Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
It is sometimes said that deterrence is not an effective strategy in cyberspace, because of the difficulties in attributing the source of an attack and because of the large and diverse number of state and nonstate actors involved.Many situations are matters of degree, and as technology improves the forensics of attribution, the strength of deterrence may increase.It has been suggested that one reason why cyberweapons have not been used more in war thus far stems precisely from uncertainty about the effects on civilian targets and unpredictable consequences.For example, better attribution forensics may enhance the role of punishment; and better defenses through encryption may increase deterrence by denial.As states and organizations come to understand better the importance of the Internet to their economic well-being, cost-benefit calculations of the utility of cyber warfare may change, just as learning over time altered the understanding of the costs of nuclear warfare.Deterrence in the cyber era may not be what it used to be, but maybe it never was.
Power and interdependence in the Trump era
Deterrence in cyberspace, new innovative approach
American soft power in the Trump age
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE