Soviet Union and China who were the closest allies of North Korea during cold war era, now doesn’t show much interest in aiding the nation. The prominence of North Korea among Russians has almost reduced by half in a month even though North Korea had never targeted Russia in their antagonistic statements.
Russia has been anxious recently about North Korea’s rogue behaviour and open warning its neighbours of missile attack. Russia is agitated to see North Korea’s refusal to stop its nuclear weapon program.
The catastrophe actualized when North Korea carried out its third nuclear bomb test in February, attracting censures from the international community resulting into tough sanctions imposed by the US. US had already cut off food aid it had been contributing as part of a denuclearization-for-aid agreement reached in 2005 when George W Bush was in power.
|Mass dance in front of the Monument to Party Foundation – Pyongyang, photo by Gabriel Britto|
We found the statistics of two similar polls conducted in Russia by Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) one at the beginning of April and one at the end of it. While comparing both the poll results it is clear that now only 34% of Russians think North Korea is friendly compared to 58% in early April.
60% of respondents believe that North Korea’s nuclear arms pose a threat to other countries with 28% thinking otherwise is true, whereas 13% undecided. 44% of those who think North Korea nuclear arms pose threat to other countries believes that Russia could become a victim of such an attack.
Nearly 17% Russians believe that probability of war in the Korean peninsula is very high. Nearly 39% believe that no such war would take place no matter what developments will take place in the coming future. They are those who believe North Korea is just bluffing, trying to bring US and South Korea diplomatically on table for negotiations in its favour, and is not serious about the war. There were also 25% people who believe that the probability of war does exist but really low.
Not many Russians are willing that their country should provide aid to their once major communist ally in the east. Only about 8% believe that Russia should offer its support to Pyongyang in case of any escalated conflict. However, Russians also do not believe much in supporting North Korea’s opponent. Only 4% of the respondent said their country should support North Korea’s supposedly opponents The majority of Russians hold that their country should remain neutral on the developments in the Korean peninsula.
|Pyongyang’s brightest lit spot. photo by fresh888|
Japan on the other hand is taking extra precautions. Many Japanese agencies have drafted alert emails and tweets already so that at the time of any action by North Korea there should not be any delay in alerting its citizen. This has also resulted into sending false alarm alerts of North Korea launching ballistic missiles by mistake. On Friday, North Korea had admonished that Japan would be its primary target in case war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, blaming Japan for its “hostile posture.” North Korea also threatened Japan that it would strike it with nuclear bomb if Japan intercepts any North Korean test missiles.
Russian officials have denied that they foresee any escalated conflict between North and South Korea. The country who can initiate the conflict would be North Korea, who knows that South Korea got the backing of big powers like Japan and USA and its allies in West Europe. North Korea is also aware that Russia and China at the time of conflict will not be able to provide anything more than diplomatic support and negotiations to end the war. China and Russia will not come to help militarily. Deputy secretary of Russia’s supreme security body – the Security Council, Yevgeniy Lukyanov who is in the office since 2010 gave the statement this week that no one would gain anything from such war and therefore it will never happen.
He also mentioned to the press that new North Korea’s leader Kim Chong un is a very young leader and if he wishes to rule the country for long then he is required to avoid escalating unnecessary risks and threats. On the other hand North Korea is not only moving its missiles to the border of South Korea but also creating anti tank barricades, creating panic and situation of the war, highlighting the whole conflict and region in the world.
However one must note that it was last week when Pyongyang demanded that South Korea and the USA should remove all nuclear weapons from the region, thus preparing the setting for any possible future dialogue. Both Seoul and Washington rejected this demand as ludicrous.
USA has also rejected North Korea’s demand to recognize it as a nuclear weapon state saying one of the main conditions for lifting sanctions on Pyongyang is its abstaining from nuclear ambitions. The plight were immediately belittled as unacceptable by North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun newspaper on Tuesday. “If the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea [DPRK] sits at a table with the US, it has to be a dialogue between nuclear weapons states, not one side forcing the other to dismantle nuclear weapons,” the newspaper said.
|Photo by Stephan|
Author and Asia specialist Tim Beal believes that it is America’s fault in renewing the tensions in the Korean peninsula. New South Korean president, Park Geun-hye whose mother was killed by a North Korean and whose father was killed by his spy chief decided to work for peace with North Korea after sworn-in just over a month ago. The Americans upped the ante with current range of military exercises with South Korea, in order to stop the new South Korean government engaging with the North as Park Geun-hye had promised in her election campaign.
