Analyzes the rhetoric of impending cyber “apocalypse” or “cyber-Pearl Harbor,” determining instead that it is unlikely conflict over the Internet will abide by the traditional mechanisms of kinetic military activity. Author Erik Gartzke regards the Internet as an inferior substitute to terrestrial political violence for performing the “functions of coercion and conquest,” as cyber-attacks are limited by the requirement of secrecy to remain undetected and often cannot claim credibility or impose “substantial, durable harm.” Because of this, “cyber war is not likely to serve as final arbiter of competition” – a role firmly retained by physical violence. Gartzke argues cyber-attacks, like those performed during the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, will only be effective when paired with military force on the ground or similar external action. Thus, the Internet will not spark a revolution in military affairs but “extend existing international disparities” and serve as an “adjunct to [rather than substitute for] conventional warfare or a symbolic effort to express dissatisfaction.”
