Page 35 - index

dilemma” forces the international systems to improve their offensive capability in order to improve
their odds of survival and defend their national interests.

For a weaker state that is constantly in the act of balancing power and increasing its power position
in the anarchic system of international relations against the hegemon, these strategic and guerilla
war capabilities are consequential and arguably the only challenging method against a strong
militarized rival.

One may argue that there is still a significant “digital gap” between haves (having strong
technological and cyber capabilities) and have-nots, attributing a stronger cyber warfare capability
to states with stronger military and technological advantage. However the difference between
developing a strong cyber warfare capability and nuclear capability is substantial. It takes less
economic, human and geo-political resources to develop cyber-attack capability than nuclear
capability.

Realism defines military capability as the currency defining power in the anarchic international
system. Also one of the fundamental assumptions of realism lies in the essential role of states as
the main and the only relevant actors in the international system.

Going back to the fundamentals of realism and trying to fit the cyber war capability and its strategic
relevance in today’s world, it is apparent that all basic assumptions of realist paradigm -which can
be defined as, international system is an anarchic system, primary decision makers are rational
acting states with goal of satisfying the interest of survival by changing the balance of power in their
i
favor- are staying unchanged by the introduction of cyber warfare capability. Does cyber warfare
capability undermine any of these assumptions?

Cyber warfare including both defensive and offensive capabilities not only does not undermine
these assumptions rather it fits well with the theory. First, there is no over-arching organization or
world system that regulates cyber space (cyber space is anarchic in nature). Second the major
cyber assaults and attack resulting in colossal national security threats will require sophisticated
software and hardware capabilities that can arguable be provided and supported by nation-states.

Third cyber warfare follows the rationality argument of the realist paradigm, retaliation in cyber
warfare can be both in the form of cyber attack and conventional attacks thus defining the cyber
warfare capability in the same level as Kinetic (conventional) war, states should rationally act upon
their decision to utilize cyber attacks since cyber attacks just like conventional attacks can constitute
ii
a risk to national security. “Rationality” of the actors inherently assumes the “cost-benefit” analysis
as the basic form of decision making in the anarchic international system.

The cost of entry into cyber war in contrast to conventional war is incredibly low. In a cyber attack
the benefit of attacking an adversary far outweighs the dangers and risks of conventional war. This
has also made cyber war a viable military capability for state-actors.

Another prevailing argument supporting the importance of cyber warfare strategic capability against
stronger states is embedded in the fact that hegemons and militarily developed states tend to be
more reliant on cyber platform thus providing a strong advantage for challengers and rising

35 Cyber Warnings E-Magazine – February 2015 Edition
Copyright © Cyber Defense Magazine, All rights reserved worldwide