Holden Haby

HELA II
Rager - 6
18 February 2015
Cyber Warfares Unpreventable Nature
The idea of cyber warfare is not one that is considered to be extremely dangerous,
as opposed to an ordinary military attack since cyber attacks do not inflict as much
damage as a military attack would. Despite this fact, they are still dangerous to this
country, since they could compromise some certain information that may have been
wanted to remain hidden to the public, or could attack many different websites or
organizations, and could potentially lead to political problems being revealed to the
public. People say that a treaty should be in order to prevent these attacks, but anyone
with knowledge on the subject of technology would know that a treaty would not do
anything in terms of an attack, as cyber attacks are things that can only be reduced, not
erased. Cyber attacks are considered not-violent military attacks used to enrage political
minds, but are they really a threat to society? Sure, when hackers gain access to stuff like
launching missiles and stuff, but right now, the focus seems to be on establishing a treaty.
The main issue here is that a treaty would do nothing in terms of stopping these attacks. It
would be there, but it wouldnt stop cyber attacks, hackers could most likely remove it
from its existence online, and overall, a treaty would just seem unnecessary.
Cyber attacks, as mentioned before, are non-violent alternative to military
attacks, and because of this, a treaty really cant be set in stone, as there is no actual
definition for cyber warfare (Muir). A treaty wouldnt do anything against hackers; it

probably wouldnt even faze most of them in the end. Herbert Lin, the Chief Scientist of
Computer Science, stated, Since we dont even have control over traditional arms, there
would be no way of assuring society that we can have control of cyber hacks. (Lin).
Since Lin is the Chief Scientist, his position can prove he know a lot about the subject,
and that he knows how cyber weapons were always going to be use. Even though cyber
warfare isnt something that is conversational in our society, it still exists, and hackers are
learning even more tricks, which leads into the idea that they could easily remove a cyber
warfare treaty from existence.
A cyber warfare treaty already seems unlikely, since it is supposedly not in the
best interest in most states (Lindsay). Cyber weapons would be more developed and
more powerful over time if an agreement to limiting cyber weapons came through,
meaning that with new weapons, hackers could simply hack away at a treaty if one ever
came through (Lindsay). If a treaty did exist for these weapons, who could be certain that
such a thing would work? If a treaty would do nothing against cyber weapon banishment,
then most would be confident that hackers could simply remove a pointless treaty out of
existence. If it was written on paper and not through a computer, than thats the story
about how that wouldnt stop Cyber attacks. If it was written through a computer and
kept there, cyber hackers could simply remove it without any problems. Besides, if there
is no way of preventing cyber warfare, then what would be the point of a treaty in the
first place?
One guess is that there is no point, and that a treaty isnt how we are going to get
to cyber warfare peace (Lindsay). Cyber warfare is still an ambiguous concept today, so
unless the content of a treaty could be protected or even fulfill its purpose of banning

cyber weapons, than a treaty would be highly ineffective, illogical and completely
unnecessary (Lawson). Cyber weapons have not yet proven to society that they are
dangerous, so while cyber weapons are this new youth in cyberspace, they are not a
very dangerous youth to worry about, at least, not yet. Sean Lawson, an Assistant
Professor at the University of Utah, stated that Cyber attacks that actually proved
dangerous would eventually bring around a military response, which wouldnt make
their cyber weapons dangerous, but rather their ability to pull in a military response
dangerous (Lawson). Not only this, but as established before, a treaty would be
impossible to form, because what would it do to stop cyber hackers? Absolutely nothing.
A more laid-back, relaxed approach at establishing some sort of peace would
seem reasonable against cyber warfare, because a treaty against cyber warfare would be
impossible and ineffective, it could be easily removed from existence, and its impossible
nature means that it would evolve to something that no treaty could ever counterattack.
Cyber warfare may not be as huge of an issue as previously thought, but the fact that
there is a lot of controversy over stopping what cant be stopped is what may lead to the
faster development of cyber weapons that could hack into military structures, and could
potentially start war. Thats a scary thought, but for now, it doesnt seem likely that cyber
attacks will become to dangerous to cyber space.

Works Cited
Muir, Lawrence L. "Nonviolent Alternative to Military Strikes." US News. U.S.News &
World Report, n.d. Web. <http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-aninternational-treaty-on-cyberwarfare/cyberwarfare-a-viable-nonviolent-alternative-tomilitary-strikes>.

US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. Feb. 2015.

<http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-an-international-treaty-oncyberwarfare/a-treaty-would-do-nothing-to-prevent-cyberterrorist-groups>.

US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. Feb. 2015.

<http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-an-international-treaty-oncyberwarfare/cyberwarfare-treaty-would-be-premature-unnecessary-and-ineffective>.

US News. U.S.News & World Report, n.d. Web. Feb. 2015.

<http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-an-international-treaty-on
cyberwarfare/international-cyberwar-treaty-would-quickly-be-hacked-to-bits>.

Grading

Criteria
Content
and Ideas

Description

Clear argument
Support uses ethos, logos, and
pathos
4 or more credible sources used
Antithesis addressed and refuted

Points
0
1

x2

7/10 Zane Kvasnicka cite sources

better, support ethos, logos, and pathos
better
/10 PEER 2 NAME - write a comment

Organization

Voice

Diction/
Syntax/
Conventio
ns

Conclusion leaves reader with powerful final statement

The writer connects with the audience

through the intriguing focus of the topic,
selection of relevant details, and the use
of natural, engaging language, including
the use of vocabulary.

Publicatio
n/
Appearan
ce

Effective introduction and hook

Paragraphs are organized around
claim statements
Transitions are used between
paragraphs
Sequence is logical

Five vocabulary words are used

naturally and effectively.
Writing is all in 3rd person .
Quotations are embedded and
cited.
0-3 Errors in grammatical structure
rough draft ready on Wed 2/18
typed and double-spaced
Times New Roman; 12 pt.
proper MLA formatting; heading that
includes student name, instructors
name, class, and date
works cited page is appended.

9/10 Self grade

/10 final grade from teacher
0
1
2
3 4 5
x2

9/10 Zane Kvasnicka need a better

hook, transitions are ok
/10 PEER 2 NAME - write a comment
10/10 Self grade
/10 final grade from teacher
0
1
2
3 4 5
x2 =
10/10 Zane Kvasnicka good job
staying on topic
/10 PEER 2 NAME - write a comment
10/10 Self grade
/10 final grade from teacher
0
1
2
3 4 5
x2 =
10/10 Zane Kvasnicka - In 3rd Person, 5
connotative words used
/10 PEER 2 NAME - write a comment
9/10 Self grade
/10 final grade from teacher
0
1
2
3 4 5
x2 =
9/10 Zane Kvasnicka follows all
MLA guidelines and all word doc
guidelines followed
/10 PEER 2 NAME - write a comment
9/10 Self grade
/10 final grade from teacher