"What are Legitimate Modern Casus Belli in the UM World?" Topic

What is the difference between war and peace in the Ultramodern world? I have been following the discourse on American media regarding the alleged cyber-hacking of the DNC during the recent election cycle and it is becoming clear that some in power think that just about any action against US interests is an act of war and perhaps a casus bellus/belli. Here are some of the actions which certain politicians are labelling as acts of war:

• Armed attacks (both overt and covert) by states.
• Armed attacks by non-state actors.
• Terrorist attacks supported by states.
• Terrorist attacks by non-state actors.
• Supporting terrorists or alleged terrorists in any material or financial way.
• Advocating political or religious ideas which are aligned with terrorist organisations.
• The trafficking of weapons or drugs to the USA.
• Sharing scientific or technological information with foreign groups and states even if the discovery or break through was made without outside public or private support.
• Cyber based interference with a state or key utilities and cyber based espionage.
• Cyber based extraction of embarrassing documents by public officials.
• Cyber or media based information and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors.
• Cyber or real-world influence of a foreign country's political and key economic apparatus.
• Advocating hostile ideas which inconvenience a state even if the speaker has no connection to an identified terrorist group or state.
• The use of the law to constrain the acts of states (lawfare).

While a good case can be made for the first three bullets on the list and a persuasive case might be made for points four and five, the rest seem well out of the purview of traditional war causation. Have key and powerful US political mindsets succumbed to a siege mentality where any act of challenge or defiance to the state and its interests constitutes an act of war? Why are so many new activities now added to the list of acts of war? Is this a Queeg mentality of the American elites who seem worried about a national or international insurrection against mono-polar US military and economic dominance? Is this symptomatic of a pan-American McCaine mutiny where old guard militarism is lashing out at any and all who challenge its right to dominate national and international affairs?

What are the legitimate casus belli for the modern world?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Only reason we are hearing about the Russian alleged cyber-hacking of the DNC during the recent election cycle is because the left media is still wondering why they lost the election. We hack them, they hack us, the Chinese hack everyone. If the DNC should have made sure they couldn't be hacked. I swear the media just wants another Watergate!

I disagree JM, I think cyber security/warfare is the most pressing area where we need to develop a strategy. If some third world country hacks us, we punch them in the mouth without much fear of retaliation. But what if the hacker is a major power? There has always been an idea that Americans are unwilling to accept losses, so what if the hack was coupled with a demand and a threat of physical retaliation if we hack back? What if Russia said, "Stay out of the Baltic, or we will crash your banking system? And if you retaliate, we will sink a Liberian registered cruise ship?" We are not willing to go to war over a hack into a political party. Are we willing to go to war over a credit card issuer? A bank? Amtrack? It's not what we believe, do they think we believe we have more to lose than them.

The Russian hacking incident is overpoliticized and overblown because it allegedly crossed the "red line" of aiming to influence the recent presidential election, even if had it not occurred the outcome of the election would be no different.

Never mind the fact that influencing political outcomes in foreign countries had always been part and parcel of the spy games that nations play. We tried to do the same thing to Russia by supporting and funding anti-Putinists in 2012 and Ukrainian nationalists. Propaganda that makes a candidate look bad comes in many forms, whether it's leaked emails or not.

Putin just happens to be a convenient scapegoat at the moment, despite the fact that Russian cyber-war capabilities pale in comparison to that of the Chinese.

It doesn't have to be a "war" for people to fight and die, so I guess the distinctions are getting muted.

There was a bigger story than Watergate, which most of the media chose to ignore, since it didn't fit their narrative and ideology.

State-backed and sponsored hacking and espionage/technology theft/meddling should indeed be considered acts of war, in in some cases.

Can't believe the basic infrastructure/utility controls are still connected to the internet, to permit this type of thing to happen remotely. They should be disconnected, and/or on their own secure, separate internet, so a single hacker, or team of them can't bring the entire country to its knees.

Can't believe the basic infrastructure/utility controls are still connected to the internet, to permit this type of thing to happen remotely. They should be disconnected, and/or on their own secure, separate internet, so a single hacker, or team of them can't bring the entire country to its knees.

Obviously spoken by someone who has no clue about the heavy reliance on interconnectivity that our modern world depends on.

The solution? Certainly not the above. Get aggressive about IT security is the best answer.

There was a bigger story than Watergate, which most of the media chose to ignore, since it didn't fit their narrative and ideology.

More tinfoil hat material….

As for the latest state sponsored hacking of the DNC. I sincerely doubt the impact was more than the proverbial drop in a bucket. Appears Putin is taking waaaay too much credit for waaaay too little (but he does that so often. And some are actually naive enough to give him credit…).

