The risk of escalation from cyberattacks has never been greater

North Korea's Internet was taken down by an American in the year 2022. There was no reprisal against the US. The so-called independent hacker may have been a front for a planned and official American attack.

There is a chance that the world won't get so lucky. A major cyberattack is likely. Taiwan's airports and trains could be shut down, British military computers could be crippled, or a US election could be swung. Each time this happens, there is a small risk that the aggrieved side will respond aggressively, possibly at the wrong party, and even if it carries the risk of nuclear escalation.

This is because cyber weapons are different from conventional ones. They are cheaper to design and wield. That means great powers, middle powers, and pariah states can all develop and use them.

Missiles have a return address but virtual attacks don't. In the cold months of winter, a virus shuts down American or European oil lines. Intelligence experts warn that it could be a Chinese attack, but it has all the markings of a Russian attack. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is seen by others. Nobody knows for certain. The presidents have to decide if they will retaliate against Russia or someone else. Are you talking about China? Are you talking about Iran? They might get unlucky.

Both countries don't want to start a conventional war with each other. Conflict is so bad that most enemies don't like each other very much. The prospect of mutual destruction was a big deterrent during the Cold War. It wasn't a good idea to start an attack in almost all circumstances. Cyber warfare has changed the strategic equation. The decision our leaders have to make is complicated by the Attribution problem.

Advertisement

If the US is attacked, you might think "well, better they don't retaliate at all" This strategy is not a good one. It would invite more attacks if President Biden developed that reputation.

Game theory has been used to solve the problem. It doesn't make sense to bluff and call all of the time in poker, and it doesn't make sense to bluff and call all of the time in other games. Both strategies would be expensive. To do so unpredictably is the right thing to do.

Uncertainty over who is attacking pushes adversaries in opposite directions. The US shouldn't retaliate all of the time and it shouldn't retaliate against too many innocent people. Even though it risks retaliating against the wrong foe, it's the best way to retaliate.

Potential attackers are guided by the same logic. Knowing that the US won't retaliate all of the time creates an incentive to take electronic risks.

The risks have been around for a long time. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a large-scale conflict on the Russia-NATO frontier where the US and Western Europe are actively supporting one side. The world is close to a Great Power War.

Tensions between the US and China are on the rise. For the first time in history, Chinese military investment means that it is able to take on the West in the South China Sea. The Chinese are expected to invade Taiwan in the next 10 years.

It will be a very important moment in history. If the Iranian Revolutionary Guard decides to launch an attack on China, what will happen? If the US or Chinese militaries decide they want to risk a provocative attack, what would happen? It is escalatory against nuclear armed enemies. Cyber warfare complicates the pursuit of peace.

The story was first published on wired.com.