Cybersecurity

What the Free World built from the rubble of World War II isn’t perfect. But it’s unquestionably better than the alternative being pushed by Xi and Putin—and it’s definitely worth defending.

The Just War Tradition can help both church and state navigate the moral complexities of cyber operations, guiding us toward proportionate responses

Force-short-of-war raises many moral questions, and jus ad vim has been an attempt to provide answers.

President Joe Biden’s China policy is coming into focus. As some of us predicted before his inauguration, he appears to be continuing the previous administration’s hard-line stance with Beijing—suggesting that the COVID-19 crisis marks a turning point akin to how the communist bloc’s attempt to seize West Berlin and South Korea solidified bipartisan commitment to waging the Cold War.

While the Trump administration has distanced itself from multilateralism with an “America First” approach, the Chinese communist regime has sought to promote and exploit multilateralism in pursuit of a “China First” policy, one that is at variance not only with America’s national interests, but with those of the rest of the world’s sovereign states as well.

Grey zone conflicts—like those in Ukraine and the South China Sea—are major threats both to a just peace and American security interests. The just war tradition needs to consider them more.

It may be easy to see issues of cybersecurity as mere issues of intellectual property or economic viability, but cybersecurity is fundamentally about protecting the rights and dignity of every human being.

The real 2020 questions about the US-China contest lie in how they influence the context for global trade, technology standards, military tools, and power projection.

What does NATO need to do going forward? The short answer: more and less.