ArticlePDF Available

Electronic warfare in cyberspace

June 2015
Security and Defence Quarterly 2(7):22-35

June 2015
2(7):22-35

DOI:10.5604/23008741.1189275

License
CC BY-NC-ND

Authors:

Zsolt Haig

National University of Public Service

No caption available

…

No caption available

…

Figures - uploaded by Zsolt Haig

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Zsolt Haig

Content may be subject to copyright.

Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND

Content may be subject to copyright.

ELECTRONIC WARFARE IN CYBERSPACE

Col. Prof. Zsolt HAIG, PhD, Ing

Faculty of Military Sciences and Ofcer Training

National University of Public Service, Budapest, Hungary

Abstract

e study outlines a new military operational environment consisting of the cyberspace

and electromagnetic spectrum. It interprets the convergence between them and their

common domain as well as shows the operations within it. Based on a US military concept,

it describes the place and role of electronic warfare in cyberspace.

Keywords: Electronic warfare; Cyberspace; Electromagnetic spectrum; Cyber

electromagnetic operations.

Introduction

Today we live in a networked world. e proliferation of information technologies

is changing the way humans interact with each other and their environment.

e mobility has an increased role in our rapid life. Mobile communication,

mobile internet, navigation, etc. are taking place with wireless connection in the

electromagnetic spectrum.

e modern armed forces operate in an increasingly wireless network-based

world too. e armed forces use the electromagnetic spectrum in a wide range

for communication, weapon control, intelligence, surveillance, navigation

and force protection. Nowadays, there are numerous electronic devices with

diﬀerent types and designation on the battleﬁeld. ese devices work in this

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

- This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. - This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. - This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. - This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited. -

information- and electromagnetic environment, which makes it necessary to

intensify the interoperability capabilities between them. e mass using of info-

communications technologies on the battleﬁeld requires military forces to operate

in cyberspace and leverage the electromagnetic spectrum.

Electronic warfare

Electronic warfare plays a very important role in any military operations. All

service components conduct and integrate electronic warfare into operations to

support missions. Electronic warfare is integrated and synchronised with lethal

ﬁres in order to disrupt and increase the enemy’s decision making reaction time.

It supports:

• the force protection function by defending friendly electromagnetic

communications and non-communications systems;

• the situation development, target development and acquisition, battle damage

assessment, and force protection functions by identifying, locating, and

exploiting enemy emitters;

• countermeasures against command and control by disrupting, degrading, and

neutralising the eﬀectiveness of the enemy’s radios, radars, navigation, etc.

Electronic warfare supports friendly forces with diﬀerent kinds of information

about the enemy’s electronic systems. Based on this information, the commander

is able to recognise the organisations, capabilities and possible activities of

the adversary in the close future. In addition, electronic warfare has methods,

activities and devices to reduce the enemy’s capabilities in the full electromagnetic

spectrum. [1]

“Electronic warfare is military action involving the use of electromagnetic and

directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy”. [2]

Electronic warfare consists of three main areas:

• electronic warfare support measures (or electronic warfare support);

• electronic countermeasures (or electronic attack) and

• electronic protection (see ﬁgure. 1).

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

Electronic warfare support measures consist of actions to search for, intercept,

identify, and locate or localise sources of intentional and unintentional radiated

electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition,

targeting, planning and conduct of future operations. Electronic warfare support

measures provide information required for decisions involving electronic warfare

operations and other tactical actions such as threat avoidance, targeting, and

homing. Electronic warfare support measures data can be used to produce signals

intelligence (SIGINT), provide targeting for electronic or destructive attack, and

produce measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT). [1] [2]

When considering the later detailed issues, signals intelligence must be mentioned

in this context. e most important issue is that just like electronic warfare, signals

intelligence also operates in the electromagnetic spectrum. Electronic warfare

support measures and signals intelligence missions use the same resources and

data collection methods. ey diﬀer in the purpose for the task, the detected

information’s intended use, the degree of analytical eﬀort expended, the detail of

information provided, and the timelines required.

