Search results

Just war theory focuses primarily on bodily harm, such as killing, maiming, and torture, while other harms are often largely overlooked. At the same time, contemporary international conflicts increasingly involve the use of unarmed tactics, employing 'softer' alternatives or supplements to kinetic power that have not been sufficiently addressed by the ethics of war or international law. Soft war tactics include cyber-warfare and economic sanctions, media warfare, and propaganda, as well as non-violent resistance as it plays out in civil disobedience, boycotts, and 'lawfare.' While the just war tradition has much to say about 'hard' war - bullets, bombs, and bayonets - it is virtually silent on the subject of 'soft' war. Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict illuminates this neglected aspect of international conflict

Just war theory focuses primarily on bodily harm, such as killing, maiming, and torture, while other harms are often largely overlooked. At the same time, contemporary international conflicts increasingly involve the use of unarmed tactics, employing 'softer' alternatives or supplements to kinetic power that have not been sufficiently addressed by the ethics of war or international law. Soft war tactics include cyber-warfare and economic sanctions, media warfare, and propaganda, as well as non-violent resistance as it plays out in civil disobedience, boycotts, and 'lawfare.' While the just war tradition has much to say about 'hard' war - bullets, bombs, and bayonets - it is virtually silent on the subject of 'soft' war. Soft War: The Ethics of Unarmed Conflict illuminates this neglected aspect of international conflict

As asymmetric 'wars among the people' replace state-on-state wars in modern armed conflict, the growing role of military medicine and medical technology in contemporary war fighting has brought an urgent need to critically reassess the theory and practice of military medical ethics. Military Medical Ethics for the 21st Century is the first full length, broad-based treatment of this important subject. Written by an international team of practitioners and academics, this book provides interdisciplinary insights into the major issues facing military-medical decision makers and critically examines the tensions and dilemmas inherent in the military and medical professions. In this book the authors explore the practice of battlefield bioethics, medical neutrality and treatment of the wounded, enhancement technologies for war fighters, the potential risks of dual-use biotechnologies, patient rights for active duty personnel, military medical research and military medical ethics education in the 21st Century.

To what extent can cyberattacks wreak havoc and terrorize modern society? Until now, this question has revolved around the potential of cyber operations to cause physical destruction or other material harm. In this paper, we propose a broader interpretation. We submit that assessing cyber-threats through the prism of physical destruction has obscured the human dimension of the threat. Instead, we propose calculating the gravity of cyberattacks by measuring psychological distress. This approach recognizes that even seemingly inconsequential cyberattacks can levy tremendous damage by traumatizing civilians, undermining societal cohesion, and exacerbating cycles of violence. To test whether cyberattacks cause significant individual harm, we employ an internal meta-analysis looking at eighteen studies conducted in three countries over 6 years. Across these studies, we exposed 6,020 respondents to simulated cyberattacks and conventional attacks. We conclude that cyberattacks can cause high levels of psychological harm—equal even to that caused by conventional political violence and terrorism. This finding overturns a widely accepted view that cyberattacks are a mere irritant at best and a threat to information security at worst. Through this lens, the findings suggest that even nonphysically destructive cyberattacks can trigger consequences that constitute a legally defined armed attack that permits using armed force in self-defense. We conclude by discussing how the onset of psychological distress generates political pressure in support of retaliation and can lead to military escalation.

AbstractTo what extent can cyberattacks wreak havoc and terrorize modern society? Until now, this question has revolved around the potential of cyber operations to cause physical destruction or other material harm. In this paper, we propose a broader interpretation. We submit that assessing cyber-threats through the prism of physical destruction has obscured the human dimension of the threat. Instead, we propose calculating the gravity of cyberattacks by measuring psychological distress. This approach recognizes that even seemingly inconsequential cyberattacks can levy tremendous damage by traumatizing civilians, undermining societal cohesion, and exacerbating cycles of violence. To test whether cyberattacks cause significant individual harm, we employ an internal meta-analysis looking at eighteen studies conducted in three countries over 6 years. Across these studies, we exposed 6,020 respondents to simulated cyberattacks and conventional attacks. We conclude that cyberattacks can cause high levels of psychological harm—equal even to that caused by conventional political violence and terrorism. This finding overturns a widely accepted view that cyberattacks are a mere irritant at best and a threat to information security at worst. Through this lens, the findings suggest that even nonphysically destructive cyberattacks can trigger consequences that constitute a legally defined armed attack that permits using armed force in self-defense. We conclude by discussing how the onset of psychological distress generates political pressure in support of retaliation and can lead to military escalation.

To what extent can you engage in political activity in the modern age without Internet access? The growing dependence on Internet access to fulfill basic civil functions is threatened by increasing personal and societal cyber vulnerability. In this article, we explore the extent to which citizens are able, or unable, to engage in specific political activities in the absence of Internet connectivity. To concretize the subject, we test how Internet deprivation affects the ability to realize three basic elements of political participation: political expression, civic association, and access to information. To measure this, we develop a new experimental methodology that tests people's ability to complete tasks related to each function under simulated treatments of Internet access or deprivation. This empirical methodology offers a new framework through which to quantify the realization of social tasks under experimental conditions. Early results suggest that the absence of Internet access significantly reduces task completion for activities related to political expression and political association and conditionally reduces task completion for practices associated with freedom of information. Having substantiated this empirical framework, we encourage its application to additional forms of political activity.

AbstractDoes exposure to cyber terrorism prompt calls for retaliatory military strikes? By what psychological mechanism does it do so? Through a series of controlled, randomized experiments, this study exposed respondents (n = 2,028) to television news reports depicting cyber and conventional terror attacks against critical infrastructures in the United States, United Kingdom and Israel. The findings indicate that only lethal cyber terrorism triggers strong support for retaliation. Findings also confirm that anger bridges exposure to cyber terrorism and retaliation, rather than psychological mechanisms such as threat perception or anxiety as other studies propose. These findings extend to the cyber realm a recent trend that views anger as a primary mechanism linking exposure to terrorism with militant preferences. With cyber terrorism a mounting international concern, this study demonstrates how exposure to this threat can generate strong public support for retaliatory policies, depending on the lethality of the attack.