If we look at all of this from the perspective of the three elements of deterren

Question

If we look at all of this from the perspective of the three elements of deterrence, I think it's fair to say that it appears that the US' capability to deny attacks or to be resilient in the face of attacks is not very effective.

That leaves the “response” element of deterrence. We've read about a few things that the US has done in response to cyberattacks:

The US indicted several members of the Chinese military for economic cyber espionage.
The US indicted several Iranians for DDOS attacks against US banks and an attack against the Bowman Dam.
The US imposed some limited economic sanctions against North Korea in response to the attack on Sony (limited primarily because there are already so many economic sanctions against North Korea).
Initial Response Guidelines:

The first question for this discussion is: Should the US be responding more strongly to cyberattacks from foreign countries, and if so, how?

Now admittedly, there's a possibility that the US has responded more strongly, but not publicly. That brings up another question you could answer if you'd rather:  

Should the US government publicly announce anything it does to another country in response to a cyberattack from that country?

Both of these questions are directly related to the question the textbook raises “Who has the Advantage, the Offense or the Defense?”

Be sure to cite your work using the APA format.

Explanation / Answer

The US should be responding to the Cyberattack in a strong manner. Of all the countries Russia is reported to have a patient, robust longstanding program to penetrate US security. Day by day attacks against the US are growing are the list is growing every day .The cost of doing nothing will be high. As we are using electronic voting machines, the opportunities for mischief arise . Obama used to say the world of Cyberconflict is still the Wild West. There are no treaties, no international laws, just a patchwork set of emerging norms of what constitutes acceptable behaviour. Every new case in Cyberworld brings a new and imaginative way to Weaponize cyber power .Conflicts conducted in an entirely different realm are a new arena policy, giving the United States the potential to lead in establishing new treaties, but at the same time leaving us in an unknown world .Most of the countries are exploiting it especially as we try to navigate what is essentially a new world and laws and treaties to apply. The principles of jus ad bellum and the laws of armed conflict, then, must necessarily be as fluid and dynamic as the military conflicts and technologies they govern. We shouldn’t get rid of them, but we should be prepared to adapt them for the cyber realm and the conflicts we will face there.

The US govt should not publicly announce how it responds to a cyber attack to from that country. It provides a strong message to other countries who are trying to do the same. It also helps people of America feel safe. A quick response shows that we are eligible for responding fast and hard on attacks and it sends a message to the attackers. Also the other country has the right to know what has been done to their systems, a fair warning in an unfair war. However, not announcing also gives us the advantage of doubt. All the countries will think this inaction will result in a much bigger level of attack, making them paranoid and weak, which helps us to attack them in the long-term. And we can give them an unexpected response at a place and time and manner that we choose.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.