Tim Beal also compared the current situation of US and North Korea with that of US and India. Earlier U.S had also put sanctions on India for developing weapons and for being outside of Non-Proliferation Treaty. Sanctions included economic and blacklisting Indian scientific organizations and not allowing any country to transfer any sensitive technology to India, which made India to develop on its own. Once India already had made good progress, and started looking like a potential super power, Bush administration in 2005 compromised on India and bypassed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and established Indo-US civil nuclear deal giving India exemption from NPT and recognizing it as a nuclear weapon state.
But one must know that India has a good proliferation record, India never provoked any country for nuclear war and never threatened to use it even against its rival Pakistan whose army had illegally entered Indian side and occupied the heights in Kargil in 1999 just after both the countries tested their nuclear bombs. India also maintains a no first use policy, that means India in no manner will attack a country first with a nuclear bomb therefore India keeps sophisticated technologies like anti ballistic missile which can thwart any attempt by any country to deliver nuclear bombs through ballistic missiles. India also maintains second and third strike capabilities through its canister launched nuclear missiles and submarine launched nuclear missiles.
The History Question: Is It Better to Remember or to Forget?
Years ago, a philosopher by the name of George Santayana said a phrase that fuels many debates to this day. His original saying is “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, although, many sources now present it as variations of “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. The latter definitely has more substance to it in the light of the ongoing debate about how much history we should be learning and how.
Is It Better to Remember or Forget About the Past?
On one hand, Santayana was right. Learning about the past is essential in order for people to progress. One also shouldn’t overlook the importance of remembrance and paying respects to the dead, both those who pushed the progress forward and those who have fallen victims to major tragedies that could and should have been averted.
The main argument in favor of learning about the past is that its knowledge is necessary for preventing the same thing happening in the future. Having it one can see the signs and stop the tragedy before it gains momentum.
That’s sound in theory, but the reality is always different. For example, today people are surely forgetting, and the much-critiqued education system is only partially at fault here. Even the greatest of tragedies weren’t spared this fate. It’s a proven fact that about two-thirds of millennials today don’t know about the Holocaust, and this number is surely greater for generations that follow them. In the school history course, the subject of one of the greatest disasters in history is barely touched, if touched at all. And outside of a history classroom, one can only see small, but terrifying, glimpses of it at the Holocaust Museum and other museums that rarely attract many visitors. And now we are witnessing a rise of antisemitic crime.
Are these two facts related? Does the lack of awareness about the horrors done in the name of Aryan supremacy contribute to the fact that right-winged extremists seem to be gaining popularity again?
It does, but by how much? That is the question that no one can truly answer.
And what about other genocides? The Holocaust had the highest death toll, but it was far from the only genocide in history. And quite a few of those happened after World War 2 and before the memory of the atrocities against the Jews began to fade. This means that while forgetting history is a factor, it’s not the deciding factor in its repeats.
But what is that thing responsible for the reenactment of past mistakes and tragedies?
Learning. This is the important thing that is most often overlooked when citing Santayana’s famous saying. It’s not enough to learn about the past and know the facts of things that happened. It’s important to learn from those facts and put in place protections that will prevent them from happening again. And this is something that humanity, as a whole, has yet to succeed in doing.
Dwelling in the Past Can Be Just As Bad
One also shouldn’t forget that there is such a thing as “too much history”. The Bosnian War and genocide that happened there in the 1990s is a vivid example of how the past can be exploited by political powers. Used as a part of propaganda, which fueled the war, history can become a weapon in the hands of those who want to use it for their own goals.
And this is what humans have been doing since the dawn of time. There is always someone who will use any means necessary to achieve whatever it is they wish. This results in wars and genocides, and hundreds of smaller but no less devastating tragedies.
Therefore, the problem isn’t whether people should be learning history but human nature itself. Perhaps, teaching this can help fix this fundamental flaw and truly stop the worst of the past from repeating.
Is there such thing as cyberwar?
Two decades have passed after Arquilla and Ronfeldt in 1993 warned the public about an upcoming. They were also the first to introduce a concept of cyberwar and give an elaborated opinion. They referred to a conduct and preparation of military operations using information-related principles and also invoked a link between intelligence (the collection of information for political or military purpose) and cyber operations. Now, the scale of intelligence has significantly expanded.
Interestingly, before cyber appeared, there was a radio which was used for intelligence purposes and was weaponized later in the World War II. From that time on, electronic warfare became standard characteristics of a modern conflict. Despite this, there is a key difference between electronic warfare and a cyber one. Traditional electronic warfare aimed to guide, target, or protect weapons systems (Ibid., p. 24). In contrast, cyber makes today’s weapons and military systems smarter but also more vulnerable for an attack.
