Cyber Warfare: Virtual War Among Virtual Societies

Tsirigotis Anthimos Alexander

Msa International Relationship and European Studies
anthimostsiri@yahoo.gr

The purpose of this paper is to offer for further discussion a view of cyber warfare which for
some governments and military organisations, during last years, seems to be a point of serious
concern. The core of the article is far away from presenting a monolithic militaristic analysis focusing
on how cyber attacks are waged or what should be the military response to them. Instead, the focal
point is to prove that in the 21st century the structure of societies is heading to a new model of order in
which cyber warfare will constitute the war paradigm. Cyber warfare, as part of Information warfare, it
is not conceived by governments as a real danger against the security of their societies even it has
already shown its potentials at the recent attack against Estonia (2007). Defacements of
governmental sites do not seem to have the same impact on societies as, for instance, life losses of
air strikes, do have. The central analytical axis will be to examine past Military Revolutions in
conjunction with the respective historical social trends proving that in each era, societies wage their
wars in harmony with their system of values. This is the thesis of Military Revolution theory that will be
concisely described and which examines how in early modern Europe changes in military organisation
did fuel social reordering and vise versa.
In the 21st century, respectively, networking of people around the world offers innovative ways
not only for socializing but for every aspect of human activity to be expressed through them as well.
Warfare, as society, is mainly based on the impeccable use of networks through which information
flows undisturbed to every operational level: to the higher command echelon and to fighting
squadrons, as well. This constitutes the kernel of Information warfare and which has already been
implemented in real life battlefield heralding fundamental changes to war paradigm. Post modern
military is already a reality and it is definitely in accordance with the general social trends of our
century. Trying to foresee in what ways military organisation will be transformed we should first take a
look of the future warriors. Young people pass a great deal of their day “surfing” into a virtual world
rather than a real one. They are interlocutors in a worldwide chatting room of a society without
borders, without limitations and with free information flow. Citizens of a virtual society with no or
limited physical touch. In what way do virtual societies fight each other? Cyber warfare may be the
answer. Is it high time we resigned the idea of any other type of war other than cyber warfare? What
are its potentials and where to draw the line? The virtual war lends credence to the theory of
Clausewitz about war? These are some of the questions that this paper will try to reveal and to offer
for further discussion.

Keywords: Cyber warfare, Military Revolution, Virtual Society, Virtual War

1. War as Political Praxis of Societies

War as much criticism as it may receive, it always constitutes an option for sovereign states,
even one of last resort, in order to succumb their adversaries. War, as defined by Clausewitz,
constitutes one of the tools at the disposition of political powers in order to achieve specific political
ends that society defines. Even if this statement seems to be apparent and well established it has to
be considered that it was not always the case and that maybe, in near future, it will be well disputed.
Leaving this topic for later discussion, warfare, in its essence, has always been a means of
communication among political entities which is shaped by the interaction of different forces inside of
each one of the belligerent societies. The view of the war solely through the lens of a techno
militaristic approach is at least misleading and dangerous to be used by strategic analysts. War
remains an activity brewed within societies under the influence of the entire spectrum of societal
powers. Brian M. Downing reiterates fervently that […] “military organisation has been one of the
basic building blocks of all civilizations, quite as important to political development as economic
structures” (Downing 1992).
In war, as in every science, linearity equals to stagnation and for every analyst the strong
interest derives from all those non linear turn points in the history which herald sea changes.
Throughout the history of war, there have been numerous technological advances introducing new
ways of fighting which are classified as “Revolutions in Military Affairs” (RMA). The introduction of
railway, telegraph, RADAR and jet aircraft are just few of them which, with out the shade of a doubt,
have changed once and for ever the conduct of war (Boot 2006). Nonetheless, not every single new
weapon, as much sophisticated as it may seem when first launched, does equal to profound changes
to the military organisation and it is not associated with broader social reordering. Those one
susceptible to provoke such deep changes that overpass the limits of military sphere and run down
the whole society are known as “Military Revolutions” (MR). The term was first introduced by the
historian Michael Roberts in his inaugural lecture “The Military Revolution, 1560-1660” at the Queen’s
University of Belfast some fifty years ago to accentuate the way the military innovations of Gustavus
Adolfus and Maurice of Nassau (Prince of Orange) had set in motion the mechanism of social
reformation.
For every organisation structured according to hierarchical model, as the military is, the
process of incorporating changes to the way of working but, far from this, to the way of thinking and
acting is tough and demands for strenuous efforts. This is the challenge that the military at the dawn
of the 21st century is called to tackle. Military organisations, in national and international level (i.e.
NATO), are currently undergoing the process of rethinking their mission and their structural model
simply because world is under the process of significant reordering. This transformational process is
primarily fueled by societal forces which make military to follow. Definitely, the determinant factor is
the technology of informatics and to be more specific the advent of Internet at every day life. Societies
thrive not only into the three dimensional world but in a new dimension as well: the Infosphere. This
one composed by various computer networks where people from any part of the world are present
regardless of their social power or of any discriminating factor whatsoever. A new kind of society does
emerge which seems to be seamless and to which the “product” of interest is nothing more than
information, just like agricultural or industrial products used to be some decades before (Slaughter
2004).
It seems as a new social body is growing flesh and bones in parallel or in some cases above
sovereign states and their “official” societies. This is what I see as being a virtual society which cannot
be dimensionally defined and its members may never meet each other in real life. Nevertheless, they
exchange their ideas, their worries and many of them (especially the younger ones) evolve their basic
human sentiments, even love, for other human beings through internet! But what about war into this
virtual society? Is it an inherently pacific society in which war is expelled? Definitely no. War as
political praxis and as a means of communication does exist into virtual societies as well, taking new
shape. Virtual societies do fight (not necessarily bloodlessly as someone may suppose) and do wage
wars: cyber warfare. Issues like what constitutes an attack at cyber space, what its ethics and its law
frame and furthermore its potentials as a means of meeting specific political ends are only some of
the topics open to discussion (Janczewski, Colarik 2008).
The discourse about cyber warfare is actually vivid and interlocutors exchange diverse points
of view as far as the above mentioned issues is concerned. Even the definition of cyber warfare is not
a topic of consensus and different opinions may be found reading the voluminous literature. Among
them, the definition of cyber warfare by Jeffrey Carr as […] “the art and science of fighting without
fighting; of defeating an opponent without spilling their blood” as much vague as it may seem it
encloses the core of the issue. Martin Libicki, as early as in 2000, considers […] “information
terrorism, semantic attacks, simula-warfare, and Gibson-warfare” to constitute some of the aspects of
cyber warfare underlying that it certainly is […] “the least tractable because by far is the most
fictitious, differing only in degree from information warfare as a whole.” (Gongora, Riekhoff 2000).

