No abstract

No abstract

Physical damage resulting from cyber operations continues to reinforce the “cyber doom” narrative across societies dependent on information and communication technology. This is paradoxical given the absence of severe, lasting consequences from cyber operations and the relative restraint exercised by cyber-capable actors. Moreover, the mass adoption of vulnerable digital systems raises questions whether or not individuals’ dread cyber insecurity is as severe as we are often asked to believe. Employing a survey experiment, we find that the assumptions of the “cyber doom” narrative are misleading. While sensitivity to cybersecurity threats is shaped by negative information, the onset of panic and dread is not a given. The impact of novel environmental circumstances on opinion formation is shaped by the individuals’ embeddedness in modern digital society. Consequently, long-term exposure to any invasive development mitigates the emotional response associated with it, normalizing novel threats over time. We present evidence suggesting that the unique characteristics of a development (i.e., web-technology proliferation) matter in opinion formation, as sensitivity to digital threats to the polity is grounded on personal threat sensitivity. Thus, policymakers can expect to see public responses to new national security threats manifest through the lens of prevailing social and political narratives.

In studying topics in cyber conflict and cyber-security governance, scholars must ask—arguably more so than has been the case with any other emergent research agenda—where the epistemological and ontological value of different methods lies. This article describes the unique, dual methodological challenges inherent in the multifaceted program on global cyber-security and asks how problematic they are for scholarly efforts to construct knowledge about digital dynamics in world affairs. I argue that any answer to this question will vary depending on how one perceives the social science enterprise. While traditional dualistic perspectives on social science imply unique challenges for researcher, a monistic perspective of Weberian objectivity does not. Regardless of one’s perspective, however, the most important steps to be taken at the level of the research program are clearly those focused on constructing the trappings of community. To this end, I outline steps that might be taken to develop a range of community-building and -supporting mechanisms that can simultaneously support a micro-foundational approach to research and expose community elements to one another. Doing this stands to better opportunities for the production of knowledge and direct researchers towards fruitful avenues whilst shortening gaps between the ivory tower and the real world.

How might rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technologies affect the construction and application of military power? Despite the emerging importance of AI systems in defense modernization initiatives, there has been little empirical or theoretical study from the perspective of the international relations (IR) and security studies fields. This article addresses this shortcoming by describing AI developments and assessing the manner in which AI is likely to affect military organizations. We focus specifically on military power, as new methods and modes thereof will alter the constitution of security relationships around the world and affect the ability of states to bargain, signal, and influence in the twenty-first century. We argue that, though rapid adoption of AI technologies stands to transform states’ ways of war on a number of fronts, an AI revolution brings with it new forms of risk that must be reconciled with the widespread integration of algorithmic systems across military functions. Where new technology promises a transformation of the character of military power in some veins, it also complicates the cognitive aspects of decision-making and bureaucratic interactions in security institutions. The speed with which complex integrated AI systems enable entirely new modes of war also stands to detach human agency in a potentially destabilizing fashion from the conduct of warfare on several fronts. Preventing the negative externalities of these “ghosts in the machine” will involve significant efforts to educate decision makers, promote accountability, and restrain irresponsible employment of AI.