Weasel is correct when he states that there exist many sub-war levels of conflict which can involve the use of violent force producing loss of lives and destruction of material. For the purposes of this discussion let's roll all such sub-war acts of organised military force into the umbrella term of "war" unless others wish to further refine the definition.

What are legitimate casus belli in the UM world of 2017 and what actions do not rise to that level?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

As far as the hacks, I kind of want to see what the TMP responses would be if the intel community had said Putin was pro-Obama and had tried to interfere.

Somehow, I doubt it'd have been as dismissive ;-)

Well, I'm pro-Obama (and very anti-Trump) and I'm very dismissive of the DNC hacks. The proof of their effectiveness is the results. And by all reckoning, the results were…. meh…

It was an election year, rhetoric runs wild in election years

AIn't that the truth…. And some deluded sods actually believe that rhetoric…

"Somehow, I doubt it'd have been as dismissive."

Perhaps, but this all ignores the fact the US and Russia have conducted influence operations and perception management campaigns against each other and their satellites virtually since the inception of the Soviet Union.

And, contrary to popular belief, this isn't the first time influence operations have come up in the US media. The most well known in US history was in the 70s, came to a head when the US Army went too far in its domestic collection efforts trying to root out Soviet influence agents, ended with Reagan signing Executive Order 12334.

Happens all the time; we do it, they do it, the games States play. Hell, perhaps the best example was U.K. With the Cambridge 5. Most folks talk about Philby's compromises of SIS; it all started as a simple influence operation that grew into perhaps the most successful seeding operation in human history.

So no, this stuff (hacking and publishing emails on a website, creating fake news stories) is not an act of war. I do believe there are some hacks (Stuxnet, as an example) that are acts of war.

V/R,
Jack

What are the legitimate casus belli for the modern world?

Truthfully? Whatever a state thinks it can get away with…

Charlie 12:

Truthfully? Whatever a state thinks it can get away with…

So what casus belli are you comfortable allowing the state to get away with? Presuming we live in some sorts of democracies should we the people not have some idea of the limits which we will tolerate our states undertaking military action?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Jack:

Thanks for addressing the question. So if I understand you then if a foreign state introduces hostile and destructive malware into another state's computer systems which results in the destruction of property (tangible or intangible) then that is a casus belli. Influence operations, disinformation/information operations or propaganda, and espionage are not. That's a good start!

As to EO 12334 and the over-reach I had to do some digging and found this fascinating article:

link

Any other ideas out there?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Sure, nobody is going to die for what amounts to modern day spying and meddling but I guess my question to Rod is…

A Casus Belli for who?
In response to who?
What for?

The US invaded Iraq and that was that.
Russia entered Ukraine and that was that.
Russia and Georgia had it out and that was that.

In each case, no other major power interfered in any significant manner.

Ukraine/Caucasus/Iraq/Insert your favourite hot-spot here isn't worth the bones of a American/Russian/Chinese grenadier.

Major powers need to tread lightly with each other. To go to war against another major power they need to perceive an existential threat in its opponent's actions. In a modern military scenario the costs of war are too high, even without nukes being involved in the war. Indirect approaches are less riskier than direct comfrontation. US is involved in Iraq? Discreetly arm militias or provided them with tactical intel. Is it Russia flexing her muscles in Western Ukraine? Support Ukraine with weapons, intelligence and diplomacy. Let your opponent get entangled into a Third World mess, and watch it from the barrier while making the occasional noise at the UN regarding violations of human rights -it makes you look good and allow you to occupy the moral high ground.

We might ask "Casus belli acceptable to the population" but the population tends to support a war.

Has there been an instance in the past hundred years or so, where public protest prevented a nation from going to war?

I have a pretty decent understanding, e.g. "clue", but as long as everything is interconnected, it is very vulnerable, so clearly some need to rethink things, and consider cutting out the vulnerability completely, or at least as much as can be reasonably done.

I suspect there are lots of ways to do that, without adversely affecting ops and service.

Has there been an instance in the past hundred years or so, where public protest prevented a nation from going to war?

Not exactly prevented, but public outrage in Spain in 2003-2004 against the participation of Spanish armed forces in Iraq lead to the troops being retreated from there by Socialist president Rodriguez Zapatero, shortly after winning the election.

Also, it can be argued that public opinion opposition to intervention in Russia tied the hands of France, UK and US governments in 1918-1919 and allowed for the victory of Communists in the Russian Civil War.

Has there been an instance in the past hundred years or so, where public protest prevented a nation from going to war?

