Is Cyber Warfare the Future of War?

Is Cyber Warf be the Future of War?IntroductionUndoubtedly, the twentieth coke could be counted as thebloodiest in human explanation man has been at struggle for much longer than he hasbeen at peace. The death tolls argon incalculable although historians putestimates at aboutwhere between 170 million to 210 million. No accredited figures areavailable and what is undisputed is the proliferation and effect of war on allaspects of society. Its impact on the soldier and the civilian as well as theeconomy and society or culture has given birth to the concept of total war(Marwil, 2000). The last cadence totalwar was experienced was the gage World War which invariably led to the ColdWar and its all-encompassing nature on every aspect of society(Stavrianakis & Selby,2012).Particularly with technology, the twentieth century has seen theadvancement of technology to epistemic levels where it has produced the conceptof modern war atomic mechanisms, satellite guided missiles, chemical andbiological weapons and electronic dr integritys none of which substantiate eclipsed the old(a)forms of bring up of war(Barkawi, 2011). A refreshing form of state of war has evolved and it is part of the 4th Industrial Revolutionit is cyber war.To understand its significance, one only has to look at origin President Barack Obama declaring the digital infrastructure of the US as strategic solid groundal as coiffure to be protected with the entire resources available to the United States. Obama prompted the formation of a special unit in the Pentagon called Cybercom whose sole purpose is to prepare the US for the inevitable cyber war that America allow be embroiled in. The UK has withal strict up the National Cyber bail Programme and NATO has released the Tallinn Manual on the Inter demesneal Law Applicable to Cyber state of war a three-year study by global scholars desktop bug out ninety-rules to govern contests among nations. Cyber state of war is definitely gear ing up as a mod sphere of influence for conflict.This utterance looks at the subject of cyber warfare andexamines how widespread a concern this is to nations and if indeed it is comely aconcern of the super agents. Just like atomic weapons has become a arrayweapon of magnitude, the existence has still non experienced a nuclear war. Insteadnuclear energy is being utilise to advance economies and aid production and playactenergy needs. Is cyber quadruplet similar to the holy terror of nuclear weapons? Does itactually do to a greater extent estimable that the proposed harm that is being touted? Thisdissertation will carry out a secondary info abstract to understand the currentliterature on the subject and determine if indeed cyber warfare is the reinvigorated theater of operations of conflict. annalsThe organising principle of every theme in this dissertationis layered each begins with a general historical and contextual appraisal invariablymoving to specifics and unen dingly looking at at the problem-solution dilemma. Tosubstantiate or clarify explanations, arguments, themes, findings etc.,foot nones will be included and/or non-integral citations will be use to focusattention more on the inquiry being discussed and less on the queryers orauthors. All related studies to this dissertation will be look for/ schoolingprominent.With a hardly a(prenominal) exceptions, English is apply entirely in thisdissertation and accordingly tense usage is important in the organisationalnarrative. Where reference is made to a single study, the preceding(a) simple tensewill be used. Where reference is made to more than one study or an area of search, the present perfect tense will be used. Where reference is made to generallyaccepted knowledge, particularly with respect to cyber warfare or generallyaccepted knowledge in multinational relations, learning technology orgeo government activity, the present tense will be used.Finally, the choice of reporting ve rbs in this dissertationwill inadvertently behave a original attitude be it critical distance, doubt,certainty, confusion etc. As much as realizable, I have tried to maintain thesame reporting verbs used in citing research and evoking emotion in myreflexive thoughts. Sometimes this has not been possible and the same reportingverb will express different attitudes depending on the context. Where this hasoccurred, I have elaborated any misconception or missympathy in thecorresponding footnotes. Themes and conceptsThe chronological order of the table of contents gives astraightforward description of the chapter and sub-chapter headings in thisdissertation. Thematically, the dissertation is divided into 4 chapters.Chapters 1-3 deal with the research scantilyification as well as academician andmethodological underpinnings. These chapters set the terms of reference for thedissertation and elaborate its research direction and deal with the subjectmatter, cyber warfare. Chapter 4 deals with the results, discussion of the resultsand conclusion.Theoretical and conceptual frameworkWar, Conflict and AnarchyIt is imperative to understand internationa dipic relations andthe theories and concepts underpinning them before looking at cyber warfare asa new arena for war. The Melian Dialogue in the great 5th century BC family unitic ofThucydides History of the Peloponnesian War best describes the context inwhich one looks at the supranationalist governance. At a point in the PeloponnesianWars, the A consequentlyians wanted to take over the neutral island of Melos to obtaincontrol over the Aegean Sea. An Athenian fleet was dispatched to Melos to tryand negotiate a surrender and the ensued dialogue, as told by Thucydides,captures the essence and birth of our international system today. The Atheniansdeclared to the Melians that since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and t he weak suffer what they must. (Thucydides) The international system today is premised on the fact thatnation states can and do exert their power over weaker states although well-nigh dowork finished a collaborative system to ensure a prevalent purpose. The study ofinternational relations begins with the very notion that there is no centralauthority which acts as the ultimate