. There are no direct rules on right or wrong or what constitutes as what. “The difference between sabotage and cyberwarfare is a matter of degree.”(Boylan, 2013). This is one I have to agree with to a point of where do you draw the line. He explains attacking something for a minor inconvenience versus going after a country’s military power. I agree with this conclusion. But if a series of minor inconveniences happened multiple times in turn affecting the population and economy greatly that to me is grounds for warfare.This is shown in his example of the iran nuclear program. How it was gone after cyber attacks. Attempting to slow the program so they would have extreme trouble producing nuclear weapons. This could be thought of as minor inconveniences not having a major effect on daily life of people. He goes on further with questioning what if the attacks were set on daily lives of civilian populations. Possibly even essentials for military life. This to me would constitute cyber warfare due to the sole purpose of the effect of humans.With Deontology and Kantianism regardless of the outcome with attacking things the act is still immoral making it unethical. Although this is new defined territory we today are currently modeling and in a sort setting ground rules it is difficult to draw the line in the sand. In the article where gas stations were taken down across Iran it can seem like a mild inconvenience. But it greatly affects the economy and population. This can be seen locally when America has its largest pipeline cyber attacked. This intern caused mass hysteria where people started to panic buy. While this is one attack in America, Iran had multiple. Boylan goes on to explain the ground rules for war. A agressor which is the one starting the attack and the state or territory who is being attacked. No where is it explained it must be human war. Leading to cyberwarfare is war. Regardless of minor inconvenience or catastrophy. Following the Deontology mindset regardless if the outcome is good the way it is produced must also be good in nature. Making all cyber warfare unjust. Boylan explains the hardest part about cyberwarfare is the understanding of who attacked who and what was the outcome. The nature of cyberwarfare is masked behind coding that is hard to decipher. “Meanwhile, Iran has faced accusations from the U.S. and other Western powers of trying to hack into their own networks.”(Da Silva,2021). As seen with the Iran gas attacks no one took claim to the attacks. Iran had blamed the United States for such attacks without any real evidence. “Iran has said it is on alert for online attacks, which it has blamed on Israel and the U.S. in the past.”(Da Silva,2021). Boylan goes deeper into explaining how the target is another way to see if a war is just or not. Explaining how shutting down air traffic control stations could crash planes. As well as water sanitation plants not giving good water for the population to drink. Finally as seen with Iran the Gas stations. These are all attacks that do not benefit anything. While the outcome might help a country win their battle the effect on the population is harmful and immoral. This is what Boylan describes as the Target distinction theory. Meaning depending on the target there is justification for the attack on results of the outcome. This is proven false by the ethical tool due to the harm caused regardless of outcome. I agree with Boylan on the subject of cyber warfare. A set of rules need to be established to identify what is cyberwarfare and when it has occurred. I do not agree with the concept that their matter of degree decides if it is cyberware or not. All attacks no matter whether minor inconvenience or major loss is a harmful act. Deontology and Kantianism show that any and all actions are harmful and wrong regardless of the outcome.
Taddeo dives into the Ethical issues Cyber Warfare has through the just war theory which was briefly covered with Boylan. The Just war theory is essentially a set of rules or a living bible that follows Ethical tools to identify whether or not an action or war is just. This is based on whatever ethical tools are used. The Just war theory to me is counter productive due to the nature of ethical tools. There are tools that can justify an attack and others that have any attacks as unethical. Following the ethical tool I have picked for this case analysis no war can be just due to the way wars are fought for the outcomes they provide. Taddeo explains Cyber warfare as a new environment in war where humans and no humans entities coexist. This is a very compelling statement as most harm is defined by humans harming humans. In instances of cyber warfare it is essentially humans harming humans but in means of technology. Which has the capabilities to work through the problems and make solutions to get all goals or tasks completed. As explained in the article by Abu Amar, the cyber war between Iran and Israel is growing. Israel attacks on Iran gas stations affects the public’s way of life. While these attacks are small they can target more rewarding sites. “Israel has warned that it is not ready for cyberattacks that might cause fatalities. As the tit-for-tat attacks grow, though, there are corresponding fears in Israel that it is not ready for an increase in the pace of Iranian attacks against civilian and military sites with the potential for a lot of damage and huge losses.”(Abu Amar, 2021). Taddeo goes on to explain how cyber warfare includes all the things regular warfare does and more. Both have violence, humans, physical interaction. Cyber Warfare includes all of those with non-violent and non-human interactions. Although cyberwarfare may not be violent or include direct human interaction the harm caused by it makes it unjust and unethical. Taddeo explains how most countries look at war as a last resort. But cyberwarfare is not. Cyberwarfare can happen at any time. This makes cyberwarfare so versatile and unpredictable, ultimately making it extremely harmful. “In the CW scenario it is difficult to distinguish combatants from non-combatants, wearing a uniform is no longer a sufficient criterion to identify someone’s status. Civilians may take part in a combat action from the comfort of their homes, while carrying on with their civilian life and hiding their status as informational warriors”(Taddeo, 2012). As seen with the attacks between Israel and Iran cyberwarfare is something that is ever changing. “At the moment, Israel has obvious superiority over Iran in this cyberwar. However, as has happened in earlier stages of their confrontations, the Iranians are learning, improving their capabilities, and ready to respond to Israeli attacks.” (Abu Amar, 2021). Taddeo explores the ethical issues that cyberwarfare plays. This is a tricky concept to understand due to there not always being human interactions when it comes to the attacks. When it comes to the attacks there is some outcome that causes harm. Whether it is the attacks on the gas stations or hospitals it negatively affects somebody.If military or civilians personnel someone is having harm done to them. From a Deontology and Kantianism point of view cyber warfare regardless of positive outcomes the negative harmful means of reaching such outcome makes it unethical. Furthermore due to the nature in which these attacks take place regardless of outcome makes them unjust and unethical.
Cyber Warfare is no different from any other type of war. It is more inclusive as it does not have the need for human presence but is able to affect human life the same. It is equally as harmful to all if not arguably more harmful due to the nature of its unpredictability and more severity to infuscructures. Cyber Warfare regardless of the attack is unjust and unethical for its sole purpose that an attack must be had for the outcome to be completed. It can be as minor an inconvenience as seen with the Gas stations in Iran and here in America. As Well as the slowing down of the Iran nuclear program. It can be as serious of an attack as a military base or hospital. That would cripple a country’s ability to save lives. Cyber Warfare is such a diverse new type of war. With this type of warfare being so new it is hard to tell what constitutes warfare. The Just war theory has many contradicting steps within it. This makes it to where it is almost impossible to use for cyber due to its wide range of interactions within the technology and the various outcomes. It is not as simple as pulling a trigger to take down an opponent. It can be methodical as the attacker makes it. History is being written on a daily basis as technology is constantly evolving. Using the Deontology and Kantianism ethical tool you can see that Cyber Warfare does harm during the process to get to the outcome. Making the overall outcome unjust.
Bibliography
Boylan Michael, “Can There Be a Just Cyber War?” 2013
Da Silva Chantal “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country”2021
Dr Adnan Abu Ame, “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up” 2021