At the moment everyone still wonders what the whole idea of cyberwar means. There is no accepted interpretation or definition. Furthermore, many experts even say that such war does not even exist (or cannot be referred to the notion of “war”). Perhaps, it is due to the fact that a war in cyberspace has not yet happened. To make it clear, cyber capability has not actually killed anyone and a code has not been used as the use of force.
Similarly, the dangers of a nuclear bomb were recognized only after its use, the same goes to the notion of “nuclear war”. Although there have been many cyberattacks, none of them have been raised to the level of war because none of them, in fact, caused the level of damage which could be adhered to the level of a large-scale conflict.
Cyber warfare has derived from different aspects of conventional warfare and traditional definitions of war. It usually involves organized units within nation-state in offensive or defensive operations which are part of a war or a conflict.
In general, since cyber study is relatively new, there are many competing terms and definitions to explain cyber phenomenon. The following concepts – the revolution in military affairs, electronic warfare, information warfare, and cyber war – have been all offered to describe the new emerging area of conflict. Experts do not agree on any particular term, more often using different notions when talking about cyber issues. Nonetheless, it is vital to understand the facts of the 21st century similarly to the need that rose along with the invention of atomic reaction. A major concern now is no longer weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. (2009, p. 47).
One of the central elements to define a cyberwar, is that it has to meet the same criteria, applied to any other type of war. Vandalism or spying is an act of crime, but they do not start wars. So, assumingly, there has to be physical destruction and casualties in order to declare a war.
Therefore, a cyberwar should have real world damage similar to a conventional war. For this matter, it should probably take place in a digital world. What is not clear, however, is whether it should be fought exclusively in cyberspace or it can accompany a conventional attack too. This aspect is quite interesting, because cyberattacks can easily be used in combination with a kinetic attack and can multiply the force and power of the attacker.
In this case, it does not make sense to create a new term “cyberwar” as it falls down under the same definition of war. It is the same example when aerial bombings supported the attacks on the ground during the World War I, but in the end we called it a war, not a particular type of war. Consequently, cyber introduction resembles more a revolution in military affairs, rather that a new emerging type of warfare.
What is clear, though, is that the difference in definitions complicates the matters of regulating cyberspace and prevents achieving a common ground on cyber issues and/or developing new treaties and agreements between the states. So far there is no international agreement on the cyber principles, despite some attempts of the states to engage into negotiations (Budapest Conference on Cyberspace, the World Conference on International Telecommunications). There is, however, the Convention on Cybercrime, the first international agreement that addresses compute crime, adopted by the Council of Europe. Interestingly enough, Russia (as a part of the Council) neither signed nor ratified the agreement, whereas US (not part of the Council) recognized it and ratified it.
Apart from these difficulties in defining cyberwar, there has been a hyperbolic use of the word itself, mostly by media and tabloids (e.g. The Washington Post, “We are at cyberwar and we are our own enemy”; The New York Times, “How to prevent Cyberwar”; Zdnet, “Cyberwar: a guide to the frightening future of online conflict”; Komsomolskaya Pravda, “Are we expecting the First World Cyberwar?” etc.). They do not usually give any concrete information but are eager to use this term and apply it randomly to different cases just because it sounds good. All in all, uninformed public use of the word has enormously contributed into the heat surrounding cyber implications.
Futher, cyberattacks are too often discussed equivalently, regardless of its impact. In this sense, minor cases like ransomware or phishing might be raised to the level of an armed attack (especially if they affect multiple computers worldwide). Yet, these cases are good examples of cybercrime, and crime is not a war. When individuals engage into this type of activity, they do not engage in a war. The same goes for espionage in cyberspace. Catching a spy on one’s territory will certainly put pressure on bilateral relations, but it would not start a war.
This exaggeration of cyberattacks can be explained through securitization theory. The notion offered by the Copenhagen Security School describes how a certain concept can be politicized and securitized to the extent that it becomes a threat to national security (See Buzan, 2006).
To conclude, it should be mentioned that there is no guidance for the conduct of “cyberwar”. There are no internationally agreed definitions and, to that extent, the whole idea of cyberwar so far seems unrealistic. At this moment technology is not sophisticated enough to ensure a military conduct entirely in cyberspace. Besides, any cyberattack of such scale would presumably result in a physical destruction, which consequently might provoke a conventional retaliation attack. This, in result, would cause a war we know for years, so there is no need to introduce a particular type of war. On another note, using cyber operations to support a conventional war and/or conflict is the way to go, but in this case it is just a revolution and modernization in military affairs.