1905, the dissolution of the union between Sweden and Norway came close to a war but large scale protests by the Swedish Labour party and organisations played a part in given the "doves" the mandate they needed to settle things by negotiation. Had there been popular support for a war one would have happend.

"As far as the hacks, I kind of want to see what the TMP responses would be if the intel community had said Putin was pro-Obama and had tried to interfere."

Or more fittingly pro-Clinton. There would be much wailing and nashing of teeth. :)

The real story of the hacking isn't so much the effect on the election (though I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the effects and reach of it) but the attitude of not only our leaders but the right wing base in general is that it helped them win, so it's not an issue at all.

That we should thank Russia for spying on us. That they're not bad guys at all and just want to help us clean up our government. That the massive conflicts of interest of the P.E. and his cabinet and debt that he almost certainly has to the Russians is nothing to care about. That even bringing any of this up is an attack on the P.E. and his legitimacy.

Not to mention Trump's antagonism towards the intelligence agencies for being critical of Russia to the point of wanting to dismantle the CIA and our intelligence apparatus for even bringing it up.

Why go to war with Russia? We need to clean house here or face dissolution. Putin is only too happy to help our own right wing weaken us from the inside. I thought they were supposed to be the party of sovereignty. :)

Might be worth considering how many of those activities the USA engages in.

I mean 'supporting terrorists in a meaningful way' could have got the USA in trouble with the UK in the 70s and 80s given perceived inertia in dealing with Noraid.

Daniel – appreciate the example.

Basileus – Good calls though in those specific examples it was walking back a military engagement that was already underway.

Weasel asked the questions:

A Casus Belli for who?
In response to who?
What for?

1) Any western democracy where the electorate has a measure of control over their own state and the capacity to protest against and/or remove an unpopular government through democratic and peaceful means.
2) In response to another state alleged or proven to have done any of the items listed above beyond the first five points on the list above.
3) For the advancement of one state's interests at the expense of another's.

Weasel further stated:

We might ask "Casus belli acceptable to the population" but the population tends to support a war.

Yes, that is what I meant, for the state is supposed to represent the will of the demos (at least in theory) in a democracy. Populations in the last century or so have been often been led into war by powerful propaganda issued from their own states. A better metric is wars which have been ended prematurely by the populace abandoning support for the war. Of those there have been many.

Weasel asked:

Has there been an instance in the past hundred years or so, where public protest prevented a nation from going to war?

Ouch! That's a tough one because if the populace was successful, no war occurred and the absence of a war might be attributed to other factors. As mentioned above, populations forcing their states to withdraw from ongoing wars is perhaps a better metric. In the last century some examples are Russia in WWI, Italy in WWII, the USA in Indochina, the Czechoslovakian state in 1968 which triggered the Soviet intervention and the Soviet withdrawal from the Afghan War in 1989. For examples of populations preempting wars that might have been, the collapse of the communist Polish state in 1989 which might have triggered a civil war or a Baltic War in c.1990 that never was could be possible cases. But since these are hypotheticals it is hard to make the cases stick.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

There are many things that can be done. Before anyone goes into a "shooting" war. And that should be the very last resort. But sometimes events take over, for better or worse.

Might be worth considering how many of those activities the USA engages in.

I'd expect nothing less from you to post this. Business a usual …

Truthfully? Whatever a state thinks it can get away with…

Agreed … and a very realistic, pragmatic POV, IMO. But that seems to be the worldwide norm, in many cases. But not all cases.

But regardless … did I miss Bill saying we can talk politics so openly like this ? Just say'n, I've be DH'd for less in the past …

For representative, free market, democracies, with an uncensored media, post-invasion of Iraq, the final arbiter is public opinion. As an aside modern politicians like to talk about 'acts of war' but perhaps hypocritically they are extremely unwilling to actually 'declare war'….

You do kinda need to discuss "legitimate" causus belli to discuss wargaming, L4.

I'm reasonably sure that "mere" information manipulation wouldn't be seen as a valid causus belli by most Americans, unless it was something on the lines of the Zimmerman Telegram from WW1. And maybe not even then.

However, an attack on the power grid or similar probably would be considered a valid causus belli, especially if there were fatalities.

Historically, an energy embargo was seen as causus belli (Japan's response to the US petroleum embargo).

Good point Lion and I agree … but previously some of the posts here may have been considered "political". Now I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but having been DH'd so very often in the past. Sometimes I get a little "jumpy" …

L4

So far the discussion has mostly stood as academic and non-partisan. I think that's why Bill hasn't intervened yet.