2. Cyber Warfare: Taking Credence by Past Military Revolutions

The aim of the Military Revolution Debate (C.J.Rogers, 1995) is far away from deducing that
social change is primarily fueled by the military activity. In contrast, it gives credence to the above
mentioned thesis that war is primarily a political praxis of human, using the term to its Aristotle context
and meaning. In every era, the changes in war paradigm and the way society is structured are in
absolute concordance. Alvin Toffler has perfectly shaped this notion by classifying war into three
separate models taking each time into account the economic mechanism of wealth production. He
distinguishes between the agricultural, industrial and informational war paradigm. Studying in depth
past MRs it will be understood that in some instances battlefields did fuel extended social changes but
in some other military organisation and the conduct of war were following the impulses of change
infused by significant reordering at the rest of society as, for instance, in economy or technology.
To start with Michael Roberts, he examines the century between 1560 and 1660 considering
that the military innovations that Gustavus Adolfus and Maurice of Nassau introduced, they finally
resulted in the strengthening of the state power and in social restructuring. The military formations that
they used in battlefields were so demanding that army should be highly trained and disciplined if to be
victorious. Mercenaries did not have any more the competences needed in order to meet the new
standards. State should assume the control and the responsibility for developing its army. The slowly-
increasing technical complexity of firearms was already beginning the process of forcing the soldier to
be a primitive technician. Systematic military training was considered to be of core importance and […
] “the army was no longer to be a brute mass, in the Swiss style, nor a collection of bellicose
individuals, in the feudal style” (Rogers 1995). Military forces started to act as a coherent group
having concrete structure and adhering to precise rules of hierarchy. Inevitably, the new demands for
waging war (administrative, educational, supply etc) asserted the state power as the only legitimate
actor capable for securing national frontiers. Roberts pinpoints that […] “effective control of the armed
forces by a centralized authority becomes a sign of modernity”.
The emergence of military consciousness inside society propelled the redistribution of political
power. War ceased to be a privilege of just the elite social tier. Instead, people of lower social rank got
involved in war process in hope of a military career. The mechanism of political change had been set
in motion. For the masses to demand for the political dividends of their enhanced social power was
just a matter of time. This is the mechanism of social change described also by Clifford J. Rogers who
accepts the theory of M.Roberts about MR. Instead; the former focuses on the Hundred Years War to
be more representative during which MR did actually take place. Following the theory of punctuated
equilibrium (biology), he examines the infantry and the artillery revolution. Rogers concludes that
changes to the military organisation of societies ensued new war paradigm and finally provoked
fundamental social reordering.
To continue with the professor of history at the University of Yale Geoffrey Parker, he accepts
the theory of Military Revolution whilst he considers that it cannot be limited during the century
examined by M.Roberts. To his view, the sperms of military innovations attributed to Gustavus
Adolfus and Maurice of Nassau are tracked earlier in the history during the 16th century. He considers
the Spanish army as one of […] “impressive military efficiency” and dents the four assertions that form
the kernel of MR theory: tactics, strategy, army size and overall impact. He justifies the revolutionary
profile of Spanish army fully supporting, however, the basic thesis of Roberts saying that “the scale of
warfare in early modern Europe was revolutionized, and this had important and wide-ranging
consequences” (Rogers 1995).
Whichever of the above mentioned perspectives may be accepted about when MR did
actually take place the essence of the theory remains unchangeable. The way societies are getting
involved in belligerent actions is impossible to be in stark contrast neither to their system of values nor
to the way they are structured during peaceful time. War has always been and definitely it will
continue to be a means of communication among societies. It is subjected to the societal rules and at
each era it is shaped by it. For that reason, cyber warfare is the type of war that computer networked
societies of our century are prone to wage. “Cyber” is not just a word prefix indicating a new
technological war paradigm. It expresses the materialization of physical world through an immaterial
way of life and, as far as war is concerned, through an immaterial way for succumbing the
adversaries.