arbiter in world affairs. Nations hardlydo what they can through mutually beneficial alliances and discard them whentheir interests are no longer served. If we look at world fib before the 20thcentury, international relations could be said to be in a state of anarchy asthere was no central figure. From1078, china was the worlds major producer of steel, the worlds leader intechnical foul innovations, the worlds leading trading nation, possessed thelargest commercial ships and these are just to mention a few. Few academicswould now dispute that China was the worlds hyperpower for 800 age before the rise of British imperialism inthe nineteenth century. Despite China being a hyperpower for 800 years,there is no record of any central authority governing the doings ofnation-states. They simply did what they could to nations who couldnt employmentback. Ironically China was insular and did not engage in any internationalconflicts.Every study of international relations or politics beyondthat makes assumptions about the state of anarchy and offers a counterexplanation of an international system with inter-state relations and ahierarchical intrastate system. A system that we have now with bodies like theUnited Nations, the World Trade Organization regulating sparing relations andthe International Criminal Court prosecuting crimes against humanity. International relations deals with how nationstates decide to exist without a central authority or with no structure or howthey choose to create one. Waltz (1979) describes the juxtaposition of the internationalsystem and the domestic system by e xplaining that domestic systems are centralized and hierarchic, international systems are decentralized and anarchicWaltz 1979, p. 88 All approaches to international relations and studying the doings of nation-states begins with an assessment of the anarchic structurein the international system. Anarchy is the starting point of viewinginternational relations but that view depends on the perspective a kingdomchooses to take. Lets begin with the oldest view recorded since the Meliandialogue between the Athenians and the Melians. The semipolitical realistperspective is cognize as a theory one subscribes to in international relations.A political realist is under no illusions that countries behave with the singlepurpose of self-interest and therefore actions and reactions are done to defendthat interest. Nation states are geared towards survival, according to therealist and this can often mean exerting strength over a weaker enemy oracceding to a collaboration with a stronger foe. All is done for the purpose of ensuring the continuation ofthe state by any means necessary. Therefore, the only right smart to predict deportmentis to predict survival. Realists do not see a set of behavioural guidelines buta survival of the fittest in the international jungle of world politics. Oras one might put it succinctly, might is right. To the realist, theinternational order is that of ensuring that power relations are conducted insuch a manner that outcomes are mutually unshared. One party will always gainover the other so the purpose for the nation-state in any negotiations is to bethe winner. Where this cannot be achieved then the realist will view this as aprecarious position to be in. Realists view of the anarchical order candescribe the behaviour of nation-states in various ways from the classicalrealist to the neorealist and several forms in between. Whichever view issubscribed to, anarchy forms the basis of that world view and the expectedbehaviour of nation-states( Heginbotham, 2015).Liberalist credit the importance of anarchy in theinternational system in just the same way as the realists. Both liberal andrealist accept the absence of a supreme authority directing the affair ofnation-states. Where liberals and the liberal view differ on the subject iswhat can be done within the anarchic system. Liberals view thatnation-states and state actors can actually come together to build rules,guideline, set up institutions and appoint various monitoring bodies to governor at least modify the behaviour of nation-states so that they can worktogether for a common person(Barkawi, 2011). Outcomes do not have to be mutually exclusive but can bemutually beneficial in an anarchic system, according to the liberal view ofinternational relations. Through joint cooperation, liberals believe that thebehaviour of nation-states can be changed to achieve a level of power wherestates feel secure about their relationships with other states and do not seekto consolida te power at the expense of others. This classical liberal view canbe seen in the world today as neoliberalism. Liberals still see anarchy in theinternational system but see it as something that can be overcome through aconcerted effort.Whatever view one prescribes, the rife wisdom is thatnation states will shift between theories and concepts to advance their ownagenda and not confine themselves to an enduring guiding principle. The conceptof cyber warfare, I would argue, follows suit. formation the cyber worldAlmost twenty-five years ago, cyberspace as we know it didnot exist beyond the primitive computers placed in research laboratories andacademic institutions. In fact, cyberspace was merely a theoretical conceptthat was handleed unachievable. Today that has drastically changed. Our worldwould be unfathomable without cyberspace. To put its vastness intoperspectives, approximately 4 billion people are online with roughly 50 billiondevices ranging from super computers to desktops to laptops to smartphones totablets. On a yearly basis, 90 trillion emails are sent and dickens trilliontransactions are conducted in cyberspace (Turns, 2012). cyberspacepermeates are lives so much that we use it for everything from internationaltrade, to logistics, communications, record keeping, financial transactions to direct flowers All these positive contributions are the benevolent side ofcyberspace. The malevolent aspect of cyberspace is ignored by the public unlessa scare or crap brings it to the surface. Figures estimate that on a dailybasis, around 55,000 pieces of malware are found, 200,000 computers arehijacked1aswell as the countless number of