Ethics and Law of Cyber Warfare

Battles in the air, on land, and sea are decreasing with the rise of cyber warfare as countries are seeing the increase of cyber as the most critical tools of war. Yet, while the tools of war are changing, the rules have not. The US and the international community must have a thorough discussion to address the details and concerns of the morality, law, and ethics of the use of cyber capabilities for war to define lasting policies that will prevent unnecessary damage to the function of civilian systems and outline proper reasoning for launching cyberattacks. This new, complex realm of war requires immediate attention before it is too late to control.

Principles of the Just War Theory used as the backbone of existing international law, including certain principles and articles of Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law, do not technically apply to the use of cyber warfare at the moment. The Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and other law-of-war conventions were established during a time when the world was quickly changing and advancing with the rise of the nation-state, modernization, aviation, and decolonization.

While most cyber attacks do not appear to fall under the Geneva Convention’s definitions of “grave breaches” or “war crimes,” they could still be illegal or unethical. Articles 51 and 57 of the Geneva Conventions protocols state that there must be precautions taken continuously to avoid harm to civilian populations and objects, prohibiting attacks that use means and methods with effects that cannot be controlled or that cause disproportional damage.

Cyber warfare systems lack precise targeting and inefficient means of damage assessment. This lack of assessment could lead to the launch of larger-scale attacks in hopes of guaranteeing damage, but since viruses can spread to civilian infrastructure from the military’s and damage repair could be very difficult, cyber attacks could still be prosecutable as war crimes under the current protocols.

International laws of war must be reevaluated to take the rise of globalization and the internet into account, and the public must be involved in the conversation regarding morality. The perpetual changes in this battleground are still in the beginning stages and lack enough precedence to be addressed based only on legal matters. A just and fair legal system is based on good moral philosophy, so updates to the international laws of war must begin with a breakdown of moral analysis of 21st-century warfare in the eyes of the public.

Prepared For Almost Everything..........Almost

Unified Quest 2014 was an Army wargame which examined an operational environment from 2030 to 2040. Some scenarios included insurgencies, corruption in failing states, and flooding and natural disasters in mega-cities. The Unified Quest 2013 wargame simulated a failed North Korean Nuclear state. In this game, North Korea lost control of its nuclear technology and warheads. It took nearly 56 days and 90,000 U.S. troops to contain North Korea's nuclear stockpiles.

Other Rand Corporation wargames have played a future war between the U.S. (blue team) and Russia/China (red team). This 2019 wargame involved conventional and cyber warfare. The United States seems to be worried about nations such as Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. Various wargames and preparations can be discussed regarding these potential conflicts. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the U.S. and the world was not prepared for a war with a virus. Bill Gates warned us in 2015.

Bill Gates stated the world needed to invest more in medication, vaccinations, medical testing, and preparations. Evidently, the U.S. did not listen and proceeded to cut funding to virus-fighting agencies. Gates pointed out the U.S. has spent large sums of money on nuclear deterrence, but has lacked funding in healthcare and pandemic prevention. 

Training for war and crisis can help prepare for medical pandemics. the U.S. military and NATO has well-trained service-members who have the capabilities to operate in multiple crisis situations. In the long run, the world would save lots of lives and money by initially preparing and investing in pandemic preparations. 

AnBot's Legacy

In February 2016, China first deployed the AnBot security robot at the Shenzhen airport; a year later, the Zhengzhou East railway station was granted its own patrol model. Developed by China's National Defense University, the 1.5 meter-tall AnBot (claimed to be the world's "first intelligent security robot") was designed to aid police as well as passersby. It was equipped with a system of high-definition digital cameras to allow for surveillance and freedom of movement, autonomous movement at up to 11 mph, sensors to track air quality and changes in temperature, and facial recognition capabilities. So far, its main tasks have been guard and patrol duty, but its onboard electroshock weapons coincide with criminal apprehension and riot control, if needed, and bystanders can use the touchscreen's SOS button to call the police.

Since then, China has developed and deployed several robot helpers as part of police technology integration initiative. In August of last year, the Handan Public Security Bureau deployed three kinds of robots to specifically aid traffic police: a road patrol robot, to identify and log drivers practicing illicit behavior; an advice traffic robot, to answer residents' questions and direct them from its station post; and an accident warning robot, to warn drivers about traffic accidents in the area.

Most recently, the Chinese government is preparing its technology sector (including robotics) to combat the spread of COVID-19 within its borders. Pudu Technology, MicroMulticopter, and other Chinese technology firms have developed robots to help medical staff, deliver meals to those in isolation, perform diagnostic functions, and spray disinfectants to minimize the risk of cross-infection. Deployed drones are capable of transporting medical samples and conducting thermal imaging. Experts are using AI to help them diagnose the disease and accelerate vaccine development. Even facial recognition cameras are being reconfigured to scan passersby for fever--and companies like SenseTime are working on detection software that would be able to recognize faces accurately, masked or not.

