| jcrab005

Pageof 3

ZOOM

NATHAN NICOL

Jacob Crabtree
PHIL355E
Case analysis #6
The war between Israel and Iran has been going on for longer than any living person on the
planet and may continue for the foreseeable future. Their feud has been ongoing for many years and it
has ignited from disagreements on religion and economical advancements. Through the years there has
been an ongoing battle between the two countries and started as typical warfare with bombings and the
typical things that follow when you hear the word “war”. With technological advancements, these
attacks between the two have been more cyber than with typical warfare. Between attacks on gas
stations and water treatment plants, they have been working more and more to cripple each other’s
infrastructures. “In this Case Analysis I will argue that consequentialism shows us that the cyberwar
between Israel and Iran is not just because the result of their attacks not only upsets infrastructure but
potentially harms human lives.
In the article written by Boylan, the author discusses if it is possible for there to be a justified
war within cyberspace. The author talks about the major points that separate what traditional war is
and what cyberwar is. Traditional war is typically a severe attack against another country or state in
opposition of them or a stance they possess in politics, economics, or even religion. With cyberwar it is
harder to identify what constitutes as war actions and what may just be a simple hack or nuisance. As
the attacks become more and more remotely based and more technologically inclined, it pulls further
from the arguments if it is “aggressive “or a violent act if the attack is committed in the cyberspace.
Another aspect that the author discusses is that it is difficult to determine who committed a crime or
action within cyberwar. This becomes an issue because different countries and organizations may be
able to use the cyber aspect to their advantage in arguing if something is vindicated or just, but ethically
speaking, this war, whether cyber or traditional, is not ethical or just. Consequentialism is the theory
that an action is ethical or not base of the consequences of that action. If the action results in positive
repercussions for people, then it is deemed ethical and if the result is otherwise, then it is unethical.
Regardless of someone’s intent or opinion of what they are doing, if the consequence of their actions is
a negative impact on society, then the actions are not just and therefore unethical. In regard to the war
with Iran and Israel, the war is not considered just. In the articles we have read, there is reference to
several different attacks between these two countries that do not speak to his being ethical or just in
any way. One attack was in reference to gas stations being hacked to where hundreds of people were
prevented from filling their gas tanks. This seems like a small issue, but this can prevent or impede
workflow if the employees cannot make it into work or even prevent people from reaching their
families. Other attacks were more sever such as the water treatment plants that Iran tampered with in
Israel. This is a more impactful attack because it affects every person around those treatment plants. If
they adjusted the levels too high or too low, the water distributed from those facilities could have been
lethal. At the very least this attack could lead to hundreds if not thousands of people being sick. Luckily
the attacks were noticed and mitigated before they could cause harm but this was still a devastating
attack. This is not only an attack on Israel’s economy but a direct attack on the people and their safety.
This is not a just attack nor a just war because through all of these attacks, the result leads to people
being unsafe and potentially being hurt. In regards to this war, being able to finitely attribute these
attacks to the other country are another issue entirely and makes it all the more difficult to deem these
actions just or ethical. If the committer cannot be determined, then it is difficult to reason or
acknowledge the justification of this action or the war itself.
In the article by Taddeo, the author discusses the different aspects that would define a cyberwar
to be considered just or ethical. The author discusses that the point that it can be argued that in
comparison of traditional war, cyberwar doesn’t have to involve humans. This is a key argument I am trying to justify if it is” just” because it is argued that because cyberwar does not have to involve humans, then
there is a direct decrease in loss of life as well as violence and damages. These arguments are flawed
ethically because they are basing the definition of being “just” on whether or not there is measurable
damage or violence committed directly towards humans and not if economies or infrastructures are
affected. In reality, cyberwar is just as alarming and just as dangerous as traditional war, it just helps to
be able to argue in favor of cyberwar because on the surface, people seem to be less impacted, but the
long-lasting effects of cyberattacks affect people and machines alike. With the attacks between these
countries that have happened in the past few years, it is very clear that these cyber-attacks are not
without their direct impact on humans. Even though Stuxnet still has not been proven to have been
committed by Israel, it is a good example to the deep impact that this cyberwar can have. Stuxnet was
an attack that started in Iran to disrupt a uranium enrichment plant and shut down their centrifuges and
then the attack spread worldwide. It affected thousands of people being affected and machines being
corrupted. This caused a financial crisis because many companies and people had to replace their
technology but the uranium plant attack could have become lethal if the uranium had become unstable.
In addition to this attack, the attacks that followed through the years began to be more and more
impactful to humans directly. Water treatment plants and gas stations ere attacked which is directly
affecting daily lives of humans. It potentially damages transportation routes for supplies and could
potentially contaminate the water supply to thousands of people. In this war between Israel and Iran or
if it is another war in general, there is no justified war and there is no war that is ethical in regards to
consequentialism. Whether the reasoning is religion, politics, or even if it is believed that society will be
better off if the war is to take place, the end result is what dictates whether the actions were ethical and
just. In any war, no matter the cause, there Is no ethical reason for a war to occur. There is always
casualties in war and even if it is not human lives directly hit in the initial attack, does not mean they will
not be affected and humans will always be affected by the aftermath of any attack. Humans will always
bee affected in some way by traditional or cyber attacks and there is no way to cause an impacting
attack on an enemy without the intent of affecting their population in some way, which is unethical.
There are times that it may seem that actions are justified to defend or protect the people of
one’s country or society, but there are always two sides of these situations and both parties will always
feel they are on the right side. When these actions and disagreements lead to war, like between Israel
and Iran, there are no good sides and there are no winners. Both countries want to be able to argue that
what they are doing is just and is vindicated to protect their beliefs, but ultimately if their attacks and
actions cause them to be negative impacts to infrastructures or people, then it is unethical without
question. Whether the attack is on gas stations, water treatment plants, or other critical structures, no
action of war can be justified if they consequences are negatively affecting society as a whole and war
does not end without there being negative impact.

question. Whether the attack is on gas stations, water treatment plants, or other critical structures, no
action of war can be justified if they consequences are negatively affecting society as a whole and war
does not end without there being negative impact.