Source Text 1:
Exactly two decades ago, the RAND Corporation, an influential think tank, proclaimed that “cyberwar is coming!” In 2005, the US Air Force declared it would now “fly, fight, and win in cyberspace”. The future of war would surely play out in that fifth domain, on top of land, sea, air and space. Dark warnings of “Cyber Pearl Harbor” soon became a staple of Washington discourse. Leaks revealed last week that the US government spends a staggering $4.3 billion a year on cyber operations. In 2011, American intelligence agencies reportedly mounted 231 offensive operations. The US, it seems, is gearing up for cyber combat. What would an act of cyberwar look like? History suggests three features. To count as an armed attack, a computer breach would need to be violent. If it can’t hurt or kill, it can’t be war. An act of cyberwar would also need to be instrumental. In a military confrontation, one party generally uses force to compel the other party to do something they would otherwise not do. Finally, it would need to be political, in the sense that one opponent says, “If you don’t do X, we’ll strike you.” That’s the gist of two centuries of strategic thought. No past cyberattack meets these criteria. Very few meet even a single one. Never has a human been injured or hurt as an immediate consequence of a cyberattack. Never did a state coerce another state by cyberattack. Very rarely did state-sponsored offenders take credit for an attack. So if we’re talking about war— the real thing, not a metaphor, as in the “war on drugs”—then cyberwar has never happened in the past, is not taking place at present, and seems unlikely in the future. That is not to say that cyberattacks do not happen. In 2010, the US and Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme with a computer worm called Stuxnet. A computer breach could cause an electricity blackout or interrupt a city’s water supply, although that also has never happened. If that isn’t war, what is it? Such attacks are better understood as either sabotage, espionage or subversion.
整整20年前，有影响力的智库兰德公司宣称“网络战即将来临！”。2005年，美国空军宣称其现在将“在网络 空间中飞行、战斗并获胜”。战争的未来肯定会在陆地、海洋、空中和太空之上的第五个领域展开。“网络 珍珠港”的黑暗警告很快成为华盛顿的主要话题。上周有消息透露，美国政府每年在网络运营上花费竟高达 43亿美元。据报道，2011年，美国情报机构发起了231次进攻行动。美国似乎正在为网络战斗做准备。网络 战会是什么样子？历史表明了三个特征。要算武装攻击，计算机入侵需要暴力。如果它不能伤人或杀人， 那就不可能是战争。网络战争法案也是需要的。在军事对抗中，一方通常使用武力来迫使另一方做他们原 本不会做的事情。最后，它需要是政治性的，也就是说，一个对手说，“如果你不做X，我们就打你。”这 是两个世纪战略思想的要点。没有一次网络攻击符合这些标准，连一条都没有。从来没有人因为网络攻击 而受伤，也从来没有一个国家通过网络攻击胁迫另一个国家，即便是国家资助下的进攻也不会得到赞赏。所以，如果我们谈论的是战争——真实的东西，而不是像在“禁毒战争”中那样的隐喻——那么网络战在过 去从未发生过，现在也不会发生，将来似乎也不太可能发生。这并不是说网络攻击不会发生。2010年，美 国和以色列用一种叫做震网的电脑蠕虫攻击伊朗的核浓缩计划。电脑故障可能导致停电或中断城市供水， 尽管这种情况从未发生过。如果那不是战争，那是什么？这种攻击被更好地理解为破坏活动、间谍活动或 颠覆活动。