Scientific Advancement for the sake of itself: Are Autonomous Weapons Actually a Good Idea?

Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) are weapons system that, once activated, require little to no human action in order to take carry out an objective. LAWS often uses computer algorithms and sensor systems to identify a target and use available weapons against it (CRS Report). The general definition of LAWS covers a wide variety of weapons, and levels of autonomy can range from partially to completely autonomous. Lawfare defines an autonomous weapon as “weapons that can select, detect and engage targets with little to no human intervention.”

At a basic level, all of this seems cool and innovative, but is it actually a good idea to develop, produce, and deploy LAWS as part of our military strategy? Is this technological innovation for its own sake—innovation that carries with it complex international implications?

However, LAWS have complex implications and potential consequences when they are used.

When LAWS make mistakes, target innocent civilians, or otherwise malfunction, who is ultimately responsible for the consequences? If an autonomous weapon indiscriminately kills civilians because of a corrupted algorithm, who is held responsible for the breach in international law? The military deploying the weapon, the potentially civilian corporations who built the code, and the contractors who produced and tested the weapon all potentially hold responsibility. Unlike a drone—which has a dedicated military operator dictating its actions—autonomous weapons may not have direct military operators, muddling the lines of responsibility and damaging oversight and accountability.

Autonomous weapons are also vulnerable to software breaches or hacks. Like any other technology, LAWS have vulnerabilities. According to Human Rights Watch, LAWS software is vulnerable to breaches, as malicious actors attempt to corrupt or even take control of adversarial LAWS and change their algorithms to target friendly groups, including its own personnel/military or civilians.

Autonomous weapons in theory sound like innovations that can limit mistakes and lower casualties in warfare. However, before these systems enter the conventional theater, its vulnerabilities and weaknesses must be considered.

Outlaw Killer Robots?

In July of 2018 2400 researchers, among those Demis Hassabis at Google and Elon Musk of SpaceX signed a pledge to not pursue the development of killer robots. This pledge states that the participants will “neither participate in nor support the development, manufacture, trade, or use of lethal autonomous weapons.” However, are weapons powered solely by AI really all that terrible?

The argument has been made that weapons powered by artificial intelligence would be not only less prone to human error, but also more effective. This is because of deep learning. Deep learning is a certain ability that some AI have that lets them form networks on their own. In essence, it learns to do tasks by itself. A drone powered solely by AI, without a human operator, would not have the problem of a blurry screen or any of the other problems that a human operator may have. There wouldn’t have to be a human manning a missile defense system and that person’s efforts could be spent elsewhere. In this way, AI weaponry would be vastly superior to its human counterpart.  

The most obvious downside of weapons that can shoot by themselves is that they are prone to hacking attempts by foreign entities. On a certain day in July of 2014, the United States was the target of hackers a total of 5840 times. If AI weaponry is developed, we can expect a certain number of these attacks daily to be targeted at these weapons. Of course, we can have a nigh impenetrable firewall placed on them, but eventually one will get through and from then the consequences would be dire. Is the United States, or any other country, really willing to risk that?

Another, perhaps less obvious, critique of certain AI weaponry is the fact that even if the human element is dead, the weapon still continues to operate. Do we really want certain regimes or organizations to have weaponry that, when all of the forces are killed, still continues to fire? On top of that, these weapons would be extremely difficult to dismantle or destroy. If the regime or organization doesn’t value human life and just wants to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible before they go down, then these weapons would be perfect for them to use.  

In short, I believe that weaponry powered by artificial intelligence is a good thing to have, but there always needs to be a human element to back it up. Weaponry solely powered by AI is too dangerous for right now. Something like Terminator will, most likely, never happen, but if checks are not placed on AI weaponry before it goes too far, then there may be real problems in the future.

Why Low Yield Nuclear Weapons are a Bad Idea

The Federation of American Scientists announced on January 29th that the new W76-2 low yield nuclear warhead has been deployed. This is a low yield variant of a warhead traditionally carried on the Trident missile. The Pentagon confirmed on February 4th that this warhead was requested, designed, and produced under the Trump administration. Undersecretary of Defense, John Rood, claimed that the benefits from this weapon, “strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon; supports our commitment to extended deterrence; and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario” (Defense News). 

The W76-2 warhead has been deployed on the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), which already has the capacity to fire high yield nuclear weapons. This is cause for major concern as if any of the weapons are fired, it is likely that the adversary will assume the high yield has been fired, and will respond with a high yield weapon of their own. Supporters of the low yield system, however, believe that this will be a strong effort towards deterrence of Russian nuclear weapons. US defense officials believe that Moscow would use low yield nuclear weapons to prevent the US from entering or extending conflict under the “escalate to de escalate” doctrine. Due to the fact that the US only had high yield weapons previously, the thinking goes that the US would hesitate to use it. 