3. Cyber Warfare as the Virtual War of Virtual Societies

Does cyber warfare have the potentials to become what Sun-Tzu had defined to be the acme
of skill: “To subdue the enemy without fighting”? Before answering this question it is more urgent for
the military and for their governments to finally answer if cyber constitutes a physical spatial
dimension the protection of which is a matter of state security. Incidents of cyber attacks abound but
sovereign states are reluctant to take action. It is astonishing to hear by senior advisor of the ministry
of defence of a country that was the first to be the victim of well organised cyber attacks in 2007 that
even now it is not easy to convince the governmental cabinet about the necessity for securing cyber
space (Cyber warfare conference 2010, London).
It is really tough to make states to react to threats stemming not from easily recognizable
enemies but instead from sources of “evil” that are far beyond their reach, and much worse, far
beyond their conceptual capacities. Up to now, states are founded on values as sovereignty and
independence within the three dimensional space of their frontiers. Convention of Westphalia is the
legal expression of this system that dates back to 1648. For the defence mechanisms of states to
react is indispensable a visible threat. States are bound to comply with jus ad bellum and jus ad bello
(Carr 2009). To some extend they do need enemies lest their wars to be unjustifiable and illegal.
Societies are sensible to casualties and to life losses but not to Denial of Service (DoS) or
defacements of governmental sites.
Here lies the difficulty for states and for their societies. Cyber space, as previously mentioned,
is a new dimension (Infosphere) where virtual societies thrive and which can be defined using neither
spatial terms nor legal conventions. Sovereignty, frontiers, boundaries, legislation and regulation are
some of the principles of Westphalian societies that are refuted into cyber societies. For the former
societies to be accustomed to the new reality it will take some time. Up to then, cyber societies
constitute a “space” of premium chance for anyone who intends to harm sovereign states.
Getting back at the initial question, cyber warfare, up to now, has not been proved to be able
to “subdue the enemy without fighting”. However, warfare in cyber space should not be
conceptualized as just a new war paradigm or as a matter that should only concern military
organisations. Cyber warfare seems to be more an inherent characteristic of cyber space and of
virtual societies within it and less a belligerent action among societies. Cyber attacks constitute an
almost daily activity and most of the times are unveiled many months after they have been waged and
without being attributed to specific perpetrators. Virtual societies of cyber space are constantly under
attack and warfare among them has little to share with warfare among states. This is what I see to be
a virtual war with no life losses, in first place, which even we know is taking place every moment,
states face severe hurdles to control it.
It may sound very futuristic or unrealistic to allege that in the decades to come virtual
societies will substitute material societies and that war will seem more as a video game (Derian 2009).
However, before rejecting the theory of virtual war and virtual societies, it should be taken in mind the
theory of MR concisely described earlier. Societies fight in a way consistent with their values and their
structure. Thus, it is of paramount importance to examine in depth what are the means and the ways
that people today declare their presence to the world. Without a doubt, this is a tasking for sociologists
and I could not interfere in it, but such a survey would expose the Internet and the various computer
networks as the salient feature of societies of the 21st century (Castells 2001).
People of any age do not only have identities issued by the states where they live in but they
also have IP addresses of the networks they belong to. Their IP is their identity into virtual society.
Internet offers an opportunity for anyone, of any age, of any belief from any part of the world to
express his mind. The advent of broadband service delivered via undersea cables will offer to much
more people access to global networks enhancing the potentials of virtual society (J.Carr, 2009).
Internet is an easy and cheap way for people to find their peers who share with them same ideas,
same worries or even same anger about inequalities that happen to the “official” societies. And once
these enclaves are organised via networks, they intend to exert their power within the material
societies (or “official” societies, whichever term you may like to use).
It is interesting to mention that terrorists and non state groups (i.e. hackers) were the first to
use cyber space for exerting their power against sovereign states having various intentions as, for
instance, economic fraud or the disturbance of every day life of citizens. Moreover, recently, the article
of New York Times: “Twitter Attack by Iranian Cyber Army” (Mackey 2009) demonstrates that in cyber
space “armies” are already a reality and that they assume responsibilities on behalf of their states-
bodies. It seems that in the 21st century, contrary to what happened in Early Modern Europe, state
gradually loses its power as the only legitimate body within societies able to secure its citizens
(Münkler 2002).

