The Challenges of Cyber Deterrence

  • Mariarosaria TaddeoEmail author
Part of the Digital Ethics Lab Yearbook book series (DELY)


In this chapter, I analyse deterrence theory and argue that its applicability to cyberspace is limited and that these limits are not trivial. They are the consequence of fundamental differences between deterrence theory and the nature of cyber conflicts and cyberspace. The goals of this analysis are to identify the limits of deterrence theory in cyberspace, clear the ground of inadequate approaches to cyber deterrence, and define the conceptual space for a domain-specific theory of cyber deterrence, still to be developed.


Cyberspace Cyber conflicts Defence Deterrence Retaliations State Stability 


  1. Bendiek, A., and T. Metzger. 2015. Deterrence theory in the cyber-century: Lessons from a state-of-the-art literature review, Lecture notes in informatics (LNI), 553–570. Bonn: Gesellschaft Fur Informatik.Google Scholar
  2. Betz, D.J., and T. Stevens. 2013. Analogical reasoning and cyber security. Security Dialogue 44 (2): 147–164. Scholar
  3. Bologna, S., A. Fasani, and M. Martellini. 2013. From fortress to resilience. In Cyber security: Deterrence and IT protection for critical infrastructures, ed. M. Martellini, 53–56. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brodie, B. 1978. The development of nuclear strategy. International Security 2 (4): 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunn, M.E. 2007. Can deterrence be tailored? Strategic Forum, Number 225, January 2007. Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.Google Scholar
  6. Cath, C., S. Wachter., M. Taddeo., and L. Floridi. 2017. Artificial intelligence and the “good society”: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, March.
  7. Clark, D., and S. Landau. 2011. Untangling attribution. Harvard National Security Journal 2011 (2): 25–40.Google Scholar
  8. Crosston, M. 2011. World gone cyber MAD: How “mutually assured debilitation” is the best hope for cyber deterrence. Strategic Studies Quarterly 50 (1): 100–116.Google Scholar
  9. Dipert, R. 2013. The essential features of an ontology for cyberwarfare. In Conflict and cooperation in cyberspace, ed. Panayotis Yannakogeorgos and Adam Lowther, 35–48. Taylor & Francis.
  10. European Union. 2014. Cyber defence in the EU: Preparing for cyber warfare? – think tank. Brussels.
  11. ———. 2015. Cyber diplomacy: EU dialogue with third countries – think tank. Brussels.
  12. Floridi, L. 2008. The method of levels of abstraction. Minds and Machines 18 (3): 303–329. Scholar
  13. ———. 2013. The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Floridi, L., and M. Taddeo, eds. 2014. The ethics of information warfare, Law, governance and technology series. Vol. 14. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Freedman, L. 2004. Deterrence. Cambridge, UK/Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. G7 Declaration. 2017. G7 declaration on responsible state behavior in cyberspace. Lucca.
  17. Goodman, W. 2010. Will Goodman, Cyber deterrence: Tougher in theory than in practice?, Strategic Studies Quarterly Fall: 102–35.Google Scholar
  18. Haggard, S., and B.A. Simmons. 1987. Theories of international regimes. International Organization 41 (03): 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haley, C. 2013. A theory of cyber deterrence. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, February.
  20. Harknett, R.J., and E.O. Goldman. 2016. The search for cyber fundamental. Journal of Information Warfare 15 (2): 81–88.Google Scholar
  21. Hathaway, O., and R. Crootof. 2012. The law of cyber-attack. California Law Review 100 (1–2012): 817–886.Google Scholar
  22. Hollis, D.B. 2011. An E-SOS for cyberspace. Harvard International Law Journal. 52 (373): 374–375.Google Scholar
  23. Iasiello, E. 2014. Is cyber deterrence an illusory course of action? Journal of Strategic Security 7 (1): 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. International Security Advisory Board. 2014. A framework for international cyber stability. United States Department of State.
  25. Jensen, E.T. 2009. Cyber warfare and precautions against the effects of attacks. Texas Law Review 88 (1533): 1534–1569.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2012. Cyber deterrence. SSRN scholarly paper ID 2070438. Rochester: Social Science Research Network.
  27. Jervis, R. 1979. Deterrence theory revisited. World Politics 31 (2): 289–324. Scholar
  28. ———. 1988. Realism, game theory, and cooperation. World Politics 40 (3): 317–349. Scholar
  29. Kastenberg, J.E. 2009. Changing the paradigm of internet access from government information systems: A solution to the need for the DoD to take time-sensitive action on the Niprnet. Air Force Law Review 64: 175.Google Scholar
  30. Kugler, R. 2009. Deterrence of cyber attacks. In Cyberpower and national security, ed. Franklin Kramer, Stuart Starr, and Larry Wentz, 309–342. Washington, DC: National Defense University.Google Scholar
