U.S. Failure to Clarify Interests in Cyberspace Weakens Deterrence

U.S. Failure to Clarify Interests in Cyberspace Weakens Deterrence

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, who recently stepped down as head of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, expressed misgivings about America’s deterrent posture in cyberspace. In particular, he raised concerns about the lack of a threshold that, when crossed by cyberattackers, would prompt a U.S. response. According to Alexander, “The question is, when do we act? That’s a policy decision. . . . What we don’t want to do is let it get to the point where we find out, ‘OK, that was unacceptable,’ and we didn’t set the standard.”

Alexander is raising the problem of “red lines.” Deterrence requires several elements to be successful. At its heart, deterrence is about preventing an adversary from taking an action through the credible threat of unacceptable counteraction. For a threat to be credible, an adversary must believe that the party seeking to deter it has both the capabilities and the will to carry out the threat. The adversary also needs to know what behavior is unacceptable—namely, what standards it will be held to, what red lines it must not cross.

Deterrence in cyberspace is more challenging. The United States possesses political, military and economic tools to make credible retaliatory threats for unacceptable cyberattacks, and it has demonstrated its willingness to use them when its vital interests are threatened in noncyber domains. However, uncertainty about U.S. cybercapabilities has created a gap in its deterrent posture. Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, often raised concerns about the secrecy that surrounded U.S. cybercapabilities. Simply put, so long as those capabilities remained secret, they could not deter anyone. The administration’s unofficial acknowledgment in 2012 of responsibility for the Stuxnet worm attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, and the Snowden revelations in 2013, filled that void.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review