WikiLeaks: Case Study for Cyberwar?

Wikileaks a cyberwar?
Name
Institution
Date
 
 

Wikileaks a cyberwar?
Cyberwar is a space battle aiming networks and computers. Cyberwar encompasses defensive and offensive techniques in cyber attacks, sabotage, and espionage. Wikileaks and founder Julian Assange have been in a battle with some large corporations and governments. As the battle continues, even the non-targeted businesses by activists will find themselves in a predicament of collateral damage because they are either mentioned rightly or wrongly to the WikiLeaks situation. The purpose of the paper is not to defend Wikileaks but to bring to attention in the way that commentator, journalists and former government officials have framed Wikileaks incidents and the remedies they have proposed.
The WikiLeaks.org website made waves in April this year released footage of a leaked gun in America from an army attack in the US that left two journalists dead in Baghdad. WikiLeaks has posted once again a diary of war in Afghan, and the footage made US army intelligence analyst to be arrested for leaking the footage (Clayton, 2010). US defense and intelligence are not happy and therefore hold a great rift with the organization and in turn, have termed WikiLeaks to be an organization with blood on its hands, and they have further claimed to provide documents for the names of informants to Afghan attacks.
WikiLeaks, as suggested by Michael Hayden, is an interesting cyberwar that in real sense would not be possible in a physical state.

In trying to comprehend cyberwar, of course, we aren’t sure of how it looks mostly because the victims and participants do not report its incidences (Clayton, 2010). If anything is brought to the attention, it is skewed and filtered for political purposes. Unfortunately, the situation all around WikiLeaks releases might be the major thing people need to consider in understanding how cyberwar occurs. The following are the situations to consider:
WikiLeaks gets information through using electronic means many cases its illegitimate to publish the documents they have .individuals would call for prosecution of state officials if Russia would announce they have all the information. The organization is a target for cyber operations, but a key weapon to actual weapons in a cyber campaign.
WikiLeaks assets are distributed over the world and can change location with speed to anywhere (Clayton, 2010). The website and its contents changed hosts several times and became impossible to take down and ultimately to take down WikiLeaks leader did not bear any success. TO suppress the website would mean affecting other networks which are innocent. This war has, therefore, become a conventional war.
There is some intelligence to be considered dangerous.EveryDNS became host/DNS source provider for WikiLeaks, yet EasyDNS was wrongly targeted on allegations that it brought interferences to press accounts (Clayton, 2010). Compared to conventional arms, WikiLeaks require very few people in its attacks therefore very cheap to support its significant operations. The technology has buttressed its roots to several nations of the ‘cyber club’ despite the fact that most of them do not have the legitimate restraints to which the present world is accustomed.
The challenge has to be how to deal with the warfare and when Gen Michael was interrogated in an interview he provided alternatives on methodologies to be deployed in dealing with the incidence (Clayton, 2010). A possible remedy provided was that if the organization were to object removing dangerous and incisive documents from its wall then the, US would consider forcing them to so. To consider is the military, US intelligence and law enforcement should operate alone and override international make-ups if other nations do not give in to diplomatic moves to shut down Wikileaks website (Clayton, 2010). A suggestion as provided is to arrest Assange on any of their territories without any key information or approval if they fail to hand over Assange to US authorities. Thiessen in the US recommended the use of a new US Cybercommand to carry out cyber-attacks with an aim to slump WikiLeaks. The WikiLeaks ability was going to be annihilated, and therefore the organization cannot disseminate information that puts them at risk.
The American president by then Obama should have also taken a strong stand to call upon the government of Iceland to shut the Website down and if Iceland cannot do it, then the US themselves should because they also got pertinent technology (Clayton, 2010). Tea party members of the US have suggested a nuclear retaliation as a possible remedy to cyber-attacks.
The most common and obvious player that is the US must consider communicative dimensions and avoid exploitation and thus should not consider itself unilateral and exempted from international laws (Clayton, 2010). Blatantly, a narrative to global threat provided by the US to nations such as Russia and China would be of no significant ramification if the US brazenly and vividly declares an offensive attack of Cyber on their own.
In conclusion, WikiLeaks is a real cyber war that is dangerous to human life and should be handled technically by the US government. The leaks of documents during times of war can lead to loss of enormous lives, and therefore this war on cyber posed with the Wikileaks should not be taken for granted. US should not respond offensively in cyberspace in that such responses would only result to adversaries that certainly would be used to justify development in the US. Therefore the government should consider dealing with WikiLeaks through their professionals to assist in shutting it down without affecting other networks and human lives.
 
 

References
Clayton, M. (2010, December 23). Did WikiLeaks bring on cyberwar? Maybe a cyber sit-in. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG.