Cyber Technology and the Arms Race

Cyber technology represents digital military capability with the purpose of causing damage to the military strength of a potential enemy. War using conventional weapons may be preceded by or combined with a strike using cyber technology. This paper introduces such technology into the theory of conflicts. The cost of war relative to the payoff from victory turns out to be crucial for the results on armament decisions. In the war game, two types of Nash equilibria both subject to warfare are possible depending on the perceived cost of war. In a symmetric war game with equal cyber capabilities and a low cost of war, hostile countries choose to invest an equal amount of resources in their militaries. A higher cost of war leads to increased armament. However, asymmetric access to cyber technology limits the international arms race with conventional weapons when the cost of war is small while it - again - intensifies the arms race when the cost of war is greater. In all cases, access to cyber technology makes wars with conventional weapons more likely. Heterogeneity in the success of cyber programs creates a first-mover advantage for a superior country in terms of a possibility for a pre-emptive strike

Conceptualising cyber arms races

This paper investigates the emergence of an arms racing dynamic in the international cyber domain. The numerous claims made of an ongoing cyber arms race by the media and other analysts have not been backed up by careful empirical analysis. Characterised by the competitive and rapid mutual build-up of capabilities between pairs of states, arms races are a long standing aspect of study in international relations, with statistical evidence suggesting a relationship between these factors and war. Our work extends the tradition of arms race scholarship to the field of cyber security by providing a methodology for accounting for the build-up of cyber capabilities by nation states. We examine the concept of the cyber arms race and provide a plausibility probe for a macro study by examining the cases of the United States and Iran, and of North Korea and South Korea. We employ time series data on a number of indicators to measure each state’s scale of increase in cyber capabilities, before investigating whether the states in question are directing their efforts against one another. Our findings suggest that these state dyads have indeed been engaged in cyber arms races, as defined by their competitive and above-normal mutual increase in cyber capabilities. This work furthers our understanding of state behaviour in the cyber domain, and our methodology helps to establish a pathway for the future extensive data collection of this new phenomenon

Mitigating Cyber Warfare through Deterrence and Diplomacy

Nation states are increasingly bolstering their defensive and offensive cyber capabilities to launch and deter politically motivated cyber attacks. This does not only affect political processes, institutions, and election outcomes, but also a state’s critical infrastructure, economy, and society. Recent escalations and cyber attacks on power grids, parliaments, electoral campaigns, and financial institutions have made governments more aware of the double-edged sword presented by emerging cyber capabilities wielded by nation states. A new layer has been added to conflict prevention between states, i.e. international diplomacy, confidence-building measures and deterrence in cyber space. In this paper, we argue that stand-alone deterrence and stand-alone appeasement cannot solve the arising cross-national cyber conflict and prevent a cyber arms race. Only a concerted effort to combine diplomatic and deterring strategies can lead to an acceptable status quo in international cyber relations

Arms race in the 21st century: Consequences and mitigating measures

Historically, arms races generate a great deal of interest both in the academia and policy circles for a variety of reasons. They are widely believed to have significant consequences for states' security. In the debate over their consequences, one side holds that arms races increase the probability of war by undermining military stability and straining political relations. The opposing view holds that engaging in an arms race is often a state's best option for avoiding war when faced with an aggressive adversary. The 21st Century is witnessing the return of arms race amongst states. Coupling with the advancements in technology, the menace of arms race in the 21st Century, therefore, if not curtailed could lead to war more devastating than witnessed in the last century. Using basic content analysis the study revealed that the 21st Century arms races are mainly in the area of nuclear weapons, hypersonic missiles, missile defence, cyber-warfare, and space weaponisation. The arms races are prominently amongst the world‟s great powers such as the United States of America, Russia, and China as well as developing states like Iran and North Korea. This study discovered that nuclear weapons are still at the forefront of arms race in the 21st Century, despite efforts to reduce their role in global affairs and to negotiate further reductions in quantity. Also, states like the USA, China, and Russia are exploiting the advantage of speed and manoeuvrability to engage in arms race in hypersonic missiles. This has prompted nations to compete in the development of missile defences in order to counter the present missile threats. Furthermore, in anticipation for future warfare, nations such as the USA, China, and Russia are in arms race to weapon sise space by deploying space to space, earth to space and space to earth weapons,  where appropriate. War in the 21st Century could in turn lead to more human, material, and environmental casualties due to the latest advancement in technologies and modernisation of existing weapons and associated equipments. Consequently, measures are needed to ensure that arms races in the 21st Century, if not eliminated, are reduced to the barest minimum in order to promote international peace and security. Renewed commitments on existing arms control measures, formulation of new arms control measures, and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons are the measures that could be considered