Electronic countermeasures involve the use of electromagnetic energy, directed

energy, or homing guidance weapons to attack electronic systems, facilities, or

equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralising, or destroying enemy combat

capability. It includes actions taken to prevent or reduce an enemy's eﬀective use

of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as jamming and electronic deception, as

well as employment of weapons that use either electromagnetic or directed energy

to destroy the enemy’s electronic assets. [1] [2]

Electronic countermeasures can be oﬀensive or defensive. Oﬀensive activities are

generally conducted at the initiative of friendly forces. Examples include:

• jamming an enemy’s radar or command and control systems;

• using antiradiation missiles to suppress an enemy’s air defence system;

• using electronic deception techniques to confuse an enemy’s intelligence,

surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, and

• using directed energy weapons to disable an enemy’s equipment or capability. [3]

Defensive electronic countermeasures protect personnel, facilities, capabilities

and equipment. Examples include self-protection and force protection measures

such as use of:

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

• expendables (e.g., chaﬀs, ﬂares, and active decoys);

• radar jammers;

• towed decoys;

• infrared countermeasures systems, and

• counter radio controlled improvised explosive device (RC-IED) jammers. [3]

Electronic protection ensures the friendly use of the electromagnetic spectrum

with special measures, techniques and activities. It consists of passive and active

means taken to protect personnel, facilities, and equipment from any eﬀects of

friendly unintended interference or enemy employment of electronic warfare that

degrades, neutralises, or destroys friendly combat capability. [1] [2]

Electronic warfare employs many tactics, techniques and procedures to achieve

its aim. ese are illustrated in ﬁgure 1.

Source: edited by the author.

Figure 1. Electronic warfare: areas and capabilities

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

Convergence between cyberspace and electromagnetic

spectrum

Using electromagnetic energy and operating in cyberspace are also essential to

modern warfare. Military forces use wireless computer networks to coordinate

operations, use air and ground sensors to detect and locate the enemy, use radios

to communicate with each other and use electronic jammers to blind enemy

radars or disrupt their communications. With wireless routers or tactical radios

part of almost every computer network, cyberspace and the electromagnetic

spectrum now form one continuous, coherent environment. e electromagnetic

spectrum and cyberspace as a speciﬁc information environment are fundamental

to military operations, so that we must treat it on a par with the traditional

domains of land, sea, air, and space. Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert,

stated this connection: „In fact, future conﬂicts will not be won simply by using

the electromagnetic spectrum and cyberspace, they will be won within the

electromagnetic spectrum and cyberspace.” [4]

According to JP 3-13.1”the electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies of

electromagnetic radiation from zero to inﬁnity. It is divided into 26 alphabetically

designated bands. [2] In a more detailed interpretation, “the entire electromagnetic

spectrum, from the lowest to the highest frequency (longest to shortest

wavelength), includes all radio waves (e.g., commercial radio and television,

microwaves, radar), infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays,

and gamma rays.” [5]

e term cyberspace was ﬁrst used by the author William Gibson in his book,

Neuromancer. In this science-ﬁction novel, Gibson described cyberspace as

the creation of a computer network that is often used for the virtual world or

reality as well. Based on the Encyclopedia Britannica,, „cyberspace is an amorphous,

supposedly “virtual” world created by links between computers, Internet-enabled

devices, servers, routers, and other components of the internet’s infrastructure.” [6]

e military interpretation of cyberspace is diﬀerent from the above mentioned

civilian approach. Referring to the deﬁnition of the document “National Military

Strategy for Cyberspace Operations” of the USA, cyberspace is “a domain

characterised by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical

infrastructures.” [7]

e US Department of Defense modiﬁed this deﬁnition in 2008. “Cyberspace

is a global domain within the information environment consisting of the

interdependent network of information technology infrastructures and resident

data, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems,

and embedded processors and controllers.” [8].

As it appears from the deﬁnitions, the military view expands the cyberspace

and understands it by not only the internet and computer network, but other

networked systems which manage information. While the ﬁrst deﬁnition

emphasises processes in cyberspace and stresses the electromagnetic spectrum,

the second one focuses on the means operating in it, but does not emphasise

the medium of the network contact. In a military environment, the maneuvering

forces mostly use the electromagnetic spectrum for communication or to build

up computer networks (e.g., tactical internet).

