Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

Cyber-warfare and Cyber-Terrorism

NAME OF THE STUDENT:

INSTRUCTOR’S NAME:

COURSE TITLE:

DATE:
Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

Technology is advancing, and so is the cloud space. The cloud space is here with us, but

at times it determines or as critical elements of our living as our security. Cloud space has huge

functionality and is used widely in the modern world both in the field of military and terrorism.

When cyber is used in either field, it is referred differently depending on how it is used and who

uses it. This has given rise to two broad classifications of cyberaffairs, being cyberwarfare and

cyberterrorism. Both are different, and they are manifested and contused differently

(Huttenlocher, 2016).

Cyberwarfare

Military groups have been advancing how they approach warfare. They have understood

and acknowledge the fact that technology can imply a good and robust military group or an

inferior military group. Therefore, to remain as a competent military group, countries have

embraced cyber warfare, and the emphasis is put in this military functionality like normal

physical warfare. Therefore, cyberwarfare can be defined as the practice by military groups to

attack their rival through the cloud space with an intention to cause material losses or even

damages.

Cyberwarfare is a little bit different from conventional warfare; however, the results of

the two might be similar. Cyberwarfare, however, targets a computer system, and the aim reason

is that once a computer system is down, much is implied in the real world. Computers are used

widely in control of real-life activities, and if it is impossible to attack through cyber warfare, it

is also possible to cause and adverse effects in the actual world (Gow & Dijxhoorn, 2019).

Major forms of cyberwarfare

Malware
Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

A military might inject malware in the target nations' military's computer system

(Chandra & Mishra, 2019). With this malware being injected, they can use the attack to stalk their

target nation's military and gain insight into the arrangement of their military groups. Having

such a low-key survey of their competitors, they can make launch attacks to the target nations

based on the insight and the knowledge gathered after a significant time of stalking. Therefore,

malware, in this case, is used to ascertain what a target nation is planning on their actual warfare

attack and act before they initiate their attacks.

The second form of cyber warfare of denial of service. A military group might use cyber

experts to hack a computer system and information system of the target military groups. If this

successful, vital functionalities of the target groups are brought down and paralyzed (White,

2018). Take, for instance, a denial for service in an information system that is relied on for

communication purposes. This implies that troops from the target nation cannot have effective

and real-time communication with each other. Therefore, they cannot coordinate with their peers

to remain as a team and fight back in cases of ordinary warfare. Thus, the target groups are

disadvantaged against remain in contact with each other by their information system being

attacked and blocked to deny users any access.

Cyberwarfare is preferable over conventional physical warfare because of its constituent

advantages. One of the most significant advantages of cyberwarfare is the fewer costs that are

incurred for a successful cyberwar attack. Therefore, a nation does not spend so much to destroy

their enemies. Thus, the budget of a country is not affected by cyber warfare because it helps to

save excess costs that could have been used in cases of normal physical warfare challenges.

Moreover, cyberwarfare is being preferred in the modern word because of the less paint that is

associated with its execution. Just in the press of a button, a military can find itself having
Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

destroyed so much of their victimized military groups without anything undergoing physical

injuries of being subjected to any physical pain.

Moreover, cyberwarfare is preferred over normal physical warfare because of its ability

to be conducted on a selective basis (Edwards, 2018). When cyberwarfare is undertaken, a

military group can decide which part of the economy or infrastructure they want to target.

However, this is not possible under normal physical warfare because infrastructure gets

destroyed, economic is destabilized, among other adverse effects altogether. Therefore, when a

nation does not wish to ruin their challenging country, cyberwarfare can be a better option

because it will bring about lesser losses and adverse implications.

Cyberterrorism

The same way a militant group uses the cyber to fight other military groups, terrorists

have learned and are now using the same concept. This is what is referred to as cyberterrorism

and can be defined as the use of cyber capabilities by terrorists to stage terror attacks. It

compares with cyber warfare in that cyberterrorism is not lawful but are acts done through the

cyber to generate fear or render the target group into physical damage or even economic

damages.

There are different elements of cyberterrorism, which can be classified depending on the

nature of the victimized parties or infrastructures. The first element of cyberterrorism is the

politically-motivated cyberterrorism (Gross, Canetti & Vashdi, 2017). These kinds of terrorism are

aimed at the political system or status of the target parties. Therefore, they are done to render

bodily injuries or, at times, deaths to a certain political group. Therefore, an attacker, in this case,
Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

stalk the political subject in question and determine how they can bring forth bodily damage to

their target through the cyber.

Other cyberterrorism attacks are not focused on bringing injuries or deaths but rather to

subject target parties in a climate of fear (Gross, Canetti & Vashdi, 2017). Such attacks are very bad

because they increase the suspense among target groups. In some cases, if the target group is not

careful, terrorists use this kind of attack to assess how prepared are their target victims.

Therefore, they can analyze how they respond to such cyberterrorism attacks and, consequently,

identity areas of weaknesses exposed by the victimized parties. They use these as loopholes

when they after the climate of fear has subsided.

Another form of cyberterrorism is attacked against different infrastructures used by the

target victims. Such attacks are very critical because infrastructures work coherently, and thus an

attack on one infrastructure can fault efficiency of other infrastructure. Terrorists, for instance,

can attack financial infrastructure, energy infrastructure, transport infrastructure, government

infrastructure, among others (Kumar, Prasad & Samikannu, 2018).

Mitigating cyberterrorism

However, countries are not entirely exposed to uncertainties of cyberterrorism; there are

remedies that can be employed to reduce the risk exposure to this kind of cyber threat. Such a

measure is facilitating and participating in global collaboration. This could enable countries to

strengthen cybersecurity in the respective regions. In addition, counties could be working

together to enhance the cyber safety of each other (Akhgar, B., & Brewster, B. (2016).

The second approach that can be used to mitigate cyberterrorism is always ensuring that

cyber software that country use is the most advanced in the market place. This is to ensure that a
Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

country has advanced safety features to withstand crack attempts by terrorists. Moreover, each

country should collaborate with the private sector to enhance cybersecurity. This is to foster a

strategic alliance against terror attacks that utilize the cloud space (Akhgar, B., & Brewster, B.

(2016).
Running Head: CYBER-WARFARE VERSUS CYBER-TERRORISM

REFERENCES:

Akhgar, B., & Brewster, B. (2016). Combating cyber cime and cyber terrorism. Cham, Switzerland:

Springer.

Gross, M. L., Canetti, D., & Vashdi, D. R. (2017). Cyberterrorism: its effects on psychological well-being,

public confidence and political attitudes. Journal of Cybersecurity, 3(1), 49-58.

Huttenlocher, E. (2016). Cyber-Walfare and Cyber-Terrorism: Step to Learning to Knowing the Difference.

In 11th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (p. 391).

Gow, J., & Dijxhoorn, E. (2019). Future war crimes and the military (1): Cyber warfare. In Routledge

Handbook of War, Law and Technology (pp. 305-316). Routledge.

Chandra, Y., & Mishra, P. K. (2019). Design of cyber warfare testbed. In Software Engineering (pp. 249-

256). Springer, Singapore.

White, S. P. (2018). Understanding Cyberwarfare.

Edwards, C. (2018). War by other means [cyber war]. Engineering & Technology, 13(11), 30-33.

Kumar, V. S., Prasad, J., & Samikannu, R. (2018). A critical review of cyber security and cyber terrorism–

threats to critical infrastructure in the energy sector. International Journal of Critical

Infrastructures, 14(2), 101-119.