Jermiah Robinson

Technology is an ever evolving aspect of society as more people around the globe start to use it. While technology itself is a broad term, in today’s society, we can see this as mostly digital and computer technologies. With the development of AI, advanced models, and even bigger phones, the Digital Age is still ongoing to this day. However, this technology can and is being used in war to this day. Cyber Warfare has shown increased usage, especially in regard to Iran and Israel like with the Stuxnet worm. Even this attack was just because of Iran advancing too far with their own nuclear technology and that was used as a reason for the attack. However, more cyber attacks have been occurring with Iran and Israel. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Ruism shows us that these actions could not be part of a just war because through the decay of any societal harmony and respect, along with not sticking with ethical values.

When thinking of a just war, we can see actual reasons, authorization, and other components that make a war actually warranted. We can see this especially in Michael Boylan’s work, “Can There Be a Just Cyber War.” From Boylan, a Just Cyber War requires actual authority, a just cause for doing the war for it being an ethical purpose, proper last resort techniques, and an actual probability of success with the action in mind. Proportionality when applied to war is also crucial to this aspect as well, noting that everything should be taken to minimize harm to other individuals who are not involved at all with the war, mainly civilians. These people are not to be targeted by cyber warfare and instead any actions should focus entirely on the individuals involved instead. This type of framework not only minimizes direct contact with civilians but also gives an ethical standpoint for the war even happening, although, compared to what’s going on with Iran and Israel, this does not seem to be the case there as we see that both have not only tried to take control of each other without a just cause, but also with Iran taking initiative and violating the Proportionality principle by putting civilians and others nearby in harm with their attacks. 

From the Iran and Israel cyber war. We can use Boylan’s framework to dissect and see if the war is actually ethical.  We first see that both sides provide a right intention for the war, but this does not seem to be an actual ethical intention and is more so over control. With power constantly being an issue between the two nation states, the two instead within their retaliatory and defensive remarks, their actual intention through those remarks are more so for power over each other. Both of these nation states have been trying to win over each other and are continuing to do so to this day. We see this happening with Iran’s attack on Israel’s water supply which also violates the framework, and Israel’s retaliation makes it seem that both are mainly wanting control over each other instead of being a just and fair war. We can see that both do not apply to a just war and instead full control is the main motive that we can see.

We can even use proportionality here to analyze this further. Attacks should not be occurring at critical infrastructure like the attack on Israel’s water supply. These affect actual civilians and puts them entirely at risk without proper water to live with. This violates the principle of proportionality, and instead of only doing specific targets who are involved in the war, have instead taken the initiative to also put civilians and other people who are outside of the war at harm just for control and power. As we know, both Israel and Iran will continue to poke and prod at each other for further control, even if it means putting civilians at risk who are not doing anything related to the war.

When comparing the situation, we see that Ruism cannot apply here either. This war cannot simply apply to it due to it not being a righteous war at all, rather a full attack on power between the two. These attacks also target societal harmony with Iran’s attack on Israel’s water supply being a key note of this. These attacks ruin harmony between everyone and damage stability with society and with Iran and Israel’s motives, it’s hard to see an actual justified reason for the war.

So overall, we can tell that the war is not really that justified. But let’s take a deeper dive into that regard. We can use Mariarosaria Taddeo’s “An Analysis for a Just Cyber Warfare,” 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict” to take a deeper dive into the justifiability of the actions done between the two parties with the principle of proportionality and the necessity of these actions and reason for war. We can already see that the nation states are targeting each other with these attacks, but are not taking the public into account and are damaging their harmony. We can analyze this further.

We see right away that harm is present to other people who are not involved directly with the war. With Taddeo’s response, we see that proportionality should make sure to minimize any harm that may come to the public and should only be equal to the threat in question. Both actions done by Iran and Israel have been against this principle, and have resulted in damages to the societal harmony that was in these nation states. From accidental damages to completely disrupting gas and water, it quickly starts to become apparent that both countries are not in it for a just war and do not comply with this principle. Instead, both are aiming to cause damage, even if it means that other civilians are also affected at the same time. We can see this further in the framework as both sides struggle to see who is a combatant and who isn’t. These attacks are affecting everyone, including the civilians in the area and are disrupting the society. Thus, we see that both cannot see who is a combatant and who isn’t by targeting everyone as a whole, and throws doubt on their strategies of it being ethical or not, with most leading to not being ethical due to proportionality. In this case, Taddeo’s Framework just cannot apply here due to the ethical standards being broken regarding cyber warfare with the attacks on the general public and targeting crucial infrastructure to keep the public maintained. By taking down water and gas infrastructure, both sides are contributing to the decay of societal harmony in this regard and are not confirming to proportionality. 

Ruism still cannot apply here either when looking at it from that perspective. By disrupting societal harmony, they are attacking the well-being of others and disrupting activities. The ideal of harmony just cannot be met in this regard with the attacks being a blanket attack, disrupting all and taking civilians down as well with the attacks. We can also see that both sides want power more over their goals, resulting in loyalty not also applying either as before, they do not take into account their actions nor do they plan to change their actions over being ethical. With the clear lack of proportionality and overall actions from the nation states, we can confirm again that these actions are not morally ethical with the attacks affecting all and both sides only wanting power in exchange.

In conclusion, with the war between Iran and Israel, we see that both sides are not morally ethical regarding the cyber war. Both have targeted the public with their attacks and have caused damage to the harmony that was originally there between the public. Thus, we see that both sides are not morally ethical with their attacks and are not taking proportionality with their strategies. From the frameworks and the ideas of Ruism, we can concur that the attack is not sticking with ethical values and is instead a contest for who can be the most powerful over the two nation states and who can defeat the other the fastest. By not taking in account the harm they are causing to the public, these attacks continue to happen at higher intensity and will continue to do so until either a peace treaty between the two is signed, or until a compromise can somehow come out of the situation. However, both sides will only continue to be unethical for control.