I would be interested to hear your opinion about that in the comments below.
For further information see:
1) A movie “War Games” (1983)
2) Arquilla, J. and Ronfeldt, D. (1993). The Cyberwar is Coming! RAND Corporation, [online] Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP223.html
3) Cetron, M. J. and Davies, O. (2009). Ten critical trends for cyber security. The Futurist, 43(5), pp. 40–49.
4) Stiennon, R. (2015). There Will Be Cyberwar: How The Move To Network-Centric War Fighting Has Set The Stage For Cyberwar. Michigan: IT-Harvest Press.
On the issue of cyber security of critical infrastructures
There is a lot of talk in regards to cyberattacks nowadays. A regular user worries about its data and tries to secure by all means necessary. Yet, no one really thinks whether the power plants or nuclear facilities are well secured. Everyone assumes that they should be secured.
The reality, however, differs. According to many reports of cyber security companies, there is an increased risk of cyberattacks, targeting SCADA and ICS. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) is used for the systems that control physical equipment – power plants, oil and gas pipelines, they can also control or monitor processes such as heating or energy consumption. Along with Industrial Control Systems (ICS) they control critical elements of industrial automation processes. Exploiting vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures can lead to the consequences of unimaginable scale. (These types of attacks are actually used in a cyberwar scenarios and hypothetical military settings).
There are many reasons why these systems are vulnerable for attacks. First of all, the main problem is that these systems have an old design; they were built before they were connected to any networks. They were later configured to connect via Ethernet, and that’s when they became a part of a larger infrastructure. The more advanced SCADA system is becoming, the more vulnerabilities are these to exploit. The updates should be regular and on time. Secondly, there is a lack of monitoring. New devices that are connected allow remote monitoring, but not all devices have the same reporting capabilities. There are also authentication issues (weak passwords, authentication process), however, this is supposed to restrict unauthorized access (See Common SCADA Threats and Vulnerabilities at Patriot Technologies, Inc. Online).
In these scenarios, there is no certainty to know what is going to backfire because of the complexity of communications and power networks. This is also called a cascading effect of attacks. Not knowing who is connected to who may cause major disruptions. The example of the US East Coast power blackout in 2003 proves this point (a failure in one element of the grid spreads across other electrical networks). However, given this, it is also complicated for an attacker to predict consequences, if an attack executed. This kind of attack can easily escalate into more serious conflict, so it might not be the best option for states to employ such methods.
Moreover, there is a risk to damage a critical infrastructure unintentionally. That is if a virus or worm did not intend to target SCADA but happen to spread there as well. The uncontrollability of the code may seriously impair the desire to use it, especially when it comes to nation-states. For instance, in 2003 a worm penetrated a private network of the US Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station and disabled a safety monitoring system for 5 hours. In 2009, French fighter jets could not take off because they were infected with a virus.
Indeed, a scenario where an attacker gains access to a SCADA system and manipulates with the system, causing disruptions on a large-scale, might be hypothetical but it does not make it less possible in the future. However, the only known case so far, which affected an industrial control centre, is Stuxnet. It did not result in many deaths, yet it drew attention of the experts on the plausibility of future more sophisticated attacks. These potential upcoming attacks might cause the level of destruction, comparable to that of a conventional attack, therefore resulting in war.
Bradbury, D. (2012). SCADA: a Critical Vulnerability. Computer Fraud & Security, 4, p. 11-14.
Are You Aware Of Your Children’s Online Activity?
5 Ways To Improve Your Company Website
Getting Your Brand Back Out There In A Post-Covid World
Preparing To Start A New Business: Things To Think About
Why Do Movies Change The Way People Dress?
The best films released in 2020 you can’t miss
The 10 highest-grossing films of all time
Top science fiction films of the past decade
How to Stay Healthy During Lockdown
How does Technology Affect the Working Environment?
Business9 months ago
Gutemberg Dos Santos and Robert Kiyosaki share their vision of leadership
Business8 months ago
Axel Andorff and Carsten Isensee, new SEAT Vice presidents for R&D and Finance
Travel12 months ago
You need to visit Ecuador now
Travel11 months ago
ATELIER de Hoteles is proud to present José Mejía as its Executive Chef and Food Experience
Opinion10 months ago
The History Question: Is It Better to Remember or to Forget?
Blog9 months ago
For Enea Angelo Trevisan and Ealixir, better than solving the problem of cyberbullying is preventing it
Business11 months ago
The Importance and Usefulness of Medical Posters in Research
Business12 months ago
Karatbars Becomes One of “10 Blockchain Companies To Watch In 2019” according to Forbes