CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 396Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyEuropean and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies

The Myth of Cyberwar: Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth

Open access
Gartzke, Erik·2013·International Security
DOI 10.1162/isec_a_00136
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Cyberwar has been described as a revolution in military affairs, a transformation of technology and doctrine capable of overturning the prevailing world order. This characterization of the threat from cyberwar, however, reflects a common tendency to conflate means and ends; studying what could happen in cyberspace (or anywhere else) makes little sense without considering how conflict over the internet is going to realize objectives commonly addressed by terrestrial warfare. To supplant established modes of conflict, cyberwar must be capable of furthering the political ends to which force or threats of force are commonly applied, something that in major respects cyberwar fails to do. As such, conflict over the internet is much more likely to serve as an adjunct to, rather than a substitute for, existing modes of terrestrial force. Indeed, rather than threatening existing political hierarchies, cyberwar is much more likely to simply augment the advantages of status quo powers.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/isec_a_00136

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Traditional terrorist organizations have been slow to adopt cyberspace as an attack platform.

    “This finding is likely to tamp down the prevalence of the cyberterrorism label, since traditional terrorist organizations have been slow to adopt cyberspace as an attack platform (Gartzke 2013).”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Gartzke 2013

    The “Additional Implications of Cyberwar” section argues that cyberattacks are poorly suited to generating terror and says terrorists may adopt them despite their likely ineffectiveness. It does not say whether traditional terrorist organizations have been slow to adopt cyberspace as an attack platform; searches for slow adoption and actual use found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. David M. Hollis, "Cyberwar Case Study: Georgia 2008," Small Wars Journal, Vol. 6 (January 2011), p. 2.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gartzke, E.
Affiliations
University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Gartzke, Erik
ORCID
Gartzke, Erik
Venue
International Security
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2013-10
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
41-73
ISSN
  • 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4804
DOI
10.1162/isec_a_00136
OpenAlex
W2110485449
Cited by
396
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 1
FWCI
84.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Security (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
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, Revolution in Military Affairs, means and ends, status quo power, cyber doctrine

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