If you have followed diplomatic news recently,
you may have heard of a crisis between China and the U.S.
regarding cyber attacks against Google.
It has generated a lot of talk, even of cyberwar,
when it's more likely a quite mishandled spy operation.
However, this episode reveals a growing anxiety in the Western World
regarding the emergeance of these cyber weapons
These weapons are dangerous. They are of a new nature.
And they could lead the world to a cyber-conflict
that could turn into a full-fledge armed struggle
since these virtual weapons can also destroy the physical world.
In 1982, in the middle of the cold war in soviet Siberia, a pipeline explodes
with a burst of 3 kilotons, that is one fourth of the Hiroshima bomb.
We know today, this was revealed by Thomas Reed,
Reagan's former US Air Force Secretary,
this explosion was actually the result of a CIA sabotage operation.
The CIA had infiltrated the pipeline’s IT management systems
More recently, the US government revealed that in September 2008,
3 million people in the state of Espirito Santo In Brazil,
were plunged into darkness
because of some cyber-pirates' blackmail operation
Even more worrisome for the U.S., in December 2008,
CentCom's very IT systems,
the US Central Command managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
is said to have been infiltrated by hackers using booby-trapped USB sticks;
with these sticks, they may have been able to enter these systems,
to see and hear everything, and maybe even booby-trap some of these systems.
Americans take the threat very seriously:
let me quote General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff
and who states in a report to Congress that a cyberattack may be in the magnitude
of a weapon of mass destruction.
Americans will spend 30 billion dollars in the next five years
to build up their cyber-war capacities.
And across the world today, a sort of cyber-arms race is taking place
with military cyber units built by countries like North Korea or Iran.
However, what you will never hear from the Pentagon
or the French Department of Defense,
is that the issue is not necessarily who the enemy is,
but actually the very nature of these new cyber weapons.
To understand that, let’s look at how, through history,
new military technologies made or broke world peace.
For example, if TEDxParis had been held 350 years ago,
we would have talked about the military innovation of the day,
Vauban-style massive fortifications
and we would have forecast a period of stability in the world or in Europe,
which was the case in Europe from 1650 to 1750.
Likewise, if we had this conference 30 or 40 years ago,
we would have seen how the advent of nuclear weapons
and their inherent threat of mutually-assured destruction
would prohibit a direct fight between the two Superpowers
However, if we had this conference 60 years ago,
we would have seen how the emerging aircraft and tank technologies
that give the advantage to the offensive make credible the Blitzkrieg doctrine
and chances of war in Europe.
So military technologies can make or break world peace.
And here lies the issue with cyber weapons.
First issue: imagine a potential enemy
announces he’s building a cyber-war unit only for defense.
Great, but what makes it different from an offensive unit?
The issue gets thornier when doctrines of use become blurred.
Just 3 years ago, the USA and France
were both saying they were going military into cyberspace
but only to defend their IT systems.
But today, both countries say the best form of defense is attack.
In this respect, they’re matching up with China
that over the last 15 years
has had a doctrine of use both offensive and defensive.
Second issue:
your country may be under cyber-attack
with vast areas plunged into total darkness,
and you may be clueless about who’s attacking you.
A particular characteristic of cyberweapons
is they can be used without leaving traces.
This gives a tremendous advantage to the attacker
because the defender doesn’t know against who to fight back.
And if the defender goes against the wrong adversary,
they might end up with an additional enemy
and isolated at the diplomatic level.
This is not theoretical:
in may 2007, Estonia was the target of cyber-attacks putting at risk
its communication and banking systems;
Estonia accused Russia, but NATO, though on Estonia's side,
proved very prudent because it couldn’t be 100% sure
that the Kremlin was really behind these attacks.
To sum up, first when a potential enemy says they're building a cyberwar unit,
you don’t know whether it’s for attack or defense,
and secondly, we know that these weapons give the advantage to the attack.
In a 1978 seminal article,
Prof. Robert Jervis, from Columbia University, NY,
described a model to understand how conflicts could arise.
In a situation in which you don’t know
if the potential enemy is preparing for defense or attack,
and if weapons give the advantage to the attack,
then it is the most favorable situation to trigger a war.
This is the situation currently shaping up with cyber weapons
and historically it's what the situation was in Europe
at the onset of World War I.
So cyber-weapons, by nature, are dangerous
but on top of that, they’re emerging in a much more unstable situation.
Remember the cold war?
It was a very tough game, but played with only two players
which allowed for some coordination between the two Superpowers.
But today we’re entering a multi-polar world
where coordination is much more complex.
We’ve witnessed that at Copenhagen.
And this coordination may become even trickier
with the introduction of cyber-weapons.
Why? Because no nation knows for sure whether its neighbor is about to attack.
So nations may live under what Nobel prize laureate Thomas Schelling
has called the “reciprocal fear of surprise attack”.
Since I don’t know whether my neighbor is about to attack me,
and I may never know, I may choose to be the first to attack
In a New York Times article dated January 2010, 26,
it was revealed for the first time
that officials at the National Security Agency
were considering pre-emptive attacks
in case of an imminent cyber-attack on the USA.
And these pre-emptive attacks or counter-attacks
might not stay only in cyberspace.
In May 2009, General Kevin Chilton, Commander of the US nuclear forces,
stated that in case of cyber-attacks against the US,
all the options would be on the table.
Cyber weapons don’t suppress conventional or nuclear armament.
They're just an addition to the existing terror devices.
But they also add up their own risk of triggering war,
a very high risk, as we've just seen it, a risk we'll have to face,
maybe with a collective security solution including all of us, European allies,
NATO members, with our American friends and allies,
with our other Western allies,
and maybe, twisting their arm a little, our Russian and Chinese partners.
Because the information technologies Joel de Rosnay was just talking about,
born historically from our of military research,
are today on the verge to develop an offensive capability of destruction,
which, if we're not careful, could destroy world peace tomorrow.
Thank you.
(Applause)