For decades the US army has emphasized deterrence, basing their advancements on nuclear weapons to improve their defense services. The army significantly invested in huge war tanks, ships, and aircraft. Currently, a broader challenge spectrum faces army deterrence, including space and cyberspace. Many third-world countries like the US, China, Russia, and Canada have developed space and cyberspace exploration facilities that have enabled army improvement, which has been made possible with technological advancements. Scientific scholars based on security have emphasized space and cyberspace deterrence to help governments with advanced computer networks identify, analyze, resist and respond to attacks made by their enemies (Fischerkeller et al., 2022). This paper shall expound on the comparison and challenges existing between space and cyberspace deterrence. Further, explain the possibility of separating the two domains, and lastly, explain the deterrence implications.
The military has used space as a battleground in fighting with other countries. As such, more advancements, including resources and assets, have been implemented to improve the occupied countries’ military efforts and national economies. As the world continues to develop technologically, it is anticipated that space techniques will also be improvised and diversified to cater to security challenges in society. A significant disparity exists between the current space assets and those used in the 20th century. During the cold war, there were no adequate counter space facilities, and the superpower leaders devised alternative conflict resolution methods since they had common interests (Wu et al., 2022). However, satellites were used to offer space surveillance, assisting military operations. Currently, the Sky bird, a more improved and commercial space asset, is used by the military to detect missiles, identify enemies and maneuvers, and identify suspects.
Space systems act as a force multiplier and simultaneously enhance the conventional fight against the enemy in a precise and discriminative manner. Moreover, the space facilities aid in enabling the economic prosperity of a nation by preventing external attacks. Finally, more countries can easily access space fighting skills and materials like rockets, sky birds, and satellites, ensuring their security (Wu et al., 2022). As such, many countries have contemplated the attempt to destroy other countries’ space armies to make them more powerful and superpowers. Space faces many challenges because of the complex systems operations in its equipment like satellites, rockets, and sky boats. A skilled workforce is needed to operate the gadgets, making it a hard tussle for the countries. Buying and maintaining the space materials has been very expensive, causing economic challenges (Fischerkeller et al., 2022). Moreover, acquiring the weapons has made countries stage surprise attacks on other countries, destroying properties and lives. For instance, Russia has occasionally used its space weapons to fight launch abrupt fights against Ukraine (Kirchberger, 2022), in the recent invasion.
Cyberspace is a worldwide domain of the information environment made up of interconnected, networked information systems infrastructure, including telecommunications networks, the internet, computer systems, controllers, and processors. The present world is virtually integrated with information emanating from cyberspace. The societal facets influenced by cyberspace include national security, infrastructure, healthcare, public safety, and economic transformation (Brantly, 2018). Military and the armed forces in the world are becoming more reliant on cyber technological innovations to improve their operations.
The US military department of defense has used cyberspace materials to improve military operations and intelligence through controlling the military spectrum of moving materials and commanding the personnel. The Airforce has also adopted cyber technology by using electromagnetic spectrums and electronics to modify, store and modify information through physical infrastructures and network systems of the associations. The military has effectively fought through warfare, electronic support, and protection through cyberspace advancements.
The cyberspace system has been challenged by illiteracy as operators cannot perceive the operations. Individuals have not comprehended the cybersecurity threats, the information technology environment, potential consequence anticipation, and environmental vulnerabilities. Cyberspace has also faced various sabotage scandals as people have deliberately used their cyber knowledge to tamper with system equipment (Schneider, 2019). The sabotage is linked to cyber-attack, which entail disabling, destroying, disrupting, and poorly manipulating infrastructure by stealing stored information and affecting data integrity. Companies and organizations have lost money through the crimes leading to closure due to bankruptcy. Interstate cyber conflicts have also been enhanced. For instance, Russia has used its technological powers in cyber security to manipulate minor countries to enforce their military superiority.
The two domains can be separated in different ways based on their varied methods of operation. The first method to separate the two is because space naturally occurs where humans timely project their operations, whereas cyberspace is human-made with complete and convenient control. The other disparity is that accessing the area requires costly expenses to buy and maintain the gadgets and sophisticated skills and techniques owned by a few states (Borghard et al., 2021). On the contrary, cyberspace can cheaply be operated by anyone using mobile phones and computers. Finally, the outer space operations are owned by states to enable general welfare operations of its citizens, thus requiring international laws to guide its operations. Both private entities and the government can own cyberspace; therefore, state laws shall regulate its operations.
Deterrence of space and cyberspace operations play critical roles in ensuring the defense of a nation, for instance, the US. The US defense department and air force units have used cyber technology to provide security to their citizens. Without cyber technology, the country could not sustain the implication of the attacks they receive from various parts of the world in both space and cyberspace. Deterrence has also enabled the act of attribution to allow for the country to identify the attacker from different cyber realms in time and handle them before they stage the attack (Schulze, 2019). Deterrence has made countries confident in their security. Lastly, deterrence has enhanced the spirit of retaliation through establishing laws that shall be used against the lawbreakers. The policies shall make people responsible for their actions while handling cyber staff.
To sum up, the global realm of the information environment comprises a networked, interconnected information system infrastructure called “cyberspace,” which includes computer systems, controllers, processors, telecommunications networks, and the internet. Space technologies have also been used to explore various economic, social and infrastructural developments. The military has adopted space technology and used sky birds, satellites, and rockets to intensify operations. Cyberspace technology has also been adopted to ensure electronic military defense. Many challenges have emerged, including technicality in operating the space machines and high costs of maintaining the gadgets. Cyberspace has also faced various attacks and sabotage that have derailed multiple operations in a country. The two domains can be separated because space naturally exists where timely human activity is projected into it, whereas cyberspace is artificial and entirely under human control. The ownership and maintenance costs can also vary, dividing the two realms. Deterrence has enabled attribution, retaliation, and improved technology to prevent cyber-attacks.
References
Borghard, E. D., & Lonergan, S. W. (2021). Deterrence by denial in Cyberspace. Journal of Strategic Studies, 1–36. Web.
Brantly, A. F. (2018). The Cyber Deterrence Problem. 2018 10th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon). Web.
Fischerkeller, M. P., Goldman, E. O., Harknett, R. J., & Nakasone, P. M. (2022). Cyber persistence theory: Redefining national security in Cyberspace. Amazon. Web.
Kirchberger, S. (2022). Russian-Chinese military-technological cooperation and the Ukrainian factor. Russia-China Relations, 75–100. Web.
Schneider, J. G. (2019). Deterrence in and through Cyberspace. Cross-Domain Deterrence, 95–120. Web.
Schulze, M. (2019). Cyber deterrence is overrated: Analysis of the deterrent potential of the new cyber doctrine and lessons for Germany’s” active cyper defence”.
Wu, Z., & Cao, Y. (2022). Analysis of “tripartite and bilateral” space deterrence based on signaling game. 2022 IEEE 6th Information Technology and Mechatronics Engineering Conference (ITOEC). Web.