frauds that go unreported.How exactly does one specify cyberspace? That question is noteasy to answer as there are as many answers as there are experts in the field.A notable expert worth considering is Daniel Kuehl who stash away a series of tittle-tattles from various sources and analysed his findings(Curran, et al., 2008 ). He concluded thatcyberspace consisted of a few dimensions namelyAn operational space it is anoperational space where proponents of the existence ply their trade and perfecttheir skills. An electronic domain it is an electronicne twainrk comprising of computers and a vast network of electromagnetic activity reading domain it is a network of study that is not limited to a particular location, time and spaceKuehl analysed all these aspects and offered his owndefinition which will be used in this dissertation A global domain within the information environment whose distinctive and unique character is framed by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to create, store, modify, exchange and exploit information via interdependent and interconnected networks using information-communication technologies.Kuehl, 2009 Cyber terrorism is a portmanteau of the words cyberspace andterrorism and was first accepted and used in 1996 but became popular after a1998 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies titled Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism, CyberwarfareAverting an Electronic Waterloo. The report discussed the possibilities ofan electronic round out, presumable outcomes and expected methods(Carr, 2011). Three terms areoften confused when discussing Cyber terrorism so it is crucial that they aredefined here.Cyber terrorism It is premeditated,politically motivated attacks by sub national groups or clandestine agents, orindividuals against information and computer systems, computer programs, and data that result in violence against non-combatant targets (Colarik & Janczewski,2012).Information warfare It is aplanned attack by nations or their agents against information and computersystems, computer programs, and data that result in enemy losses (Colarik & Janczewski,2012).Cyber crime Cyber crime isa crime committed through the use of information technology (Colarik & Janczewski,2008).This is more of the documented cyber related terms becaus e it has receivedadequate coverage due to its proliferation in domestic law en throwment. In theU.S., the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act defines Internet criminal acts (Jensen, 2009). Furthermore, the EuropeanUnion members of the NATO alliance have domestic laws implementing the 1995E.U. info Privacy Directive (Knapp & Boulton, 2006). For argumentssake, cybercrime includes offences such asthe impairment of data, misuse of devices, interception of data offenses. traditional criminal offenses facilitatedthrough the use of the internet, e.g. fraud, copyright infringement, electric razorpornography Cybercrime has received a lot ofinternational attention and was formally discussed at the Council of Europes2001 Convention on Cybercrime(Robinson, et al., 2015). This convention isstill the only international understanding in place that exclusively focusseson cybercrimes. Terrorism The unlawful useor threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized groupagainst people or prope rty with the intention of intimidating or coercingsocieties or governments, often for ideological or political reasons (Dragan, et al., 2012).Research ApproachResearch QuestionsThisresearch will attempt to explore and answer three questions regarding the broadthemes that preliminary research has shown and in line with the gaps in currentacademic researchWhat exactly is cyber space?Is an information war a war in the conventional sense?Is Russia engaging in a cyber war with the West?Thedissertation considered various approaches to address the questions above aswell as examine different options such as sources of data, type of researchframework, timescale and methodology. In trying to answer any of the researchquestions, it was clear that any primary data used to carry out the researchand with the available time limit would not be possible or indeed producevaluable information. This dissertation needed to design an analyticalframework to counter this problem. Thus, I attempt to make a justification forcarrying out secondary epitome of soft data and the benefits andlimitations of the approachSecondary Data CollectionIn settingabout the data collection, it was imperative I included boundaries for the study,the protocol for recording the data as well as the methodology for analysing itwhich are all set out below. The secondary data included qualitative documentsand qualitative audio and visual materials. The list of secondary evidenceskept evolving and the research continued. However, below is the final list ofsecondary evidences used.Data from various government departmentsNews articles from newspapersData and analysis from periodicals, books, journals etc.Data from non-governmental agencies and public bodiesData from online sourcesSecondary Analysis of Qualitative DataSecondarydata analysis is essentially re-analysis of data collected by anotherresearcher (Elliot, 2015). Andrews et al gave a definition of secondarydata analysis as the collection and use of previ ously collected data foranother purpose(Andrews, et al., 2012). Inaddition, they as well as explained that the use of secondary data analysis firstappeared when one of the founders of Grounded Theory (Glaser) discussed thepossibility of re-analysing data that had already been collected for otherpurposes (Andrews, et al., 2012).Notwithstanding, secondary analysis is still not very popular and there havebeen very limited reviews of its use (Hinds, et al., 1997). At thispoint, it is apposite that a distinction be made between secondary analysis,documentary analysis, systemic reviews and meta-analysis. Secondary dataanalysis is the examination of primary data2from previous research studies. Such data would include examples such assemi-structured interviews, research diaries, responses to open-ended questionsin questionnaires, transcripts of interviews/conversations etc. On the otherhand, documentary analysis would involve the analysis of data such asauto-biographies, personal diaries, photographs etc. Heaton does point out thatthere could be some considerable overlap between secondary analysis anddocumentary analysis (Heaton, 2008).Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews both involve both involve going overpublished findings of previous research studies unlike secondary data analysisthat looks at the primary data and not just the published findings.Review & DiscussionIntroductionCyber warfare has different definitions depending on whichtheorist is applying it and which country is examining and applying theconcept for example, the U.S. military view cyber warfare in very differentterms from the Russians. To begin with the word cyber is a completely newphenomenon that arose after the dosage com boom and the start of the 4thRevolution. Not surprisingly, it has not filtered into the established rules ofwar or arm conflict adhered to by other nation states(Chen, 2010). For starters, theword cyber is not found in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and any of theadditional Prot ocols (it has not been inserted there). The word, in commonusage, relates to a whole host of things ranging from computers and theirnetworks to the information in these computers to pull down the dish up of uploadingand retrieving this information. By extension, the word cyber warfare will include actscommitted in furtherance of any act against and adversary using everything thatis considered part of the cyber domain. In looking at acts, cyber warfarewould include offensive acts, defensive acts or acts of deterrence. By thisexplanation, it will include disseminating offensive information throughcomputers or computer networks(Andress & Winterfeld,2011).Cyber warfare is one that has no clear boundaries or actors which makes a lotof the current legislation unhelpful. Acts of war or states of war are usuallyassigned to prize states and combatants. But in this case, cyber warfarecan be conducted by states, agents of states, non-state actors, internationalgroups or any collection of pe ople with a single vested interest or even oneindividual(Cornish, et al., 2010). Cyber war and the legal questionThis dissertation started off with trying to determine ifcyber warfare is the new arena of conflict. Even though I have attempted todefine cyber and cyber warfare, there are still large parts of this area ofstudy that need to be examined. A lot of the current research already makes theassumption that cyber warfare is warfare because of its obvious name or that afew of the permanent members of the UN Security Council are making the case.But what is the legal argument to justify treating cyber warfare as warfare?Lets begin with the least disputed agreement and definitionof what leads to armed conflict. It is generally accepted that armed force isthe necessary requirement for armed conflict. The UN Charter name 2(4)provides, All members of the UN shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political i ndependence of any State . . .,. Exceptions are use of force authorized by the Security Council, and self-defence pursuant to Article 5 1. Even customary law that applies to non-UN members still hasthe expectation of the same necessary requirement although it must be pointedout that this is only applicable to state actors (Kelsey, 2008). Non-state actorswhere not envisioned when the Charter was framed. Nonetheless, this is stillthe legal argument as it stands. Cyber warfare does not seem to meet thethreshold of armed force although many would argue otherwise. And it is thisargument that is usually translated into the foreign policy of some states(Gompert & Libicki,2014).Even the UN Charter Article 51 still proposes that a response to attack is onlyjustified if the initial or first attack is an armed attack. As it stands today,cyber warfare is not recognised as a original war just in the same way thatthe War on Terror is not a legitimate war but a cornerstone of US foreignpolicy. By extension, it stands to reason that a cyber attack is notin reality an attack recognised by the UN (Droege., 2012). Ultimately the viewof whether an act is a cyber attack or part of cyber warfare is merely one thatis only determined by the receiver of the act and how they choose to respondthrough dialogue or retaliation? In addition, the judgement of theinternational community of interests plays a significant part even though state actors oftenform alliances that ensures that an attack on one nation state could be anattack on the entire alliance e.g. a cyber attack on a NATO member state. Nothaving a legal basis for an action does not in any way imply that it is nottreated as a conflict or war. We only have to look at the U.S. justificationsfor bombing, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in clear violation of the U.N. Charternone of these states had perpetrated an armed attack against the U.S. Theinternational community enjoined the U.S. even though other states had pointedout at the cle ar hypocrisy being committed by the U.S. If one is to considercyber warfare and cyber attacks, then answering the legal question isinsufficient. One must refer to the prevailing theory of internationalrelations one subscribes to or comment on wider matters governing a statesbehaviour. This dissertation will look at empirical examples of cyber warfare.Global Cyber warfare China vs USIn todays information age, the Peoples Republic of China has replaced and even improved upon KGB methods of industrial espionage to the point that the Peoples Republic of China now presents one of the most capable threats to U.S. technology leaders and by extension its national shelter.Dan Verton, Cyber Warfare Expert (Hjortdal, 2011) It is easy toforget that in 1820, Greece had revolted against the Ottoman Empire, Britainhad opened the first modern railway and was on its way to an explodingindustrial revolution, Brazil had nervously declared independence from Portugaland that China was the worlds superp ower with the largest share of global GDP.In fact, it is easy to forget because history has been written specifically togloss over these facts. Western academia has repeatedly highlighted