This raises further concerns about rationalizing the use of nuclear weapons in a conventional setting. The low yield nuclear weapons were designed to carry a smaller payload than the one detonated in Hiroshima, Japan during World War II. Due to the smaller explosive power of these weapons, it would be far easier for a country to rationalize using it against a conventional adversary. The blowback from this could be devastating as it would be the first time a nuclear weapon has been used since World War II. If a country can rationalize the use of low yield nuclear weapons against conventional adversaries, it then becomes a slippery slope that could lead to all out nuclear warfare. 

Low yield nuclear weapons may help promote deterrence in the short run, however, it is likely to heighten tensions between nuclear powers. The idea that low yield weapons could possibly be used in a conventional setting is frankly quite startling and could spell disaster during war time or in times of peace. These weapons could also bring about a new nuclear arms race. Instead of racing for the biggest, baddest nuclear weapons, the race could now be for a nuclear weapon with the lowest yield. The W76-2 has a blast yield of around 100 kiltons(kt) which is almost ten times the yield of the weapon dropped on Hiroshima. It is startling to think that this weapon could be considered low yield, and even more startling to think that a weapon like this could potentially be used in a conventional setting.

A Nuclear Saudi Arabia?

Early this week, March 3^rd, the AP reported that Iran had tripled its stockpile of enriched uranium since November in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As the potential of a Nuclear Iran becomes likely, the Middle East is possessed to see a proliferation of nations seeking nuclear weapons. Besides Israel, Saudi Arabia is likely most apprehensive of a Nuclear Iran.  The two nations have engaged in proxy wars in Yemen, Iraq, and Syria: Each competing for hegemonic influence over the region. Possession of a nuclear bomb would shift the balance of power in Iran’s failure; it would be reasonable for Saudi Arabia to seek a nuclear counterbalance of their own.

Such efforts began two years ago; Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBD) was in negotiations with the US Department of Energy and the Department of State to get US designs for nuclear power plants. There was one catch, MBD insists on producing nuclear fuel within his country. Such fuel could be diverted into a covert weapons program, precisely what the US and its allies fear Iran is doing. The Trump Administration has privately argued that if the US does not sell Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons, MBD will go to Russia or China instead. Just last March, the US approved the selling of nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia. There is little doubt that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will not be far behind.

              There is much debate regarding whether a middle east full of nuclear powers—Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia—would quickly descend into nuclear war or if a détente would take shape. If Saudi Arabia were to possess nuclear weapons, are they competent enough to secure and maintain such weapons? The answer is probably no. The Saudi Arabian military—though well equipment by the US and other Western nations—obtuse, inadequately organized, and insufficiently trained. Additionally, Saudi officers are promoted not by merit but by family status and connections. Finally, there is much distrust within the military due to tribal divisions. Such factors do not bode well the kind competent command structure necessary for nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, many mistakes were made—by the highly competent US and Soviet—that nearly brought nuclear war. It is with significant doubt and apprehension that a nuclear standoff between Iran and Saudi Arabia would not end in a catastrophe by either incompetence or recklessness.  

12 Movies About Nuclear War

Nothing goes better with popcorn than plutonium, except possibly uranium. The inherent danger of nuclear weaponry has given it a central place in film history. Nuclear weapons mean drama, high stakes, and big explosions that any audience can understand immediately. It's a well-mined area for Hollywood and international filmmakers over the last 75 years.

Here's a dozen movies that are either directly about nuclear war or use a nuclear threat as a plot device. We've listed realism scores and entertainment scores on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the most realistic and most entertaining. Movies are listed alphabetically.

Broken Arrow
Realism: 3/10
Entertainment: 4/10
It gets better, folks. We promise. The idea of an American bomber pilot going rogue and stealing a nuclear weapon is unlikely. But the idea of an American nuclear weapon going unaccounted for after being involved in a crash is something that has happened.

Crimson Tide
Realism: 5/10
Entertainment: 7/10
It's not the best nuclear missile submarine movie, but it'll do. Viggo Mortensen, James Gandolfini, and Steve Zahn all have supporting roles in this Denzel Washington/Gene Hackman showdown, making it worth your time.

The Day After
Realism: 7/10
Entertainment: 3/10
This made-for-TV movie in 1983 so panicked Ronald Reagan, according to lore, that it changed his outlook on nuclear weapons. It's not a fun movie by any means, but was important for the impact it had on the American public in its time.

Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Realism: 5/10
Entertainment: 9/10
Some realism, some absurdism, but still one of the most important films in history. It holds up remarkably well, though it certainly wouldn't be considered an action movie.