To summarise the above, we can accept Daniel Kuehl’s deﬁnition: “Cyberspace is an

operational domain whose distinctive and unique character is framed by the use of

electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to create, store, modify, exchange,

and exploit information via inter-connected information and communication

technology-based systems and their associated infra-structures.” [9]

An important feature of cyberspace is that networked info-communication systems

operate in it using electromagnetic spectrum and/or wired connection. Diﬀerent

electronic information management processes (electronic data gathering, data

processing, data storage, communication) are going on in these systems. e

stress is on the network, but it is necessary to note that not all devices that operate

in the electromagnetic spectrum are in the network in the battlespace. ere

are stand alone devices too (e.g., stand alone unattended sensors, expendable

jammers, radio controlled improvised explosion devices, etc.). So cyberspace is

not equal to the electromagnetic spectrum, it can only be applied to networked

electronic systems. As a result, the two domains - namely the cyberspace and

electromagnetic spectrum - approach each other and there is a convergence

between them.

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

Cyberspace exists across the other domains of land, sea, air, and space. It is the

use of electronic technologies to create cyberspace and use the electromagnetic

spectrum that sets cyberspace apart from the other domains, and which makes

cyberspace unique. [10] One main characteristic of cyberspace is that it cannot

exist without being able to exploit the naturally existing electromagnetic

spectrum. Without it, not only would millions of info-communications

technologies (ICT) be unable to communicate with each other, but the info-

communications technologies themselves would be unable to function. Moreover,

info-communications networks are also dependent upon the electromagnetic

spectrum for their essential connectivity via radio frequency. [11]

On the battleﬁeld nowadays, such networks of electronic devices (radios, radars,

navigation devices, battleﬁeld combat identiﬁcation systems and computers) are

established where it is very diﬃcult to separate the system components. We have

to interpret these by all means as a complex system that has a common operational

environment. On the battleﬁeld these network systems (mostly as a mobile setup)

use electromagnetic energy to collect, store and transmit data and information.

So the electromagnetic spectrum receives its place in the military interpretation

of the cyberspace together with the virtual space created by wired networks.

Cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum are part of the information

environment. „e information environment is deﬁned as the virtual and physical

space in which information is received, processed and conveyed. It consists of the

information itself and information systems.” [12] e information environment

has three interrelated dimensions:

• physical dimension;

• informational dimension and

• cognitive dimension.

e information environment is the arena of information operations, in which

information based activities are conducted in the physical-, informational- and

cognitive dimensions. e electromagnetic spectrum and cyberspace reside within

the physical and informational dimensions of the information environment.

e cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum are a place of warfare, equivalent

and similar to the land- air- sea- and space theatre. As you can characterise the sea

theatre on the sea surface- or underwater operations - so you can feature the air

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

theatre with operations in the air, the same way cyberspace can be characterised

with networked electronic systems and with use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

(ﬁgure 2.)

Source: edited by the author.

Figure 2. Interpretation of cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum

ere is an overlap between the cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum

and it results in multidiscipline eﬀects. e cyberspace and electromagnetic

spectrum create a common operational environment that could be named as the

cyber electromagnetic domain. e cyber electromagnetic domain is not meant

to equate the terms cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum, but rather to

highlight that there is signiﬁcant overlap between them and future technological

development is likely to increase this convergence.

In this domain, harmonised, coordinated and integrated information technical

activities take place. ese activities could be called cyber electromagnetic

operations.

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

Cyber electromagnetic operations

US military experts recognised the force multiplier role of the common cyber and

electromagnetic domain and the synchronised information technical activities

within it. Based on this idea, a new operational concept was developed in the

FM 3-38 Cyber electromagnetic activities doctrine, which was issued in February

2014.

“Cyber electromagnetic activities are activities leveraged to seize, retain, and

exploit an advantage over adversaries and enemies in both cyberspace and the

electromagnetic spectrum, while simultaneously denying and degrading adversary

and enemy use of the same and protecting the mission command system.” [13]

e essential cyber electromagnetic activity is to integrate and synchronise the

functions and capabilities of cyberspace operations, electronic warfare, and

spectrum management operations to produce complementary and reinforcing

eﬀects. e uncoordinated activities may result in conﬂicts and mutual interference

between them and with other entities that use the electromagnetic spectrum.

Cyber electromagnetic activities consist of:

• cyberspace operations;

• electronic warfare and

• spectrum management operations. [13]

As we can see, the cyber electromagnetic operations include another two

capabilities in addition to the electronic warfare, which was shown earlier.

“Cyberspace operations are the employment of cyberspace capabilities where the

primary purpose is to achieve objectives in or through cyberspace. Cyberspace

operations consist of three functions: oﬀensive cyberspace operations, defensive

cyberspace operations, and Department of Defense information network

operations.” [13]

Earlier, the cyberspace operation was slightly equal with computer network

operations. According to this doctrine, the cyberspace operations are more than

computer network operations. ese operations consist of not only computer

network exploitation, computer network attack and computer network defence,

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

but networked information management activities (collection, storage, processing,

distribution) are part of them too.

“Spectrum management operations are the interrelated functions of spectrum

management, frequency assignment, host-nation coordination, and policy that enable

the planning, management, and execution of operations within the electromagnetic

operational environment during all phases of military operations.” [13]

Spectrum management operations are emphasised in the doctrine as the

interrelated functions of spectrum management, frequency assignment, host-

nation coordination, and policy. ese functions together enable the planning,

management, and execution of operations within the electromagnetic spectrum

during all phases of military operations. In addition, careful frequency management

helps to avoid frequency conﬂiction or unintended electromagnetic interference.

In a wider interpretation, spectrum management operations together with

electronic warfare form the electromagnetic spectrum operations (EMSO). [13]

Referring to the close connection between electronic warfare and signals

intelligence – which was mentioned in the ﬁrst part of this paper – it would

be necessary to consider signals intelligence capabilities in the common cyber

electromagnetic domain. Based on the US Army’s cyber electromagnetic activities

concept and further thinking about it, the cyber electromagnetic operations

include the signals intelligence too as another element of the electromagnetic

spectrum operations. Considering the electronic warfare and signals intelligence

networked constraints, the cyber electromagnetic operations consist of:

• cyberspace operations;

• electronic warfare;

• signals intelligence and

• spectrum management operations. (ﬁgure 3).

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

Source: based on [13] edited by the author.

Figure 3. Cyber electromagnetic operations

We should emphasise that while cyberspace operations are fully part of the cyber

electromagnetic operations, the electronic warfare and signals intelligence are

interpreted in the networked info-communications environment, as areas of the

cyber-electromagnetic operations.

e fundamental aim of the cyber electromagnetic operations is to ensure use of

the friendly networked electronic info-communications systems and the processes

in them, and to detect, reduce and degrade the adversary’s similar capabilities.

ese operations can be oﬀensive and defensive.

e oﬀensive cyber electromagnetic operations have a double function: on one

hand to detect, on the other to inﬂuence and destroy the networked information

systems of the opposite forces. e attacker, using mostly passive techniques and

sidestepping the information security regulations, detects the communication

systems, gets into the computer networks, and gets access to databases in order to

gain useful information. He also can use jamming signals, misleading information,

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

and malicious software (malware) to modify, delete important information of the

enemy or rather he can overload the system with misleading data.

e defensive cyber electromagnetic operations tend to ensure access to

the information and information based processes in our networked info-

communication systems and to assure the eﬀective use of these (systems). ey

minimise the vulnerability of our systems and they lower the unintentional

interferences among them. e harmonised adaptation of eﬀective defence makes

it possible to protect our own networked info-communication systems from the

denial of service, from unauthorised access, from jamming and modiﬁcation,

etc.

