Thank you for your comments and I don’t think our opinions are far apart.

Firstly, whether cyberspace is should be doctrinally conceived as a separate domain is a matter of significant debate. The United States has decided it is the 5th domain of warfare and duly established a Cyber Command, and as the dominant military power in the world this viewpoint maintains a lot of traction. However, an equally significant group of countries/institutions consider the employment of cyber activities as a technological force multiplier to existing doctrine. History shows us that in the fullness of time one doctrinal standpoint is superior so how we proceed from here has potentially significant ramifications in the future.

I agree that cyberspace extends into many people’s lives via service provision and information access. This is why I believe it is important to include people as the top layer of the hierarchical nexus of cyberspace. However, I do not necessarily conclude that this is enough to make cyber a domain in its own right. Tom Standage makes a powerful argument in his book ‘The Victorian Internet’ that the Telegram was the first ‘internet’ as it enabled the compression of time and space (central features of the internet) and that our internet today is just a technological enhancement of that. At no point has anyone consider the telegram domain, or indeed information domain, until now so why must a cyber domain exist to enable adequate security?

I don’t believe that I stated that cyber could kill. Indeed this article argued the opposite and whilst you highlight cyber-bullying I would suggest that such incidents are bullying. Why do we need to refer to them as cyber-bullying? This is the crux of the matter just as a computer has been used does not make anything a cyber-act. Differentiating between actions that utilise the internet as opposed to depend on it is crucial. For example, if a terrorist used a computer virus to set off a bomb people would herald an act of cyber-terrorism but how many of the same people herald telephony-terrorism when the same terrorist uses a mobile phone to trigger a bomb? Both events are the result of a technology being employed to cause an end result. What difference does it make as to the means that were employed? Arguments surrounding points of the displacement between action and cause are well illustrated in Thomas Rid’s book ‘Cyber War Will Not Take Place’.

Sun Tzu is a hard person to find fault with and my general philosophy is that far too much fear is present in the world today, especially in relation to the capabilities that exist. John Mueller has an excellent book entitled ‘Overblown’ which focuses on the US military-industrial complexes need to talk up threats.

Personally I think that we would do well to remember the following words from Benjamin Franklin when considering cyber-security. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Regards

Gavin

Let us tease out some apparent confusion; cyberspace is a domain or territory like the aerospace or maritime equivalent and it is employed to exert influence (in the same way naval or air power in blockades or no-fly zones), but unlike maritime or aerospace, the cyber domain extends directly into millions of peoples lives through service provision and information access.

While the maritime domain can kill (you’ll certainly drown in it if you can’t swim!) the cyber domain won’t, but it’s influence exhibits many examples of lethality; talk to any of the parents of young, impressionable people driven to suicide through cyber-bullying!

What I’m really saying is that in Sun-tsu’s Art of War, he advises ‘attack on what is weak’; our increasing reliance cyber space can certainly be turned upon us to achieve that very weakening, prior to strike!

Many thanks.

D.