Jan Kallberg

Jan Kallberg

Academia, homeland security, defense, and media have accepted the perception that critical infrastructure in a future cyber war cyber conflict is the main gateway for a massive cyber assault on the U.S. The question is not if the assumption is correct or not, the question is instead of how did we arrive at that assumption. The cyber paradigm considers critical infrastructure the primary attack vector for future cyber conflicts. The national vulnerability embedded in critical infrastructure is given a position in the cyber discourse as close to an unquestionable truth as a natural law. The American reaction to Sept. 11, and any attack on U.S. soil, hint to an adversary that attacking critical infrastructure to create hardship for the population could work contrary to the intended softening of the will to resist foreign influence. It is more likely that attacks that affect the general population instead strengthen the will to resist and fight, similar to the British reaction to the German bombing campaign Blitzen in 1940. We cannot rule out attacks that affect the general population, but there are not enough adversarial offensive capabilities to attack all 16 critical infrastructure sectors and gain strategic momentum. An adversary has limited cyberattack capabilities and needs to prioritize cyber targets that are aligned with the overall strategy. Logically, an adversary will focus their OCO on operations that has national security implications and support their military operations by denying, degrading, and confusing the U.S. information environment and U.S. cyber assets.

Jan Kallberg, Stephen S. Hamilton

In the last three decades, the great powers have become increasingly dependent on satellite communication (SATCOM), very high frequency (VHF), and ultra-high frequency (UHF) providing high bandwidth line of sight (LOS) communications. These military communication channels lack resilience because an EW campaign can affect both VHF and SATCOM simultaneously. The 1940s preferred spectrum, high frequency (HF), with its different propagation patterns, offers an opportunity for military communication resiliency in the 21st century. The concept of retrograding could give an operational advantage and create the ability to sustain communication in electronic warfare (EW) saturated environment.

Jan Kallberg

It is questionable and even unlikely that cyber supremacy could be reached by overwhelming capabilities manifested by stacking more technical capacity and adding attack vectors. The alternative is to use time as the vehicle to supremacy by accelerating the velocity of the engagements beyond the speed at which the enemy can target, and precisely execute and comprehend the events unfolding. The space created beyond the adversary's comprehension is called the Zero Domain. Military traditionally sees the battle space as land, sea, air, space, and cyber domains. When fighting the battle beyond the adversary's comprehension, no traditional warfighting domain serves as a battle space; it is not a vacuum nor an unclaimed terra nullius, but instead the Zero Domain. In the Zero Domain, cyberspace superiority surfaces as the outfall of the accelerated time and a digital space-separated singularity that benefit the more-rapid actor. The Zero Domain has a time space that is accessible only by the rapid actor and a digital landscape that is not accessible by the slower actor due to the execution velocity in enhanced accelerated warfare. Velocity achieves cyber Anti AccessArea Denial A2AD, which can be achieved without active initial interchanges by accelerating the execution and cyber ability in a solitaire state. During this process, any adversarial probing engagements only affect the actor on the approach to the Comprehension Barrier and once arrived in the Zero Domain a complete state of A2AD is present.

Jan Kallberg

In the future, the United States government can seek to limit the ownership and usage of cyber weapons. The question is whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gives a right to bear and own military-grade cyber weapons, and if so, under which conditions. The framers of the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, did not limit the right to bear arms to defined weapons such as long rifles and pistols, but instead chose the broader word arms. The United States Supreme Court, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, upheld a demarcation between dangerous and unusual weapons that are not permissible to own and weapons protected by the Second Amendment. Cyber weapons take the form of dual-use software, often shared and globally distributed that in most cases can be weaponized for harmful purposes. In recent years, major corporations have sought to hack back, and if the hack back is authorized, the question becomes whether corporations have digital gun rights. Even if corporations are considered US persons, they do not automatically obtain digital gun rights based on the Second Amendment. This article discusses the core constitutional challenges for the United States government in prohibiting individual ownership of cyber weapons and the rationale for why corporations are in a weaker position regarding ownership of cyber arms. The argument brought forward is that individuals can claim Second Amendment protection of their right to own military-grade software tools, but corporations must meet additional criteria to do so.