As we mentioned earlier, not all electronic devices work in network. Consequently,

we understand only those tactics, techniques and procedures of electronic warfare

and signals intelligence among these common cyber electromagnetic operations,

which are used against the enemy’s networked info-communications systems, or

to protect friendly forces’ similar systems. So, for example, detection of a radio

communications network, or jamming it, as well as jamming the radio channels of

a battleﬁeld computer network are some examples of electronic warfare in cyber

electromagnetic operations. But e.g. jamming a receiver of a radio controlled

by an improvised electronic device is not part of electronic warfare in cyber

electromagnetic operations.

Conclusions

Cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum are part of modern military

operations. e military forces use many types of networked electronic devices

and info-communications systems on the battleﬁeld. Using these networked

systems is necessary to achieve operational superiority.

e electronic warfare in the electromagnetic spectrum contributes to achieving

information superiority and success of military operations by using oﬀensive and

defensive tactics, techniques and procedures.

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

e networked electronic info-communications systems work in the cyberspace

and electromagnetic spectrum, and they create an overlapped common military

operational environment. is environment is the cyber electromagnetic domain.

In this domain, synchronised and integrated cyber electromagnetic operations

are conducted. e electronic warfare that is used against the enemy’s networked

info-communications systems, or to protect our similar systems, is the main

capability of these operations.

References

[1] Kovács, L.: Electronic warfare and the asymmetric challenges. in: Bolyai Szemle

2009. no. 3., 135-151 pp., ISSN 1416-1443

[2] JP 3-13.1 Electronic warfare. 08 February 2012. Joint Chief of Staﬀ

[3] FM 3-36 Electronic warfare. 09 November 2012. Headquarters, Department of the

Army

[4] Greenert J.: Wireless cyberwar, the EM spectrum, and the changing Navy. http://

breakingdefense.com/2013/04/adm-greenert-wireless-cyber-em-spectrum-

changing-navy/ (online, cit. 2015-01-10)

[5] Electromagnetic spectrum. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183297/

electromagnetic-spectrum (online, cit. 2015-01-10)

[6] Cyberspce. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/147819/cyberspace (online,

cit. 2015-01-10)

[7] e National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations. December 2006.,

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staﬀ. http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/joint_staﬀ/

jointStaﬀ_jointOperations/07-F-2105doc1.pdf (online, cit. 2015-01-10)

[8] JP 1-02 Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. 08

November 2010. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf (online, cit.

2015-01-10)

[9] Kuehl, D.: From Cyberspace to Cyberpower: Deﬁning the Problem. in: Cyberpower

and National Security. ed. Kramer, F. D. et al., 2009., 24-43 pp. ISBN-10:

1597974234

[10] Schreier, F.: On cyberwarfare. DCAF Horizon 2015 Working Paper No. 7 2012., 133

p. http://www.dcaf.ch/content/download/67316/1025687/ﬁle/OnCyberwarfare-

Schreier.pdf (online, cit. 2015-01-10)

[11] David J. Lonsdale, e Nature of War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Future,

2004., 269 p. ISBN-10: 0714684295

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

[12] AJP-3.10 Allied Joint Doctrine for Information Operations. November 2009. NATO

Standardization Agency

[13] FM 3-38 Cyber electromagnetic activities. 12 February 2012. Headquarters,

Department of the Army

This copy is for personal use only - distribution prohibited.

The Role of Digital Forensics in Spectrum Warfare

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Sep 2021

Dauda Sule

Rapid developments in information and communications technology have resulted in increased innovations in terms of warfare. From World War II signal technology like jamming became mainstay in warfare; electronic warfare became virtually an integral part of war. By the 2000's there was an increasing use of cyberspace in warfare (i.e. cyber warfare) and the emergence of attacks like Stuxnet which did not target information systems, but physical infrastructure; and tensions between Russia and its neighbors resulting in Ukraine's power grid being brought down by Russian cyber-attacks. As at 2019 the US Army merged its electronic warfare and cyber warfare operations as a result of developments in the battle spectra. Digital forensics has a key role to play in modern day warfare. Digital forensics tools can be used for monitoring and intelligence, as well as investigating how an attack was carried out. Digital forensics can greatly improve a nation's dominance of the electromagnetic spectrum giving it the upper hand whether in terms of defense or offense.

Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities and Their Relevance in Modern Military Operations

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jan 2021

The paper examines issues related to coexistence and integration of military activities conducted within the cyberspace and electromagnetic environment, as inseparable parts of our security environment. Contemporary and emerging security threats as well as lessons learned from recent military operations have already proved that in order to achieve operational objectives in the traditional physical domains (land, air, maritime, space) it is crucial to ensure dominance in the non-physical domains, i.e. the cyberspace, electromagnetic environment and information environment. As they overlap each other, while being exploited by multiple military and non-military stakeholders and actors, it is necessary to identify these overlaps. At the same time, to deliver the synergic effect, an operational battle staff need to deconflict, coordinate, synchronize and integrate cyber and electromagnetic activities (CEMA) with other supporting activities (e.g. intelligence, information operations etc.). The authors describe the fundamentals of the CEMA concept, supported by a case study of its practical employment in military operations. They also compare various approaches applied to implementation of this concept by selected armed forces and security organizations. Based on the findings of this comparison, common and specific features of different approaches are specified. The results and findings presented in the article can be used during the implementation process of the CEMA concept not only into the doctrinal documents of national armed forces, but they could also provide specific solutions in support of future deployments of multinational task groups

A survey and characterization of Close Access Cyberspace Operations

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023
INT J INF SECUR

Close Access Cyberspace Operations pose a significant threat to targets that cannot be easily compromised through remote access mechanisms, such as isolated Industrial Control Systems or air gapped classified networks. Despite their importance, close access operations are less common and receive less analysis compared to remote access ones. As a result, most organizations do not adequately consider countermeasures to address these threats. This lack of evaluation and mitigation introduces an underestimated risk. The main contribution of this paper is to provide a comprehensive survey of Close Access Cyberspace Operations and propose a classification approach for them. This survey analyzes close access studies, capabilities and operations, which are associated with classical SIGINT acquisition. Upon examining these elements, our work identifies the relevant entities and features crucial to Close Access Cyberspace Operations. These key entities and features form a comprehensive taxonomy for such operations, enabling organizations to enhance controls and better prevent, detect, and neutralize close access actions.

Data, Big Tech, and the New Concept of Sovereignty

Article

May 2023

Hongfei Gu

Despite the massive amount of data and sophisticated computing capacity, Big Tech has evolved into the new data sovereigns that governments must accept in the data era. Data mining and application determine the true value of data; in this regard, Big Tech is tough to replace. The so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” is reshaping the emerging global order, and at its core are Big Tech firms. They not only express their concerns and spread their values and ideologies but also make their strong presence felt in international affairs, as Big Tech appears to be transforming into a new type of Leviathan. With access to significant amounts of data, the rise of Big Tech poses a challenge to sovereignty’s exclusivity and superiority, assuming the position of de facto data sovereign. The article holds that the Big Tech firms, by virtue of their technical advantages, have not only deconstructed the traditional concept of sovereignty, but also formed a complex symbiotic relationship.

Cyber-Politics in U.S.–China Relations: Big Tech and the Trade War

Chapter

Jan 2022

Li Sheng

This chapter discusses the competition between the United States and China in the fields of technology since the beginning of the presidency of Donald Trump, with a focus on their rivalry in high-tech industries, which we believe to be the core issue of U.S.–China competition. We begin by introducing the role of science and technology in the development of world politics and depicting the international landscape in the digital era. We then use international political economy and neorealist perspectives to build a theoretical framework for analyzing the technological competition between the United States and China. Subsequently, we introduce the measures implemented by the United States during the Trump administration to contain Chinese high-tech companies, especially the restrictions placed on the involvement of Huawei and ZTE in 5G rollout. The chapter then examines the commitment of American diplomacy to carrying out a technology war against China and the continuation of the confrontational measures under the Biden administration. The discussion covers a series of issues, such as cyberattacks, patents, and the transfer of technologies in agreements between countries. The entry of U.S. Big Tech firms into China is then reviewed. Finally, the chapter examines how technology platforms have influenced the increase in tensions between the countries and the effects of trade wars on technology companies.

