How Probable is Cyber War? Bringing IR Theory Back In to the Cyber Conflict Debate
Abstract
Many well-established explanations for war suggest that cyber weapons have a greater chance of being used offensively than other kinds of military technologies. This response article introduces a research agenda for the study of cyber war, and offers an example – principal-agent problems in cyber operations – to demonstrate how rigorous theoretical and empirical work may proceed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most scholars working on cyber issues argue that cyber capabilities are unlikely to be critical to warfare.
“Most scholars working on cyber issues, however, argue that cyber capabilities are unlikely to be critical to warfare ( Junio 2013, Rid 2012).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Junio 2013
Policy makers believe there is an offensive advantage in cyberspace, which could generate biases in favor of offensive military cyber operations.
“Regardless of the reality, policy makers believe there is an offensive advantage in cyberspace, which could generate biases in favor of offensive military cyber operations ( Junio 2013, p. 130).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Junio 2013
Bureaucratic politics could make cyber war more likely due to principal-agent problems that make complete control difficult and the belief of attackers that they can keep cyber conflicts from escalating into the kinetic realm.
“Due to principal-agent problems that make complete control difficult, and the belief of attackers that they can keep cyber conflicts from escalating into the kinetic realm, cyber wars may be more likely than traditional conflicts ( Junio 2013).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Junio 2013
Cites
Rid, T. (2012) · Journal of Strategic Studies · doi:10.1080/01402390.2011.608939 · Cited by 716 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of China on Cybersecurity: Fiction and Friction
Lindsay, J. R. (2015) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00189 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics?
Horowitz, M. C. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“Regardless of the reality, policy makers believe there is an offensive advantage in cyberspace, which could generate biases in favor of offensive military cyber operations ( Junio 2013, p. 130).”
Background
- Authors
- Junio, T. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Junio, Timothy J.
- Venue
- Journal of Strategic Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 125-133
- ISSN
- 0140-2390 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-937X
- OpenAlex
- W1973550519
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 25 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 19.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Strategic Studies (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Pennsylvania
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies
- Keywords
- cyber warfare, cyber conflict, international relations theory, principal-agent problem, cyber operations, military technology, research agenda
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
