The Future of the Military and their Conflicts

Invading foreign countries is old school. Now you can just hack a government website from your living room. 

BY: KHALIL ADEN

With the innovation that we have seen from technology over the years, businesses have slowly adjusted to the times. New tools have been added to create a better experience for their consumers. Take the NFL viewer experience as an example. When watching a game, there are visual prompts on your television screen that help guide you in your experience. Twenty years ago, if you were lost as to what was going on, you either had to look to your football expert in the living room or just continue watching and hope that you caught on. Nowadays, even something as little as an app has become a part of the norm for companies. With new standards being introduced into practices, businesses have always adapted. But can the same be said for a different institution such as the military? 

Nations have always had an army that protected and carried missions out of the best interest of the country. The tools of war have adapted through time with military tactics changing drastically from 300 B.C. to the present day. At one point, chariots were considered peak military weapons. Compare that to military drones of today, and a chariot seems as useful as a rock. Military tactics have entered a new era with the recent usage of cyber warfare. Cyberwarfare is war from the computer networks of a state country or organization that targets the systems of other countries. Whether or not this form of an assault is a viable option to replace other military tactics is debatable. The sample size of these attacks is small. One of the most prominent attacks in recent years would be the Russiagate scandal that impacted the U.S election. Election meddling in the past was a much more complicated process. If you wanted to meddle in a foreign country’s elections, you had to expose yourself more by investing in campaigns as well as using your political power to force change. 

In 2017, the Mueller investigation concluded that Russia were the perpetrators of a cyber attack on the United States. This attack was one of the more famous cases of election meddling taking place in North America in recent years. Russia had created fake Facebook accounts that were spreading lies about the Presidential race, explicitly targeting Hillary Clinton, which led to widespread conspiracies, rumours, and lies. This attack reached over 126 million Americans who viewed this misinformation, which is equivalent to a third of the U.S population that was influenced in the elections by Russia. 

Now in comparison to a more traditional approach, it’s easier to influence change in another country today without having to leave your own. Servers from Russia were able to dictate the outcome of an election in another country. For Russia to be questioned or held accountable for their actions, you would have to go to Russia to charge them for foreign electoral interference. In terms of cost, Russia spent a measly $160,000 on the ads and articles on Facebook, according to Jared Kushner. When you look at the expense of war, it’s unbelievable that Russia only invested that small amount and changed the course of a country and government. Countries pump Millions into their Military industries to maintain their strength and provide their army with the best weapons and equipment as possible. 

When you compare Russias’ success to the U.S’  in imperialism, specifically the U.S and their role in the Vietnam war,  Russia was more successful with fewer resources. Russia was able to push its political influence by helping President Trump win the election. In contrast, the U.S failed at forcefully turning Vietnam into a fully democratic state. What Russia did in the U.S. is similar to what the U.S. wanted to do in Vietnam. The U.S. spent $168 billion, which is equivalent to $1 trillion in today’s currency on the Vietnam War to stop the spread of communism in South Asia. Their plan consisted of aiding South Vietnam with weapons, equipment, and the U.S. military in their battle. The funds that they invested did not equate to success with over 56,000 U.S. soldiers dead, the U.S. decided to pull their troops out, which led to North Vietnam creating the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Today, countries now have the option to take a different approach when wanting to change the politics of another nation. The overt tactic of invading or supplying countries can be debated against as the best option with the recent success of Russiagate. Both of these attacks were forms of imperialism. Rather than invading the U.S, Russia had used the internet to further their strength in the country. 

What makes a cyberattack of this kind so potent is the fact that you focus on disconnecting people from their nation. You don’t force an ideology down their throat, but instead, you slowly guide them to their demise. Many people in the U.S. today think that the Russian interference in the election is a conspiracy and don’t believe it took place. A vast majority of those people are Republicans who say that Robert Muller’s investigation was fueled by anti-Trump bias and thus loses its credibility. 

To determine how long the effects of an attack like Russiagate last, you would have to look at the policies that the president implements. Look at the Muslim ban; putting a target on people from a particular religion indirectly states how the country feels about those people. With there being a ban, Muslim citizens who travel to those banned countries will have a hard time making their way back regardless of citizenship. The border policies have been keeping migrants in terrible conditioned camps. After examining these living conditions, the United Nations concluded that these detention centres were not suitable for detaining immigrants, let alone children. These effects aren’t the goal of the cyberattack but instead are apart of a chain reaction. The issues above not only affect the U.S relations with other countries but, more importantly, its citizens, which puts more dividers within the state. 

What Russiagate in 2016 proved was that massive scale attacks on electoral processes were a viable option via cyberattacks. As of today, Russia has yet to be held accountable for their actions in the election, which sets the example for countries that it’s impossible to be held responsible without confrontation. These cyberattacks can attack anything that relies on computer infrastructure ranging from something as little as a government website to the electrical grid of a nation. The possibilities for these attacks are versatile and safer due to the lack of contact. With leading-edge technology being integrated with nations’ security and infrastructures, the tactics of warfare will soon adjust to these changes.