China as acollective of starved, dispossessed and slaughtered people and not aprosperous, dynamic and global power from 1100 1820. From 1078, China was theworlds major producer of steel, the worlds leader in technical innovations,the worlds leading trading nation, possessed the largest commercial ships andthese are just to mention a few. Fewacademics would now dispute that China was the worlds hyperpower for 800 years before the rise of British imperialism inthe 19th century. Western imperialism and Chinas decline has beendocumented in detail which this book cannot do justice to. The rise of Chineseeconomic and political strength is unquestionably due to the Communist Party ofChina which began when the Third Plenary sitting of the 11th rudimentary Committeeof Communist Party of China adopted a r eform policy triggering the privatesector3. Since 1978, entrepreneurship has driven theChinese economy and the economic and political changes since then remainunprecedented. So transformative has this change been that China is now athreat to the US in the information superhighway. A recent event in 2016 putsthis threat into context.China builds worlds fastest supercomputer without U.S.chipsChina on Monday revealed its latest supercomputer, a monolithic system with 10.65 million compute cores built entirely with Chinese microprocessors. This follows a U.S. government decision last year to deny China access to Intels fastest microprocessors. There is no U.S.-made system that comes close to the performance of Chinas new system, the Sunway TaihuLight. Its theoretical peak performance is 124.5 petaflops, according to the latest biannual release today of the worlds Top500 supercomputers. It is the first system to exceed 100 petaflops. A petaflop equals one cubic yard trillion (one quadri llion) sustained floating-point operations per second.ComputerWorld (June 20, 2016 http//www.computerworld.com/article/3085483/high-performance-computing/china-builds-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-without-u-s-chips.html) It has earlier been argued that cyberspace is open to bothstate actors and non-state actors. Because actions can be interpreted by anindividual in a state, it is extremely hard to prove culpability of the state.In other words, a cyber attack from a computer in China in no way implies thatthe cyber attack was orchestrated by the Chinese state. Proving culpability isextremely hard and this fact alone hinders the argument that cyber warfarecould be a new arena of conflict. Having said this, the media is awash withstories of Chinese cyber attacks on the U.S. but it is always lacking inevidence. Ironically, one never hears of U.S. cyber attacks on China or at thevery least the mainstream media never reports it. Despite Chinas repeateddenials of culpability and its deman d for proof that its citizens areresponsible for cyber attacks on U.S. interests, the U.S. have taken the boldstep in 2011 to issue a statement from the National CounterintelligenceExecutive that China is the most active and persistent perpetrator of cyber intrusionsinto the United States (Heginbotham, 2015). As there are no clearly defined rules on cyber warfare, anyescalation of tensions between China and the U.S. could be construed and framedin the words of a dominance conflict similar to the rhetoric that started andfuelled the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This Cold War metaphoris how commentators are viewing the Cyber race between China and the U.S. concord to President Barack Obamas 2011 Cyberspace Policy Review,cybersecurity risks pose some of the most serious economic and nationalsecurity challenges of the 21st century (Solis, 2014). This rhetoric is okay up by the steps the U.S. has taken to secure its strategic advantage inthe domain. In 2009, the U.S. creat ed the Cyber Command under the NationalSecurity Agency (NSA) with the express purpose of putting cyber warfare in theforefront of its military and defensive strategy. In addition, the Departmentof Defence (DoD) also has the Pentagon Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace withChina clearly set in its sights.These aggressive overtures by the U.S. have not beenignored. According to the Chinese Ministry of Public Security, they are of theopinion that cyber attacks on Chinese computer installations grow at a rate of80% annually making China the largest and most venerable recipient of cyberattacks (Robinson, et al., 2015). To put it intocontext, in 2011, China succumbed to a cyber attack where 100 millionuser names, passwords and emails were leaked unto the internet.What is commonly acknowledge is that the U.S. practicallycontrols the entire internet and other states are using every means possible toreduce the influence of that control and threat even though the US wasinstrumental in the de velopment of the internet. For the global internet to befully operational, it requires 13 root serves. 10 of the 13 are based in the USand the other 3 are based in Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands. ICANN, the bodythat authorises domain names and designations is based in the U.S. With thesefacts in mind, the U.S. has the most potential to turn cyber space into a cyberthreat. At least that is the argument posed by China and they verify on beingable to protect their national interests. With both sides staking a nationalinterest priority, it is not surprising that cyber warfare could be the nextarena between the U.S. and China (Lieberthal & Singer,2012).Global Cyber warfare Russia vs the rest of the worldThe Russians view cyber and cyberspace in completelycontradictory terms to the U.S. and the West in general. beginning and foremost,the Russians do not generally refer to the term cyber as a distinct concept inthe way political theorists in the West do. Russia, and to some extent Chin a,have a wider understanding of information and its control regardless of themedium chosen. So, given its long history with controlling information aboutand through the state during the era of the Soviet Union, electronic informationis just one conduit or category of information that can be utilized,manipulated and harnessed for the greater good of the state. That is to saythat the