Editor’s Note: This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human. As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions. We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional formats or writing style that are present in this article. This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article. For more information click here.
Jason Atwell is an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and currently employed at Google Public Sector. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.
National Security Situation: Cyber in Area Denial in Littoral Environments
Date Originally Written: April 9, 2024.
Date Originally Published: May 6, 2024.
Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a tech employee and reserve military member who believes in the operational integration of cyber capabilities to achieve effects across warfare domains.
Background: Littoral environments, the areas where land meets sea, are increasingly contested as potential flashpoints for conflict. Adversaries seek to deny access, impede freedom of navigation, and project power in these complex battlegrounds. Cyber operations offer a means to disrupt adversary capabilities, gain an asymmetric advantage, and support conventional operations in these critical zones.
Significance: Effective cyber operations within littoral environments hold direct implications for national security. Successful area denial strategies by adversaries can destabilize regions, disrupt global trade routes, and challenge the ability of nations to defend their coastlines and interests. These effects ripple outwards to economic security, diplomatic relationships, and the broader balance of power.
Option #1: Integrated Cyber-Enabled Maneuver
Develop and operationalize concepts for integrating cyber capabilities tightly into naval and joint force maneuver. This includes:
Kinetic and Cyber Effects: Pairing cyberattacks with conventional strikes to disable adversary command and control, degrade sensors, and disrupt logistics networks.
Cyber-Enabled Deception: Using cyber techniques to create false sensor readings, mislead adversaries, and create tactical advantages during maneuvers.
Resilient Networks: Hardening communication networks against cyber intrusion to ensure seamless command and control in a contested environment.
Risk: Tight cyber integration within maneuver warfare increases reliance on networks, potentially creating vulnerabilities if those networks are compromised. Furthermore, offensive cyber actions could lead to escalation from adversaries.
Gain: Integrated cyber capabilities augment the lethality and agility of conventional forces within littorals. This enhances deterrence, complicates adversary decision-making, and creates a decisive advantage for power projection.
Option #2: Cyber-Focused Area Denial
Use cyber capabilities as a primary means of denying adversaries freedom of action within littoral zones. This focuses on:
Disrupting Adversary Systems: Targeting enemy ships, coastal defenses, and communication hubs with cyberattacks to impede operations and coordination.
Cyber-enabled Mine Warfare: Augmenting traditional minefields with cyber capabilities to selectively target and disable specific adversary vessels.
Defensive Cyber Posture: Prioritizing network hardening and rapid response protocols to ensure the integrity of defensive infrastructure within littoral zones.
Risk: Over-reliance on cyber-focused area denial could neglect conventional force development, creating an imbalance in capabilities. It also raises ethical concerns regarding cyberattacks as a primary means of warfare.
Gain: Prioritizing cyber as a tool of area denial offers a potentially cost-effective and asymmetric approach to counter adversaries and deter aggression within these key environments.
The Need for Balance and Adaptability
Neither option exists in a vacuum. An effective approach demands tailored strategies blending elements of both, alongside ongoing investments in conventional force readiness. The ever-evolving nature of cyber warfare emphasizes the critical need for rapid innovation, flexible command and control structures, and a culture that values inter-domain integration.
Key Considerations
International Law: Offensive cyber operations within international waters will need to be carefully aligned with legal frameworks and evolving norms.
Technological Edge: Maintaining a technological advantage in cyber capabilities is crucial for successful execution in contested littorals.
Ethical Considerations: The responsible and proportional use of cyber capabilities in warfare must be at the forefront of strategic and operational planning.
Effective integration of cyber operations into area denial strategies within littoral environments offers a powerful tool to deter aggression, protect national interests, and shape the future battlespace.
Endnotes:
The following prompt was given to Gemini by Jason Atwell:
—–BEGIN PROMPT—–
Write a maximum 1,000 word article on national security as it relates to the information environment using the following template: “National Security Situation: Cyber in Area Denial in Littoral Environments. Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a tech employee and reserve military member who believes in leveraging cyber in realistic operational ways to achieve effects in other domains. Background: A tightly-worded description of the national security situation and the driving forces[1]. Significance: Why does this national security situation matter? What is the impact? To whom does the national security situation matter? Option #1: Something that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation[2]. Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #1? Note: Risks can take a variety of forms. Here are some examples: – Political (e.g. ruin a reputation or alliances or cause distrust in the international community) – People (e.g. military or civilian deaths) – Resources (e.g. spending money on an endless war) – Organizational (e.g. focusing on counterinsurgency so long that you forget how to fight a conventional war) – Balancing present and future challenges (e.g. if we do X now, we won’t be able to do Y in the future, and Y has worse ramifications in the future than X does now) Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #1? Option #2: Something different from Option #1 that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. Note: The focus is on being DIFFERENT from Option #1. As an example, cyber could play a role in degrading command and control or undermining adversary confidence in their systems, thereby helping conventional forces deter aggression. This is especially critical in littoral environments, where technology will play an outsized role in enabling effective coordination over long distances far removed from support structures and bases.
—–END PROMPT—–