Electronic Warfare in NAVWAR: Impact of Electronic Attacks on GNSS / GBAS Approach Service Types C and D Landing systems and their proposed Electronic Protection Measures (EPM)

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2019

Ahmad Alhosban

Global Satellite Navigation Systems (GNSS) applications -using different satellite signals in space- are currently and hugely subjected to Electronic Attacks (EAs) such as Jamming, Spoofing, and/or Meaconing. Many accidents were observed in the past decade, while huge dependency on GNSS applications in governmental and private critical infrastructure, in both civil and military aspects. The EAs could be expensive and high-power such as the military-grade jammers, which are an integral pillar of navigation warfare (NAVWAR) strategies. On the other hand, EAs could be cheap and low-power such as the so-called Personal Protection Devices (PPD), which they are widely available. Electronic Attacks, most critically observed by ICAO and FAA, are in Ground Based Augmentation System -(GNSS/GBAS) Landing systems, in which is riskier and more critical than other applications due to the sensitivity of the final landing phase of all flights. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the three different types of EA on the performance GNSS/GBAS landing system. On the other hand, to address and examine their latest proposed Electronic Protection Measures (EPM).

From Cyberspace to Cyberpower: Defining the Problem

Article

Jan 2009

D.T. Kuehl

The Nature of War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Future

Article

Jan 2006

David Lonsdale

There has been a great deal of speculation recently concerning the likely impact of the 'Information Age' on warfare. In this vein, much of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) literature subscribes to the idea that the Information Age will witness a transformation in the very nature of war. In this book, David Lonsdale puts that notion to the test. Using a range of contexts, the book sets out to look at whether the classical Clausewitzian theory of the nature of war will retain its validity in this new age. The analysis covers the character of the future battlespace, the function of command, and the much-hyped concept of Strategic Information Warfare. Finally, the book broadens its perspective to examine the nature of 'Information Power' and its implications for geopolitics. Through an assessment of both historical and contemporary case studies (including the events following September 11 and the recent war in Iraq), the author concludes that although the future will see many changes to the conduct of warfare, the nature of war, as given theoretical form by Clausewitz, will remain essentially unchanged.

Electronic warfare and the asymmetric challenges

Jan 2009
135-151

L Kovács

Kovács, L.: Electronic warfare and the asymmetric challenges. in: Bolyai Szemle 2009. no. 3., 135-151 pp., ISSN 1416-1443

JP 3-13.1 Electronic warfare

Feb 2012

JP 3-13.1 Electronic warfare. 08 February 2012. Joint Chief of Staff

FM 3-36 Electronic warfare

Nov 2012

FM 3-36 Electronic warfare. 09 November 2012. Headquarters, Department of the Army

Wireless cyberwar, the EM spectrum, and the changing Navy

J Greenert

Greenert J.: Wireless cyberwar, the EM spectrum, and the changing Navy. http:// breakingdefense.com/2013/04/adm-greenert-wireless-cyber-em-spectrumchanging-navy/ (online, cit. 2015-01-10)

On cyberwarfare. DCAF Horizon 2015 Working Paper No

Jan 2012

F Schreier

Schreier, F.: On cyberwarfare. DCAF Horizon 2015 Working Paper No. 7 2012., 133 p. http://www.dcaf.ch/content/download/67316/1025687/file/OnCyberwarfareSchreier.pdf (online, cit. 2015-01-10)

10 Allied Joint Doctrine for Information Operations NATO Standardization Agency [13] FM 3-38 Cyber electromagnetic activities

Dec 2009

AJP-3.10 Allied Joint Doctrine for Information Operations. November 2009. NATO Standardization Agency [13] FM 3-38 Cyber electromagnetic activities. 12 February 2012. Headquarters, Department of the Army

Electronic warfare in cyberspace

Figures

Recommended publications

Air Force Cyber Command Strategic Vision

Formulating the Building Blocks for National Cyberpower: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice

Formulating the Building Blocks for National Cyberpower

Building Blocks and Measurement of National Cyberpower

The Shoreline: Where Cyber and Electronic Warfare Operations Coexist