  31. Lan, Tang, Zhang Xin, Dmitry Grigoriev Harry Raduege Jr., Pavan Duggal, and Stein Schjølberg. 2010. Global cyber deterrence views from China, the U.S., Russia, India, and Norway. EastWest Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Libicki, M.C. 1997. Defending cyberspace and other metaphors. Washington, DC: National Defense Univ/National Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  33. Libicki, Martin. 2011. The strategic uses of ambiguity in cyberspace. Military and Strategic Affairs 3 (3): 3–10.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2009. Cyberdeterrence and cyberwar. Product Page.
  35. McConnell, M. 2010. Mike McConnell on how to win the cyber-war we’re losing, 28 February 2010.
  36. Morgan, P.M. 2003. Deterrence now, Cambridge studies in international relations 89. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2010. Applicability of traditional deterrence concepts and theory to the cyber realm. In Proceedings of a workshop on deterring cyberattacks: Informing strategies and developing options for U.S. policy, 55–76. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. NSA. 2013. A strategy for surveillance powers. The New York Times.
  39. Nye, J.S. 2011. Nuclear lessons for cyber security? Strategic Studies Quarterly 5 (4): 11–38.Google Scholar
  40. Owens, W.A., Kenneth W. Dam., H. Lin., National Research Council (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.), eds. 2009. Technology, policy, law, and ethics regarding U.S. Acquisition and use of cyberattack capabilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. Possony, S.T. 1946. Atomic power and world order. The Review of Politics 8 (4): 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powell, R. 2008. Nuclear deterrence theory: The search for credibility, Digitally printed version. Paperback Re-Issue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rattray, G.J. 2009. An environmental approach to understanding cyberpower, in Kramer, Cited, 253–274, Esp. 256. In Cyberpower and National Security, ed. Stuart S. Kramer and Lerry K. Wentz, 253–74. Washington, DC: National Defense UP.Google Scholar
  44. Ryan, N.J. 2017. Five kinds of cyber deterrence. Philosophy & Technology, January. Scholar
  45. Schelling, T.C. 1980. The strategy of conflict: [With a new preface]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schelling, T.C., and Harvard University Center for International Affairs. 1966. Arms and influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Schneier, B. 2017. Why the NSA makes us more vulnerable to cyberattacks. Foreign Affairs, 30 May 2017.
  48. Sterner, E. 2011. Retaliatory deterrence in cyberspace. Strategic Studies Quaterly 5 (1): 65–80.Google Scholar
  49. Taddeo, M. 2012a. Information warfare: A philosophical perspective. Philosophy & Technology 25 (1): 105–120. Scholar
  50. ———. 2012b. ‘An analysis for a just cyber warfare’. In 2012 4th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CYCON 2012), 1–10.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2013. Cyber security and individual rights, striking the right balance. Philosophy & Technology 26 (4): 353–356. Scholar
  52. ———. 2014. Information warfare: The ontological and regulatory gap. Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers 14 (1 (fall 2014)): 13–20.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 2016. On the risks of relying on analogies to understand cyber conflicts. Minds and Machines 26 (4): 317–321. Scholar
  54. ———. 2017a. Cyber conflicts and political power in information societies. Minds and Machines 27 (2): 265–268. Scholar
  55. ———. 2017b. Deterrence by norms to stop interstate cyber attacks. Minds and Machines, September. Scholar
  56. ———. 2017c. The limits of deterrence theory in cyberspace. Philosophy & Technology, October. Scholar
  57. Taddeo, M., and L. Glorioso. 2016. Regulating cyber conflicts and shaping information societies. In Ethics and policies for cyber operations, philosophical studies series. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Taddeo, Mariarosaria, and Luciano Floridi. 2018a. How AI can be a force for good. Science 361 (6404): 751–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ———. 2018b. Regulate artificial intelligence to avert cyber arms race. Nature 556 (7701): 296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tanji, M. n.d. Deterring a cyber attack? Dream on… WIRED. Accessed 15 July 2017.
  61. UK Government. 2014. Deterrence in the twenty-first century: Government response to the committee’s eleventh report. Scholar
  62. UN Institute for Disarmament Research. 2014. Cyber stability seminar 2014: Preventing cyber conflict. Geneva: UN Institute for Disarmament Research.Google Scholar
  63. US Government. 2015. The Department of Defense cyber strategy. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  64. Wittgenstein, L. 2009. Philosophical investigations, eds. P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, Rev. 4th ed. Chichester/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Yang, Guang-Zhong, Jim Bellingham, Pierre E. Dupont, Peer Fischer, Luciano Floridi, Robert Full, Neil Jacobstein, et al. 2018. The grand challenges of science robotics. Science robotics 3 (14): eaar7650. Scholar
  66. Zagare, F.C., and D.M. Kilgour. 2000. Perfect deterrence, Cambridge studies in international relations 72. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Internet Institute, Digital Ethics LabUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.The Alan Turing InstituteLondonUK

Personalised recommendations