Watching discussions about cyberwar is an humorous diversion in the day. Take this New York Times article, “Halted ’03 Iraq Plan Illustrates U.S. Fear of Cyberwar Risk.” It starts interesting, talking about a battle plan that was considered as a lead in to the 2003 attack on Iraq. Good News! War planning is good. Evaluating collateral damage is good. Command decision is good (in this case, not following through because of collateral risk).
We then start going off to entertaining left field. Where any form of cyberwar attacks have all sorts of collateral risk – bring in Electronic Warfare attacks, ARRAM attacks, and a range of other examples to demonstrate the “collateral risk.” Sigh.
War has risk. Cyber warfare has risk. Cyber warfare, just like any other weapons system, has collateral damage which command and control authorities need to take into account. It seems that who ever was behind the planning of the 2003 “cyber war plan” followed these principles. Good.