Arms race in the 21st century: consequences and mitigating measures

Historically, arms races generate a great deal of interest both in the academia and policy circles for a variety of reasons. They are widely believed to have significant consequences for states' security. In the debate over their consequences, one side holds that arms races increase the probability of war by undermining military stability and straining political relations. The opposing view holds that engaging in an arms race is often a state's best option for avoiding war when faced with an aggressive adversary. The 21st Century is witnessing the return of arms race amongst states. Coupling with the advancements in technology, the menace of arms race in the 21st Century, therefore, if not curtailed could lead to war more devastating than witnessed in the last century. Using basic content analysis the study revealed that the 21st Century arms races are mainly in the area of nuclear weapons, hypersonic missiles, missile defence, cyber-warfare, and space weaponisation. The arms races are prominently amongst the world’s great powers such as the United States of America, Russia, and China as well as developing states like Iran and North Korea. This study discovered that nuclear weapons are still at the forefront of arms race in the 21st Century, despite efforts to reduce their role in global affairs and to negotiate further reductions in quantity. Also, states like the USA, China, and Russia are exploiting the advantage of speed and manoeuvrability to engage in arms race in hypersonic missiles. This has prompted nations to compete in the development of missile defences in order to counter the present missile threats. Furthermore, in anticipation for future warfare, nations such as the USA, China, and Russia are in arms race to weaponsise space by deploying space to space, earth to space and space to earth weapons, where appropriate. War in the 21st Century could in turn lead to more human, material, and environmental casualties due to the latest advancement in technologies and modernisation of existing weapons and associated equipments.  Consequently, measures are needed to ensure that arms races in the 21st Century, if not eliminated, are reduced to the barest minimum in order to promote international peace and security. Renewed commitments on existing arms control measures, formulation of new arms control measures, and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons are the measures that could be considered

The Fault Is Not in Our Stars: Avoiding an Arms Race in Outer Space

The world is on the precipice of a new arms race in outer space, as China, Russia, the United States, and others undertake dramatic new initiatives in anti-satellite weaponry. These accelerated competitive efforts at space control are highly destabilizing because developed societies have come to depend so heavily upon satellite services to support the entire civilian economy and the modern military apparatus; any significant threat or disruption in the availability of space assets would be massively, and possibly permanently, disruptive. International law regarding outer space developed with remarkable rapidity in the early years of the Space Age, but the process of formulating additional treaties and norms for space has broken down over the past several decades; no additional legal instruments have emerged that could cope with today’s rising threats. This Article therefore proposes three initiatives. Although none of them can suffice to solve the emerging problems, they could, perhaps, provide additional diplomacy, reinvigorating the prospects for rapprochement in space. Importantly, each of these three ideas has deep roots in other sectors of arms control, where they have served both to restore a measure of stability and to catalyze even more ambitious agreements in the longer term. The first proposal is for a declaratory regime of “no first use” of specified space weapons; this would do little to directly alter states’ capabilities for space warfare, but could serve as a “confidence-building measure,” to temper their most provocative rhetoric and practices. The second concept is a “limited test ban,” to interdict the most dangerous debris-creating developmental tests of new space weapons. Third is a suggestion for shared “space situational awareness,” which would create an international apparatus enabling all participants to enjoy the benefits of greater transparency, reducing the possibilities for secret malign or negligent behavior. In each instance, the Article describes the proposal and its variations, assesses its possible contributions to space security, and displays the key precedents from other arms-control successes. The Article concludes by calling for additional, further-reaching space diplomacy, in the hope that these relatively modest initial measures could provoke more robust subsequent negotiations