Ouch! That's a tough one because if the populace was successful, no war occurred and the absence of a war might be attributed to other factors.

That's a good observation, Rod. It is easier to spot an unpopular war than understand when a war was stopped from being started by public opinion alone. Maybe Munich Agreements in 1938 with Nazi Germany can be considered as attempts to avoid war in order to satisfy public opinions in France and Great Britain. After the accords, we know that Chamberlain was lionized by British public and press as the savior of the peace "in our time". And yet, we don't know for sure how much of the accomodation policy that Britain and France followed with Germany was due to public opinion or to other causes.

Of course if you include trying to interfere with the dmeocratic processes of government, the UK now has a decent excuse to turn Tel Aviv into a pool of molten glass…..

link

Interference on the cybersphere is not an act of war. If it were we would be shooting long ago. It has to fall into the category of "virtual warfare", kind of like that Star Trek original series episode where the two planets waged a computerized war of strike and retaliate, and then the "casualties" walked into the death chambers as their civic duty to prevent the real thing from breaking out again. We are well on the track of having that sort of thing happen! Oh, the casualties in real human lives are a ways off. But the thinking about "this means war!" is right up there. Just look at the rhetoric from the asserted Russian hack of the election.

Actual strikes that damage and kill are and will always be acts of war. Sanctions and regulating against the politico-economic interests of "the enemy" must remain the alternative for all actions less than overt acts of aggression. If we don't keep this clear divide we will be sending troops everywhere for every stupid reason. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in the future, or else the Medνa will incite further violence for every trivial thing, by making it into something not trivial…………..

L4

So far the discussion has mostly stood as academic and non-partisan. I think that's why Bill hasn't intervened yet.

I agree completely … Like I said I've got "TMP PTSD" from being DH'd so very often.

Interference on the cybersphere is not an act of war.

I would qualify this observation. While it is true that most interferences in cybersphere are not, and should not, be considered acts of war others are more harmful. It's not the same to provoke a massive leak of classified information from a political party, to try to influence the elections, than, say, try to hack into the power grid of a nation and shut it down. Both are acts with hostile intent, but while the first is difficult to consider it as an act of war, the second is way more harmful and could, legitimately, be treated as an act of war.

Respond in kind. Cyber attacks beget cyber attacks, bullet begets bullet, bomb begets bomb

Casus Belli are what you need to convince your population and perhaps your allies to incur the losses a war will entail.

The alleged hacking is dangerous ground for TMP because it can't not get political.

I don't follow the strategy behind making up this kind of story at all [I assume it is made up since if they had evidence they would release it – the old 'classified' excuse does not cut any ice]. It seems to be designed to undermine Trump's legitimacy and provide a fig-leaf for the DNC/establishments failure to defeat Trump's bogus populist appeal. [Leave aside he got fewer votes overall and would never have won the electoral college if enormous numbers of votes hadn't been suppressed.]

In the end they give Trump a chance to be right when he dismisses the claims.

People are entitled to be 'for' Trump of course but I doubt many will remain so in 6-12 months let alone 4 years. Time will tell. I was never very enamoured of Obama either and Clinton [both Mr and Mrs] are both contemptible.

2016 has been a very dark year for democracy all round. People are losing faith in the processes and even the very 'notion'. My abiding opinion of US democracy is that it ought to be worth a try [to copycat Gandhi's quip on Western Civilization]

It seems there is a consensus that the hacking by a foreign state or organisation of key utilities and critical control systems such as electrical power sharing systems or air-traffic control systems is among the list of legitimate casus belli. What about hacking into less key systems like shutting down media platforms such as the Internet of television/radio broadcasts in a foreign state or interfering with an emergency broadcast system?

The material leaked during the last US election cycle was embarrassing and might compromise some individuals legally. Would the leaking by a foreign state or organisation of information which shows a state institution to be operating illegally at a wide-spread level against its own citizenry and laws and which triggers public unrest and civic strife be considered a casus belli? Suppose that Iceland releases information which strongly implicates the Mexican federal government of conducting a widespread and systematic assassination programme against its own people and this disclosure triggers a collapse of public order and the ascension of an authoritarian military junta. Could the junta use the Icelandic disclosure as a legitimate casus belli to attack Iceland indirectly or directly?

Suppose Russia hacks and exposes a widespread, sector-wide banking fraud in the USA which goes right up to the Federal Reserve, which also implicates both major political parties strongly of complicity and which thus triggers a stock market crash, a banking crash worse than the 2007-2009 crash and public unrest and widespread rioting in the out of doors. Is that a legitimate casus belli if a foreign state exposes illegal activity in a corrupt foreign state?

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.