notion of cyber is just another mechanism by which information isrelayed and does not take priority over other mechanisms in importance just inpractical relevance. In Russian military doctrine, information and disinformationgo hand in hand and are tools used by the state mechanism to achieve a desiredobjective for its citizens or against its adversaries. It is utilized withjudicious foresight towards a purpose in addition to other traditional methodsand processes. In practical terms, if information (or disinformation) helpsanother weapon to tool, then Russian military theorists see electronicinformation merely as an enabler or facilitator. Therefore information isrelevant to already established practices of the state such as disinformationoperations, electronic warfare, Psychology Operations (also known as PsyOps),political subversion and subterfuge, economic warfare etc. According to (Carr, 2011), this is stated clearly in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (2010) .. features of modern military conflicts is the prior implementation of measures of information warfare in order to achieve political objectives without the utilization of military force and, subsequently, in the interest of shaping a favourable response from the world community to the utilization of military force.Carr, 2011Cyber warfare, according to Russian theorists, is justinformation warfare by another means but more efficient than other types ofinformation warfare. Cyber warfare is a legitimate tool of the state, so theargument goes, in peacetime and in conflict. It does not hold a specialprominence l ike it does in the U.S. Cyber warfare is regulated to accompanyingother tools of the state but given its nature, it has no set rules, noboundaries, no prescribed limits and no real restrictions or applications. Sucha view is diametrically opposite to that of the concept of cyberspace held inthe West. In support of this theory, the Russian state apparatus is structured preferably differently from the U.S.Cyberspace and cyber warfare started under the remit of the FederalSecurity Service (Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopastnosti FSB) which was taskedwith initiating information and disinformation wars using whatever meansnecessary including cyber warfare. The FSB also maintains and controls SORM, theStates internal cyber surveillance system. In addition to the FSB, The FederalService for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecommunications, InformationTechnologies and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor), is also tasked withcontrolling the civilian media, telecommunications, the internet, the radio andany electronic media. Russias strategy of seeing cyber warfare as a continuationof normal political and military overtures was witnessed in the war withGeorgia in 2008(Robinson, et al., 2015). To date, Russia isstill the only country to use all three of military, economic and cyber warfareon an adversary in the international arena. Russia had a two-pronged attackwhen it used military weapons and cyber warfare to defeat Georgia. Similarly,in its conflict with Ukraine in 2014, its conventional use of military weapons andcyber warfare resulted in Ukrainian government websites being shut down,massive denial of service attacks being reported and energy installationsbeing hacked into. This is the first of many of these sorts of total warfarethat will continue in the new future. One only has to read newspaper reports ofcyber attacks occurring on a daily basis. But does this constitute a new arenaof conflict? I think given what is already going on in conflicts around theworld, the questi on has already been answered. Whether by design or accident,states are using cyber warfare as a tool against their adversary(Lieberthal & Singer,2012).Worlds first Cyber WarNo other body of research could bemore persuasive that presenting details of the worlds first cyber war tosupport the argument that cyber warfare is now a new arena of conflict. Thefirst known incident of an entire country being subjected to an all out cyberwar was Estonia. To understand the gravity of this event is to look at thehistory of Estonia. Estonia wascontrolled by the Soviet Union for nearly 50 years and obtained itsindependence in 1991. Then it was a desolate country which has been starved ofinfrastructure and economic development. With a population of just under 2million, it has carved a future for itself as one of the most wired andtechnological advanced countries in the world. It is truly a model of a smartcountry with widespread ecommerce and e-government services almost unparalleledanywhere in the world.As a state once controlled by the Soviets until 1991, the country is punctuated with Soviet history and struggle. The capital city, Tallinn, had remembrances erected to the Soviet soldiers who fought and died in the struggle to keep Germany out of Russia. Estonia, as it is their right, decided to move the monument to a cemetery which met angry objections from Russian leaders and the large Russian community that grew out of a 50 year occupation. Russia saw Estonia as a symbol of struggle and the Estonians saw Russia as a symbol of oppression. After altercations in the city centre following the removal of the monument, Estonia found that its entire electronic infrastructure was disrupted. The state administration was paralysed, banks and companies had to freeze their operations, the internet was practically down and nothing was working. Culpability was had to prove but it was the first recorded total cyber war against a state. Again, there is no proof that the perpetrators wer e state sponsored or indeed it was a malicious attack but the timing and the magnitude points to more than a criminal cohort (there was no financial advantage gained in the event) and to a state sponsored cyber attack. More importantly, Estonians pointed the finger at Russia and being members of NATO, they retained the prerogative to heighten Article 5 of NATO an attack against one is an attack against all.PostscriptIf there was any uncertainty about cyber warfare becomingthe new arena of conflict then the headlines below might seem ominous as theyare similar to the headlines that preceded the First World War and the SecondWorld War. And these were in just over 3 days.Malta accuses Russia of cyber-attacks in run-up to electionThe embattled Maltese government has claimed that it has comeunder attack from a Russian-backed campaign to undermine it, amid downsloperelations with the Kremlin.Malta assumed the presidency of Europes Council of Ministersin January, an important position un der which it chairs high-level meetings inBrussels and sets Europes political agenda. Since then, the Maltesegovernments IT systems have seen a rise in attacks, according to a sourceworking within its information technology agency, a government body. He claimedthe attacks, which have increased ahead of next months general election, aredesigned to damage the government. In the last two quarters of last year andthe first part of this year, attacks on our servers have increased, the sourcesaid.