4. Epilogue

War has always been a sort of communication among societies each time their bilateral
relationships reach a dead end and any other means for settling down their differences seems to be
impotent. Societies fight each other in a way consistent with their system of values and with the way
they are structured. History, as expressed with Military Revolution theory, has led credence to this
thesis which has the potentials to show us the way ahead. Nowadays, societies are under
“reconstruction” as they incorporate to their existing structures, dating back to the 19th century, the
new technologies that internet offers. Internet has offered the great capability for societies to
interconnect in high speeds making every discriminator factor among them too weak to separate
them. Far from adding the prefix “e-“ in front of every well known state activity as for instance e-
governance, e-learning or e-trade, Internet offers the tool for networked societies to emerge.
These are virtual societies as they do not have frontiers and people participating in them do
not share same language, or same religion. Their members are identified by IPs, they do not see each
other in real life and they do not have physical contact. For these people networks is the essence of
their life and the younger they are the more important internet is for them. Perhaps, one of the pivotal
characteristics of virtual societies is the fact that they give voice to anyone who longs for it, in a very
simple and convenient way: sitting on the couch of his house. And as voice equals to power, virtual
societies may finally outwit the “official” ones simply because they set free human spirit and its
capabilities. This is one parameter, albeit not the only one, that impedes military organisation to
defend the cyber enemies of the state.
Having always in mind Napoleon’s belief that “There are only two great powers in the world,
the sabre and the spirit, in the long run the sabre is always defeated by the spirit” states should be
seriously worried about the spiritual power of virtual societies before designating their cyber strategy.
The budding literature on cyber warfare shows that information is not just a part of war briefings
before military operations are set in action. In the 21 st century, the notion of information is expanded to
enclose the essence of war game which in most cases is held neither in battlefields nor by militaries.
War seems to have passed into the hands of youngsters who wage “wars” against sovereign states.
5. Bibliography

Boot, M. (2006) War Made New. Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History. 1500 to Today,
Penguin Group, New York.
Carr, J. (2009) Inside Cyber Warfare: Mapping the Cyber Underworld, O’Reilly, USA.
Castells, M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society, Oxford
University Press
Clausewitz, C. (1982) On War, Penguin Group, London.
Der Derian, J. (2009) Virtuous War: Mapping the Military-Industrial, Media-Entertainment Network,
Routledge, New York.
Downing, B. M. (1992) The Military Revolution and Political Change in Early Modern Europe,
Princeton University Press, Oxford.
Gat, A. (2001) A History Of Military Thought: From The Enlightenment To The Gold War, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Gongora, T., Riekhoff, H. (ed) (2000) Toward a Revolution in Military Affairs? Defence and Security at
the down of the 21st century, Greenwood Press, USA.
Janczewski, J., Colarik, A.M. (ed) (2008) Cyber warfare and Cyber terrorism, Information Science
Reference, UK.
Mackey, R. (2009) “Twitter Attack by Iranian Cyber Army”, [on line], Available:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/twitter-hacked-by-iranian-cyberarmy/?scp=4&sq=Twitter
%20Hack&st=cse.2050 [ 20 Dec 2009].
Moskos, C., Williams, J.A., Segal, D. R. (2000) The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold
War, Oxford University Press, New York.
Münkler, H. (2002) Die neuen Kriege, Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, Reinbek bei Hamburg.
Rogers, C. J. (ed) (1995) The Military Revolution Debate: Readings On The Military Transformation
Of Early Modern Europe, Westview Press, USA.
Slaughter, A.M. (2004) A New World Order, Princeton University Press, USA.
Toffler A. (1991) Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st century, Bantam
Books, USA.