Should we fear a cyber-war? | Guy-Philippe Goldstein | TEDxParis

Guy-Philippe Goldstein talks about cyberwars and their impact on international relations. Filmed at TEDxPARIS on January 30th, 2010.

This talk was given at a TEDx event organized independently from TED conferences.

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)