(Doward, 2017)Trump executive order aims to protect US from catastrophic cyber attack US President Donald Trump this month signed an executive order that aims to increase protection for US essential services in case of a cyber attack that results in catastrophic regional or national effect on public health or safety, economic security, or national security. (Kuchler, 2017)Nth Korea launches cyber attacks on USNorth Koreas main spy agency has a special cell called Unit 180 thatis likely to have l aunched some of its most daring and successful cyberattacks, according to defectors, officials and internet security experts. NorthKorea has been blamed in recent years for a series of online attacks, mostly onfinancial networks, in the United States, South Korea and over a dozen othercountries. Cyber security researchers have also said they have found technicalevidence that could link North Korea with the global WannaCry ransomwarecyber attack that infected more than 300,000 computers in 150 countries thismonth. Pyongyang has called theallegation ridiculous. (Reuters, 2017)The research question ofwhether cyber warfare is a new arena of conflict is probably not in any doubt.The argument reverts back to the beginning of this research when examined therealist approach to international relations. Even if one were to look at thevast number of institutions in the international system and make a please forcalmer heads prevailing, the realpolitik ofcurrent geopolitics shows that cyber atta cks can, and will most likely, be usedas a pretext and as a tool of war. It is no longer a question of if but when. BibliographyAndersen, P. H. & Kragh, H., 2011. Beyond theinductive figment New approaches to the role of existing theory in caseresearch. . In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch, eds. Rethinking thecase study in international business and management research. s.l.EdwardElgar Publishing Ltd, pp. 146-167.Andress, J. &Winterfeld, S., 2011. Cyber Warfare Techniques, tactics and Tools forSecurity Practitioners. s.l.Elsevier Science.Andrews, L., Higgins,A., Andrews, M. & Lalor, J., 2012. Classic Grounded Theory to AnalyzeData Reality and Reffecions. Grounded Theory Review An InternationalJournal, June.11(1).Barkawi, T., 2011.From War to Security Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the wad of the field of operation of War. Millenium Journal of International Studies, tidy sum39(Issue 3), pp. 701-716.Bernard, H. R., 2011.Research methods in anthropology Qualitative and quan titativeapproaches.. s.l.Rowman Altamira..Carr, J., 2011. Insidecyber warfare Mapping the cyber underworld. Sebastopol OReilly Media,Inc..Chen, T., 2010.Stuxnet, the real start of cyber warfare?. IEEE Network, record book24(Issue 6), pp. 2-3.Cobban, S. J.,Edgington, E. M. & Pimlott, J. F., 2008. An ethical perspective onresearch using shared data.. Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene, 42(5),pp. 233-238.Colarik, A. &Janczewski, L., 2008. Introduction to Cyber Warfare and. In L. Janczewski& A. Colarik, eds. Cyber Warfare and Cyber Terrorism. New YorkInformation Science Reference.Colarik, A. &Janczewski, L., 2012. Establishing Cyber Warfare Doctrine. Journal ofStrategic Security, Volume 5(Issue 1), pp. 31-48.Cornish, P.,Livingstone, D., Clemente, D. & Yorke, C., 2010. On Cyber Warfare. LondonChatham House.Corti, L. &Bishop, L., 2005. Strategies in teaching secondary analysis of qualitativedata. Forum Qualitative complaisant Research, 6(1).Curran, K.,Concannon, K. & McKeever, S., 2008. Cyber Terrorism Attacks. In A.Colarik & L. Janczewski, eds. Cyber Warfare and Cyber Terrorism. NewYork Infformation Science Reference.DeWeese, S., 2009. Capabilityof the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) to conduct cyber warfare and computernetwork exploitation. s.l.Diane Publishing.Doward, J., 2017. Maltaaccuses Russia of cyber-attacks in run-up to election. Online operableat https//www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/27/russia-behind-cyber-attacks-says-malta-jseph-muscatAccessed 29 May 2017.Dragan, M., Danko, M.& Mirjana, D., 2012. Defining Cyber Warfare. Vojnotehniki Glasnik, Volume60(Issue 2), pp. 84-117.Droege., C., 2012.Get off my cloud cyber warfare, international humanitarian law, and theprotection of civilians. International Review of the Red Cross,, Volume94(Issue 886), pp. 533-578.Elliot, D. C., 2015.SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS. In F. Stage & K. Manning, eds. Research inthe College Context Approaches and Methods. s.l.s.n.Elman, C., Gerring,J. & Mahoney, J., 2016. Case Study Re search Putting the Quant Into theQual. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), pp. 375-391.Fielding , N., 2004.Geting the most from archived qualitative data epistemological, practicaland professional obstacles. International Journal of Social ResearchMethodology, 7(1), pp. 97-104.Gladstone, B. M.,Volpe, T. & Boydell, K. M., 2007. Issues encountered in a qualitativesecondary analysis of help seeking in the prodrome to psychosis. TheJournal of behavioural Health Sciences and Research, 34(4), pp. 431-442.Gompert, D. &Libicki, M., 2014. Cyber Warfare and Sino-American Crisis Instability. Survival,Volume 56(Issue 4), pp. 7-22.Heaton, J., 1998.Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Social Research Update, Issue22.Heaton, J., 2004. ReworkingQualitative Data. London Sage Publications Ltd.Heaton, J., 2008.Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data An Overview. Historical SocialResearch, 3(3).Heginbotham, E.,2015. The U.S.-China Military Scorecard Forces, Geography, and theEvolving respite of Power 1996-2017, Santa Monica The RAND Corporation.Hinds, P. S., Vogel,R. J. & Clarke-Steffen, L., 1997. The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Doinga Secondary Data Analysis of Qualitative Data Set. Qualitative HealthResearch, 7(3), pp. 408-424.Hjortdal, M., 2011.Chinas Use of Cyber Warfare Espionage Meets Strategic Deterrence. Journalof Strategic Security, Volume 4(Issue 2), pp. 1-24.Hjortdal, M., 2011.Chinas Use of Cyber Warfare Espionage Meets Strategic Deterrence. Journalof Strategic Security, Volume 4(2), pp. 1-24.Irwin, S., Bornat, J.& Winterton, M., 2012. Timescapes secondary analysis Comparison, contextand working across data sets. Qualitative Research, 12(1), pp. 66-80.Jensen, E. T., 2009.Cyber warfare and precautions against the effects of attacks. Texas lawreview, Volume Volume 88, p. 1533.Johnston, M., 2014.Secondary Data Analysis. A Method of which Time Has Come, Volume 3,pp. 619-626.Kelsey, J. T., 2008.Hacking into international humanitarian law The principles of distinct ionand neutrality in the age of cyber warfare. Michigan Law Review, pp.1427-1451.Knapp, K. J. &Boulton, W. R., 2006. Cyber-warfare threatens corporations expansion intocommercial environments. Information Systems Management, Volume23(Issue 2), p. 76.Krasner, S., 1983. InternationalRegimes. Ithaca Cornell University Press.Kuchler, H., 2017. Trumpexecutive order aims to protect US from catastrophic cyber attack. OnlineAvailable at https//www.ft.com/content/1e46dd84-2422-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025Accessed 29 May 2017.Kuehl, D., 2009. Fromcyberspace to cyberpower Defining the problem.. In F. Kramer, S. Starr& K. Wentz, eds. Cyberpower and national security. WashingtonD.C. Potomac Books Inc., pp. 24-42.Lagner, R., 2011.Stuxnet Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Security & Privacy, Volume9(Issue 3), pp. 49-51.Lieberthal, K. &Singer, P., 2012. Cybersecurity and U.S.-China Relations. OnlineAvailableathttps//www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/0223_cybersecurity_china_us_lieberthal_s inger_pdf_english.pdfAccessed 25 May 2017.Lindsay, J. R., 2013.Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare. Security Studies, Volume22(Issue 3), pp. 365-404.Long-Sutehall, T.,Sque, M. & Addington-Hall, J., 2011. Secondary analysis of qualitativedata A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusivepopulation. Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), pp. 335-344.Mackenzie, N. &Knipe, S., 2006. Research dilemmas Paradigms, methods and methodology.. IssuesIn Educational Research, 16(2), pp. 193-205.Marwil, J., 2000. Photographyat War. Online Available at http//www.historytoday.com/jonathan-marwil/photography-warAccessed 21 May 2017.Nicholson, A. et al.,2012. SCADA security in the light of Cyber-Warfare.. Computers &Security, Volume 31(Issue 4), pp. 418-436.Palys, T., 2008.Purposive Sampling. In L. M. Given, ed. The Sage encyclopaedia ofQualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles Sage, pp. 697-698.Reuters, 2017. NthKorea launches cyber attacks on US. Online Available at http//ww w.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2017/05/21/nth-korea-launches-cyber-attacks-on-us.htmlAccessed 29 May 2017.Robinson, M., Jones,K. & Janicke, H., 2015. Cyber warfare Issues and challenges. Computers& Security, Volume Volume 49, pp. 70-94.Robinson, M., Jones,K. & Janicke, H., 2015. Cyber warfare Issues and challenges. Computers& Security,, Volume 49(Issue 25), p. 70.Shakarian, P.,Shakarian, J. & Ruef, A., 2013. Introduction to cyber-warfare Amultidisciplinary approach. Oxford Newnes.Solis, G., 2014.Cyber Warfare. Military Law Review, Volume Volume 219, pp. 1-52.Stavrianakis, A.& Selby, J., 2012. Militarism and International Relations. In A.Stavrianakis & J. Selby, eds. Militarism and International Relations Political Economy, Security and Theory. s.l.Taylor and Francis.Tashakkori, A. &Teddlie, C., 2010. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social &behavioral research. s.l.Sage.Tennis, J. T., 2008.Epistemology, Theory and Methodology in Knowledge Organization Toward aClassificati on, Metatheory, and Research Framework. In KnowledgeOrganization, 35(2/3), pp. 102-112.Tesch, R., 1990. Qualitativeresearch Analysis types and software tools.. New York Falmer.Thorne, S., 1990.Secondary Analysis in Qualitative Research Issues and Implications. In J.M. Morse, ed. Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. LondonSage.Turns, D., 2012.Cyber Warfare and the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities. Journalof Conflict and Security Law,, Volume 17(Issue 2), pp. 279-297.Van den Berg, H.,2005. Reanalyzing qualitative interviews from different angles the risk ofde-contextualization and other problems of overlap qualitative data.. ForumQualitative Social Research, , 6(1).Vasilachis DeGialdino, I., 2009. Ontological and Epistemological Foundations ofQualitative Research. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 10(2), pp.1438-5627..Wang, H. & Wang,S., 2004. Cyber warfare steganography vs. steganalysis. Communications ofthe ACM, Volume 47(Issue 10), pp. 76-82.Wolcott, H. T ., 2009.Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California Sage.1These are computers that havebeen hijacked and remotely taken over by a person other than the owner.2Primarydata is that which is from a study where the researcher personally collects theinformation but secondary data is data that has already been collected (Andrews,et al., 2012).3From December 18 to 22, 1978, the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CentralCommittee of Communist Party of China was held in Beijing. The party decidedthat China should start shift its economic focus from classstruggle-oriented to economic construction-oriented, fromsemi-rigid/rigid to comprehensive reform, and, fromsemi-closed/closed to opening up.Invalid sourcespecified.