Correspondence: A Cyber Disagreement

摘要: Policymakers and pundits have been sounding alarms about internet insecurity for years, so the arst appearance of anything in International Security (IS) on this topic is a welcomed development. In fall 2013 issue, Lucas Kello takes security studies community to task ignoring cyber perils, while Erik Gartzke argues that cyberwar limited political utility.1 writes “[t]he Clausewitzian philosophical framework misses essence danger conceals its true signiacance: virtual weapon expanding range possible harms between concepts war peace, with important consequences national international security” (p. 22). counters, “War fundamentally process, as Carl von Clausewitz famously explained. . The generally an inferior substitute terrestrial force performing functions coercion or conquest” 42). If right, then long silence IS cybersecurity suggests scholars neglected major transformation affairs. can be forgiven their bemusement inoated rhetoric. my investigations American Chinese activities, I found interventions more complicated less effective than believed.2 Arguments from technology are common discourse excited policymakers, they should taken seriously. Yet Kello’s characterization skeptical viewpoint “more visceral analytical” 9) misrepresents analytical literature does exist. insists “scholarly inattention toward issue must change” (ibid.), but he disparages aeld relevant scholarship. My commentary addresses technological determinism argument his Correspondence: A Cyber Disagreement