Fail-Safe (1964)
Realism: 7/10
Entertainment: 6/10
The updated edition in 2000 is also worth viewing. This can almost be seen as the more serious version of Strangelove, produced at about the same time and with a very similar presence.

Godzilla (1954)
Realism: 1/10
Entertainment: 8/10
The Godzilla monster and the kaiju phenomenon was born out of Japanese fear of nuclear weapons in the postwar period. Godzilla's origin story is that its growth was stunted by US weapons testing in the Pacific, and it came to attack Japan. It's a fascinating premise to emerge from the only nation to suffer a nuclear attack.

The Hunt for Red October
Realism: 7/10
Entertainment: 9/10
The idea of a Soviet submarine commander turning over a brand-new Typhoon is far-fetched, but large pieces of this movie are plausible enough to cover up that fact. The Soviets try to convince the Americans that their rogue captain is intent on starting a nuclear war, while the Americans want to steal the high-tech submarine.

The Peacemaker
Realism: 4/10
Entertainment: 4/10
It's not completely implausible that Russian nuclear warheads in the post-Soviet era might fall into the wrong hands, but the rest of the movie is pretty light on plot. If you want to revisit George Clooney's "ER" era without watching re-runs, this is a decent option.

Planet of the Apes
Realism: 0/10
Entertainment: 8/10
It isn't until the final scene of the original 1968 movie that you realize what has happened, and isn't until the second movie (Beneath the Plant of the Apes) that a nuclear weapon makes an appearance. We'll leave the rest of this one in the dark to avoid spoilers if you aren't familiar with the premise.

The Sum of All Fears
Realism: 4/10
Entertainment: 6/10
This movie, about fascist terrorists setting off a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl, finished filming in summer 2001 but wasn't released until 2002. Its timeliness, in the run-up to the war on Iraq, is worth remembering as context if you view it. It's a weaker entry in the Jack Ryan universe but still decent.

The Terminator
Realism: 1/10
Entertainment: 7/10
Don't forget that the Terminator universe isn't just about humans vs. machines, but about self-aware machines using nuclear weapons to attempt to wipe out the human race. It's not the only film to explore the dangers of technology and nuclear weapons, but it's maybe the most iconic.

Thirteen Days
Realism: 9/10
Entertainment: 8/10
Don't confuse Hollywood with history, but this movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis is largely historically accurate. It's a strong cast, and compelling story. This is worth your time if you haven't seen it yet.

WarGames
Realism: 5/10
Entertainment: 7/10
A young Matthew Broderick (co-starring Ally Sheedy before her John Hughes turn) hacks into the NORAD computer system to play a game of "Global Thermonuclear War," and in doing so accidentally sets off a countdown to Armageddon. It's more fun than it sounds, and it's currently free on YouTube. Like "The Day After," it also came out in 1983, and like "The Day After," it reportedly frightened Ronald Reagan into asking his aides how realistic it was.

The World is Not Enough
Realism: 2/10
Entertainment: 6/10
Plenty of James Bond movies have used nuclear weapons as plot devices. Only one has had the audicity to make Denise Richards into a nuclear engineer. It's a fun Brosnan-era bond movie, but has few distinguishing features.

The Paradox of Aggressive Deterrence

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper oversaw a tabletop war game exercise two weeks ago where Russian military forces used a “tactical” nuclear weapon against NATO territory during a conflict in Europe, prompting the US to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike. The exercise prompted a flurry of reactions from Russia and US allies alike.

Russian politicians expressed anger at the exercise and accused the Pentagon of “reckless nuclear fear-mongering”, The Moscow Times reported. Members of the Russian Defense Committee argued that American actions were intended to intimidate European populations and justify the presence of American bases as security guarantors for their allies.

Democratic lawmakers in American have also criticized the action, likening the Trump administration’s decision to add new nuclear weapons to their arsenal as akin to the Cold War nuclear arms race. To be fair, it is a sharp turnabout from the Obama administration’s attempts to stabilize and preserve our arsenal without driving the development of new nuclear weapons.

The Defense Department defended its actions as a necessary response to Russian buildup of nuclear weapons – though this reasoning does not assuage fears of a new arms race. The disparity between Russian and American capabilities recently led the Trump administration to develop and deploy the first new US nuclear weapon in decades, a submarine-launched low yield weapon known as the W76-II.

The weapon arguably promotes deterrence by demonstrating American retaliation capabilities. However, European allies are concerned that the weapon would merely lower the threshold of nuclear weapons use and encourage their deployment.

As the recent strategic plays exemplify, American military strategy is still fundamentally dependent on escalatory doctrine. Though nuclear policy has at times diverged into deterrence, and there is significant support for disarmament, it will require a fundamental shift of American military policy to comprehensively. Though its urgency has faded in recent decades, the perennial question of balancing nuclear power remains pertinent today.