Advancements in technology have been implemented into almost all areas of life. When it comes to warfare, new ways to fight are always being studied. Everyone is always trying to get the upper hand on their enemies. Cyberwarfare is becoming more and more prevalent as technology advances. Hybrid warfare is when both physical and digital attacks, also known as conventional and unconventional attacks, are used to attack and weaken the enemy. As with a lot of warfare strategies, there is a lot of talk around how just hybrid warfare is. Hybrid warfare has the potential to affect many different aspects of whoever is being attacked. These areas include many critical infrastructures that would not only affect the enemy’s military forces, but large parts of, and maybe even the entire nation. In this case analysis, I will argue that utilitarianism shows us that these actions could not be part of a just war because the effects of hybrid warfare would cause more overall negatives for the target nations nonmilitary population and hybrid warfare can be carried out by people not part of a nation’s military.  

            Boylan talks about just war being between two, typically sovereign, states. He also talks about how, when this paradigm was established, wars were battles between the soldiers of the states. As technologies advanced, the traditional paradigm of war began to change. The addition of new weapons like different artilleries and vehicles made it so that war was not all about who had the better soldiers. While war is still generally about who has more power, there is still the possibility that a state with a more powerful weapon can beat the state with better troops. With the addition of cyberwarfare, the paradigm of war is yet again changing. While cyberwarfare can include killing, it is not the main focus. Also, as mentioned earlier, cyberattacks can be committed by anyone with the proper equipment and skills while traditional wars are fought by the militaries of the waring states. This fact alone makes it hard to say whether hybrid warfare is just or if it can even be part of a just war. In the article, it talks about cyber-attacks committed not by states, but by hacktivist groups. This alone, using the current paradigm of war, does not constitute being called an act of war, let alone a just one.      

            Acts of war are already a deep topic to look at from a utilitarian perspective. Adding cyberattacks into the mix opens up a whole new discussion. When looking at cyberwarfare from a utilitarian perspective, worrying about who committed the attack is not the issue. The issue is who is affected by the attack and how severely they were affected. Using the examples from the article, it is clear to see that the possible targets of cyberattacks are endless. Regardless of what the intended affect of the attack is, these kind of attacks affect more than just the military and government of the target state/nation. The civilians will also have to deal with the affects of the attack. Boylan uses the examples of attacks on air traffic control systems and power grids. He talks about how disrupting the air traffic control systems could lead to major issues for regular civilian air traffic since the systems are connected. The same can be said for power grids. Many power grids used by governments and militaries are shared with civilians and civilian facilities. The possible negative effects on civilians that these and other possible attacks might have are very severe and could lead to many casualties. It is for this reason that I believe that utilitarians would not agree with these kinds of attacks. If the attacks were to only target military and government facilities without interfering with civilians, then that would be a different story. But the instances talked about in the article do no such thing. While some might argue that the people of a state/nation are part of the sate/nation therefore they are equally eligible for attack, I do not agree with this thought process. The main reason being that the civilians are just that, civilians. They are not part of the state/nations fighting forces. Also, when it comes to decisions of war, the civilians have little to no say in what actions are taken by the military. While they may voice their opinions, they have no real power in the war. Another argument against this could be that, to the people committing the attacks, there are no downside to the civilians of the enemy being harmed. While this may be true, Utilitarianism looks at the world as a whole. These kinds of attacks may increase the total happiness of, and decrease the total suffering of, the attackers state/nation, but the reverse can be said for the receiving end. This argument is also only somewhat usable after the war has settled and the outcome has been determined. The immediate possible suffering of the civilians outweighs that, in my opinion. This is sadly not just a dilemma with cyberattacks, but with many other forms of attack used during war.   

            Taddeo also talks about the Just War Theory and traditional warfare. She uses a figure to display the point I made earlier about how, while traditional warfare is usually between militaries, cyberwarfare can be conducted by non-military individuals. The figure also shows how cyberwarfare incorporates other areas not in traditional warfare. She also talks about my earlier point of the possibility of cyberwarfare leading to major negative for the civilian population. One more key concept talked about by Taddeo that I would like to touch is war being a last resort. This means that states will only go to war if they have tried and failed at all other possible options to remediate the conflict. This, of course, in in regard to tradition war where physical violence will occur, hence it being a last resort. With the introduction of cyberwarfare, which is for the most part non-violent, there might not be a reason for it to be considered a last resort. However, this does not mean that cyberattacks are something that states can just conduct whenever they feel like it. Another dilemma with using cyberwarfare is the potential to stop a violent war from breaking out. While it may be true that a cyberattack could lead to the conflict being resolved without the need for violence and bloodshed, it would still be considered an immoral first strike as well as an act of war. These attacks are stilled considered acts of war under the Just War Theory. Herein lies the issue with determining the ethicalness of cyberwarfare. Weighing the possible affects as well as the ethicalness of cyberwarfare is no easy task. The multiple attack possibilities alone and their possible effects make this challenging.

 While the target and intentions of the cyberattacks might be clear, there are time where collateral damage to civilians is unavoidable. The collateral damage might not be physical, but it is still negative none the less. Avoiding physical war is obviously a huge upside to cyberattacks. However, I believe that the possible negative effects on civilians should outweigh this. As I mentioned earlier, there are times where cyberattacks can be better isolated to only target certain infrastructures. This is why I think, overall, utilitarians would side against cyberwarfare. But, if it were to be looked at on a case-by-case scale, this could differ. Using the attacks in the article as an example, those clearly had huge negative effects on the civilians. I do not think that this is necessarily solely an issue with the attackers, but an issue with the was institutions are set up as well. There are a lot of cases where military/governments share infrastructures with civilian institutions. This means that it is more likely for civilians to be caught in the attack than not. This is the main reason why I believe utilitarians would side against cyberwarfare being just. While the intentions may be good, the cons outweigh the pros. I do think it also depends on who you ask and their moral standing on conflict. I obviously think that it would be nice to avoid physical conflict if possible. However, I would not want to see civilians being dragged into the conflict.                   In conclusion the justness of cyberwarfare is a very in-depth topic. It is too wide of a topic to be able to marginalize any decisions regarding it. I believe that being able to ever call cyberwarfare just if far from possible, but not impossible. If the world gets to a point in technological advancement where civilians infrastructures are separate from those of the government and military and attackers are able to pinpoint them without the possibility of civilian harm, then it may be possible. For now, there are too many possibilities for this to be the case. I myself had issues with determining which side I would choose for this analysis. Even while I was writing the paper I was questioning if maybe I should switch to the other perspective. There were many times where I would question whether the overall positives of current cyberwarfare might outweigh the possible negatives. In the end, I came to the conclusion that cyberwarfare just isn’t where it needs to be to be considered just. These reasons, mainly regarding the civilians, are also why I do not think it can be part of a just war either. Just wars are fought between states and their militaries. Possibly dragging in civilians would change that justness in my opinion.