About this blog
Cyber Warfare Paper/Game
I have collected various sources including books, journal articles and papers about cyber warfare. These sources cover theory as well as practical applications of cyber warfare in intelligence, security and battlefield operations. Each author has a different definition of cyber warfare and opinion of its level of independence from other forms of warfare – a ‘fifth domain’. However, there is plenty of common ground to use as a foundation for designing a cyber warfare game. The most notable overlap in books about cyber warfare is the use of Clausewitzian theory as a root from which definitions are derived. This being the case, any design I create should adhere to this fundamental theory. The game should cover cyber warfare’s political, social and military influence, but remain accessible if it is to be used for educational purposes as well as being played by enthusiasts.
I have created a first draft of a high concept document. Some work needs to be done and I shall update it as required.
Cyber Warfare Game
High Concept Statement
War is the continuation of policy by other means. The sentiment is the same, but the game has changed. In the global information infrastructure, threats do not appear in splendid uniforms.
· Intelligence Analysis - follow the clues, attribute the attack to another player.
· Multiple Scenarios - different nations and NGOs have different objectives that can overlap, making attribution that much harder.
· Multiplayer - players are pitted against each other in an attempt to complete their objectives whilst attempting to deter cyber attacks from other players.
· Cyber Warfare Ubiquity - options for the player will cover a range of CW capabilities.
· Disparity - players will have to cope with different levels of technology that may limit their options.
The ultimate objective for the player is to resolve the crisis presented in the scenario, without it resulting in war. To achieve this, the player must successfully attribute the cyber attack to another player. At the same time, he will be tasked with completing secondary objectives that may draw blame to himself. In prosecution of these actions, players will have a range of cyber-themed mechanics available to draw out as much information as possible about the other players' capabilities, interests and objectives.
None known. Needs more research.
Unique Selling Points
Easy to play Cyber Warfare game.
Easy to understand.
Educational - players should be able to grasp concepts of CW from this abstract game.
Investigation - players need to find and track 'clues' themselves, making them do all the detective work rather than laying it out for them.
Flexible Scenario - matrix games offer the most flexibility when it comes to exploring a subject via a game. However, these require a knowledgeable umpire and a lot of time and research. This game should be able to convey key concepts in quick time.
Players have an attack target. The other player must attribute the main attack to whom they think is responsible. This process is made more complicated by all players performing intelligence gathering and other operations against each other.
Al-Ahmad, W., 2013. A Detailed Strategy For Managing Corporation Cyber War Security. International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics, 2(4), p. 1.
Bohemia Interactive Simulations, 2014. Virtual Battlespace 3. s.l.:Bohemia Interactive Simulations.
Bohemia Interactive, 2002. Virtual Battlespace. s.l.:Bohemia Interactive, Coalescent Technologies.
Clarke, R. A., 2016. The Risk of Cyber War and Cyber Terrorism. Journal of International Affairs, 70(1), p. 179.
Clarke, R. A. & Knake, R. K., 2012. Cyber War: The Next Threat To National Security and What To Do About It. s.l.:Ecco.
Clausewitz, C. v., 1997. On War. Ware: Wordsworth Editions Limited.
Doherty, K. R., 2017. The Art of (Cyber) War. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 29(6), p. 16.
Hofmann, M. A., 2016. Thinking Through the Threat of Cyber War. Business Insurance, 50(12), p. 14.
Kaplan, F. M., 2016. Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber Warfare. s.l.:Simon and Schuster.
Krebsbach, K., 2007. After Estonia Cyber Attacks, U.S Frets Over Potential Cyber War. US Banker, 117(7), p. 16.
Lobel, H., 2012. Cyber War Inc.: The Law of War Implications of the Private Sector's Role in Cyber Conflict. Texas International Law Journal, 47(2-3), p. 617.
Maj. YuLin Whitehead, U., 1997. Information as a Weapon: Reality versus Promises. [Online]
Available at: http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/airchronicles/apj/apj97/fal97/whitehead.htm
Mazanec, B. M., 2015. The Evolution of Cyber War: International Norms for Emerging-Technology Weapons. s.l.:Potomac Books.
Perla, P. P., 1990. The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists. s.l.:Naval Institute Press.
Rid, T., 2013. Cyber War Will Not Take Place. s.l.:Oxford University Press.
Sabin, P., 2012. Simulating War: Studying Conflict Through Simulation Games. s.l.:Continuum International Publishing Group.
Shakarian, P., Shakarian, J. & Ruef, A., 2013. Introduction to Cyber Warfare: A Multidisciplinary Approach. s.l.:Elsevier, Inc.
Singer, P., 2014. Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs To Know. s.l.:Oxford University Press.
Slayton, R., 2017. What Is the Cyber Offense-Defense Balance? Conceptions, Causes, and Assessment. International Security, 41(3), pp. 72-109.
Stange, S., 2015. Seven Things You Need To Know About Cyber Wars. Software World, 46(2), p. 8.
Waltz, E., 1998. Information Warfare: Principles and Operations. s.l.:Artech House, Inc.
Wittes, B. & Blum, G., 2015. The Future of Violence: Robots and Germs, Hackers and Drones, Confronting a New Age of Threat. s.l.:Basic Books.
Entries in this blog