{"title":"网络攻击能让人放心吗?减半措施作为降级策略","authors":"Brandon K. Yoder","doi":"10.1080/09636412.2022.2140600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How can states de-escalate a crisis and avoid spiraling toward war? Doing so requires the actors to reassure each other of their willingness to issue and commit to concessions. Yet reassurance is fundamentally difficult: states have incentives to misrepresent their aims as moderate in order to dupe the other into offering concessions and drawing down its military readiness, only to renege and issue further demands in the future. Thus, credible signaling mechanisms are essential for peaceful crisis resolution. Adding to a growing literature on credible reassurance, Erica D. Lonergan and Shawn W. Lonergan offer an intriguing new theory of crisis de-escalation built around the distinct properties of cyber technology. They argue that states caught in an escalatory spiral can use cyberattacks to signal their willingness to compromise and give the opponent an opportunity to reciprocate. Thus, a seemingly provocative action can instead convey restraint and alleviate tensions. Two features of cyberattacks underpin this counterintuitive claim: they are relatively harmless compared to other military operations, and their origins are ambiguous, which facilitates plausible deniability. The “low harm” aspect signals restraint because the attacker foregoes more destructive coercive tools at its disposal. Because an attacker with maximalist goals would","PeriodicalId":47478,"journal":{"name":"Security Studies","volume":"31 1","pages":"757 - 763"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Cyberattacks Reassure? Half Measures as a De-Escalation Strategy\",\"authors\":\"Brandon K. Yoder\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09636412.2022.2140600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How can states de-escalate a crisis and avoid spiraling toward war? Doing so requires the actors to reassure each other of their willingness to issue and commit to concessions. Yet reassurance is fundamentally difficult: states have incentives to misrepresent their aims as moderate in order to dupe the other into offering concessions and drawing down its military readiness, only to renege and issue further demands in the future. Thus, credible signaling mechanisms are essential for peaceful crisis resolution. Adding to a growing literature on credible reassurance, Erica D. Lonergan and Shawn W. Lonergan offer an intriguing new theory of crisis de-escalation built around the distinct properties of cyber technology. They argue that states caught in an escalatory spiral can use cyberattacks to signal their willingness to compromise and give the opponent an opportunity to reciprocate. Thus, a seemingly provocative action can instead convey restraint and alleviate tensions. Two features of cyberattacks underpin this counterintuitive claim: they are relatively harmless compared to other military operations, and their origins are ambiguous, which facilitates plausible deniability. The “low harm” aspect signals restraint because the attacker foregoes more destructive coercive tools at its disposal. Because an attacker with maximalist goals would\",\"PeriodicalId\":47478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Security Studies\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"757 - 763\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Security Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2022.2140600\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2022.2140600","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Can Cyberattacks Reassure? Half Measures as a De-Escalation Strategy
How can states de-escalate a crisis and avoid spiraling toward war? Doing so requires the actors to reassure each other of their willingness to issue and commit to concessions. Yet reassurance is fundamentally difficult: states have incentives to misrepresent their aims as moderate in order to dupe the other into offering concessions and drawing down its military readiness, only to renege and issue further demands in the future. Thus, credible signaling mechanisms are essential for peaceful crisis resolution. Adding to a growing literature on credible reassurance, Erica D. Lonergan and Shawn W. Lonergan offer an intriguing new theory of crisis de-escalation built around the distinct properties of cyber technology. They argue that states caught in an escalatory spiral can use cyberattacks to signal their willingness to compromise and give the opponent an opportunity to reciprocate. Thus, a seemingly provocative action can instead convey restraint and alleviate tensions. Two features of cyberattacks underpin this counterintuitive claim: they are relatively harmless compared to other military operations, and their origins are ambiguous, which facilitates plausible deniability. The “low harm” aspect signals restraint because the attacker foregoes more destructive coercive tools at its disposal. Because an attacker with maximalist goals would
期刊介绍:
Security Studies publishes innovative scholarly manuscripts that make a significant contribution – whether theoretical, empirical, or both – to our understanding of international security. Studies that do not emphasize the causes and consequences of war or the sources and conditions of peace fall outside the journal’s domain. Security Studies features articles that develop, test, and debate theories of international security – that is, articles that address an important research question, display innovation in research, contribute in a novel way to a body of knowledge, and (as appropriate) demonstrate theoretical development with state-of-the art use of appropriate methodological tools. While we encourage authors to discuss the policy implications of their work, articles that are primarily policy-oriented do not fit the journal’s mission. The journal publishes articles that challenge the conventional wisdom in the area of international security studies. Security Studies includes a wide range of topics ranging from nuclear proliferation and deterrence, civil-military relations, strategic culture, ethnic conflicts and their resolution, epidemics and national security, democracy and foreign-policy decision making, developments in qualitative and multi-method research, and the future of security studies.