Technology in Warfare

When the idea of war come up in a conversation, the number one thing that is thought of is the gear and weapons that are used to attack the enemy. However, no one thinks of a computer or a flash drive as a means of war. In a cyber warfare the use of computer and hacking devices like a USB drive are used to attack the infrastructure of the enemy to disable the military’s mission. A downside to cyber warfare is that some attacker do not follow in the rules of war and innocent civilians are affecting due to the attack. A recent example is the conflicts between Israel and Iran, that has been currently aimed at effecting the lives of the citizens of each country. One of the more recent attacks was an attack on the supply of gasoline to the entire country of Iran. Throughout this case analysis the virtue of ethics examines how the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not justified because the attacks being targeted towards innocent civilians.

Michael Boylan’s Stance of Just War Theory

War has occurred in almost every part of human history and that does not seem to be changing any time soon. However, the way that the war takes place will be different every time. With new types of weapons and new strategic plans, no war will be like the previous ones. Currently technology has found it’s way into warfare and has created a new way of attacking and shutting down the enemy. However, there is a difference between cyber warfare and cyber sabotage, with cyber sabotage being minor attacks like stealing data or denying one’s service to the internet. Cyber warfare on the other hand is more complex and strategically planned out with a specific end goal. For instance, when the Israelis cyber-attacked Syria’s radar and anti-aircraft devices, this aided in the bombing of a nuclear facility that prevent the creation of nuclear weapons (Boylan). Cyber warfare also differs from a traditional model of war, in the sense that a traditional war has a clear enemy, territory, and type of weapons being used. Since there is no clear guideline or protocol restricting traffic from one country to another, it because difficult to determine who attack, from where, and with what type of cyber-attack.

When applying the ideas and concepts of Boylan to the conflicts between Israel and Iran, the attacks on Iran’s gas stations is more of a cyber sabotage then an act of war. The reason behind this is that attack was not towards Iran’s military or government and the attacker was not clearly identified. “The disruptions come weeks before the anniversary of deadly protests that were prompted by a rise in fuel prices in November 2019” (Silva 2021). Attacks like the current gasoline cyber-attack have been going on between Iran and Israel for decades, but only recently have been targeted towards citizens. A cyberwar is justified, however how Israel is taking action is not justified because they turned their aim towards the citizens. While the reported incident was not an act of war, it is not a justified cyber-attack on the citizens of Iran.  

The Mindset of a Virtuous Person

Taking a different perspective of the conflicts, someone who is virtuous would follow in the footsteps of someone who has high moral standards. The initial conflicts between Iran and Israel that occurred decades ago where justified when they were aimed towards the military or government of each country. A virtuous person would keep finding ways to take down the others military or use a cyber-attack to support a physical attack. Changing the target to the citizens of the country is not a justified thing to do during an act of war. Looking at the ethical question, what would Jesus do, the generals or commanders of the country’s military should have a clear target of who they are aiming to attack and stick to that. Overall, a virtuous person would not justify the attacks recently taking place between Iran and Israel. Only when the attacks are aimed to aid in aid a traditional model of war, will a virtuous person justify acts of war.

Mariarosaria Taddeo’s Principles of Just War Theory

Things can start to get complicated when the just war theory is applied to cyber warfare. When applied there are three principles that cyber warfare must follow, including war as a last resort, the acts must do more good than harm, and there must be non-combatants immunity. The war as a last resort principle is simple in the terms that cyber warfare is carried out only when all plausible peaceful alternatives have been used up. The next principle, doing more good than harm, makes the countries consider the universal goods that are to follow from a war against universal evils. For example, casualties of military and civilians would be the universal evil and the good that comes from it is the security and growth of the nation. The final principle protect the citizens of a country that are not part of the conflict between counties. In the event a cyber warfare takes place, and the actions follow the principles of the just war theory, then the actions that take place are justified.

Using the just war theory for the cyber warfare between Israel and Iran, it can be seen that the actions taken by Israel on Iran do not follow the principles stated previously. With decades of conflict, other peaceful solutions to the conflict could have been resolved without the need to escalate things into a cyber war. The conflict of the gasoline cyber-attack did no good for the side that conducted the attack and instead caused more harm than good. Looking at the last principle, while it was not reported that anyone lost their life during the cyber-attack, it is not impossible. Without gasoline, ambulances could not go out to save lives and could have resulted in some people losing their lives. Looking beyond the gasoline attack, when one country attack the other’s citizens, they tend to respond back by attack the other’s citizens. “The Iran response was to target the systems at Hillel Yaffe Hospital in Hadera” (Abu Amer 2021). Having more and more responses to one another that can cause more harm to the citizens living in each country, then it would benefit the attack side.

A Virtuous Perspective

The idea of people wanted to follow in the footsteps of a virtuous person, who has a high moral standard, is not being achieved when Iran and Israel are responding to each other’s attacks with a more severe one aimed at the peaceful citizens of the country. A virtuous person would follow the just war theory religiously and would not stray away from the principles stated before. War is inevitable, but when war is occurring it is important to take action in a moral understanding of the principles of a justified war tactic. Someone with a high moral standard would not injure anyone who is defenseless and not involved in the previous attacks. Overall, this makes the conflicts between Iran and Israel not justified and does not adhere to a high moral standard.

Concluding Statements

            After reviewing the articles, it can be concluded that the actions taken by both sides of the Israel and Iran cyber war are not justified. The attacks not adhering to the principles of a just war theory cause the conflict to not be justified. These actions can be similar to the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan, that were aimed at highly populated cities instead of at military bases. Just because the playing field changes does not mean the principles or basic moral standards do not apply to a cyber warfare. War is something that should never happen, however when it does happen there are rules that need to be followed to make sure anarchy does not cause an end to the lives of innocent people. In the event that Iran or Israel followed the just war theory, then their actions would be justified, but for the time being, the conflict between the two are not justified.

References

Boylan Michael (2013). Can there be a Just Cyber War? Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy, vol 5, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.14943/jaep.5.10

Taddeo, Mariarosaria. (2012). An analysis for a just cyber warfare. Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CYCon ’12). 1-10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261488493_An_analysis_for_a_just_cyber_warfare