“You should salute the Chinese for what they did, if we had the opportunity to do so, I don’t think we would repeat a minute.” These were the words of former US National Intelligence Director James Clapper, which came after hackers suspected of working with the Chinese Communist Party in 2015 managed to penetrate Office of Federal Government Personnel Management, with access to employment records of more than 22 million Americans.
This was not the first time that the United States was exposed to a large-scale cyber attack from hostile foreign-based hackers in the United States.
Before that, hackers from North Korea infiltrated the "Sony" company (SONY) in 2014, and two years later, Russian hackers were able to launch a major attack on the 2016 presidential election.
In each case, he attributed the American foreign policy hawks to the fact that these attacks took place without cost.
Because of the absence of the American response.
The "defense ahead" strategy was considered successful, as it prevented interference in the 2018 congressional elections and the 2020 elections;
But it completely failed even to disclose the recent breach, which most intelligence estimates believe Russia is behind.
But some should not believe that the United States, on its part, does not attack its enemies electronically, as Washington launches cyber attacks on some targets around the world, and a limited number of these attacks are announced, while many parties prefer silence towards many of the attacks.
Washington also adopts a preemptive stance in its defense strategy for cyberattacks called "Defend Forward".
The basic idea is that US cyber leadership will maintain an ongoing presence in hostile foreign networks.
So it can confront its opponents when they launch cyber attacks.
The "defense ahead" strategy was considered successful, as it prevented interference in the 2018 congressional elections and the 2020 elections;
But it completely failed even to disclose the recent breach, which most intelligence estimates believe Russia is behind.
Then came the cyber attacks that targeted hundreds and possibly thousands of governmental and non-governmental actors.
To be considered by many political observers, especially in Congress, as a "Pearl Harbor" cyber attack.
Because of the Pearl Harbor attack, which was launched by Japanese aircraft on the American fleet off the island of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean before the end of 1941, the United States entered World War II.
It is widely believed that the recent hacking is one of the most damaging operations in recent years, and as of writing this article it appears that the attacks are still continuing.
While US intelligence agencies have confirmed that they are trying to assess the extent of the damage caused by the operation that began last March, it is not clear yet the size of the losses or the importance of the information that may have been viewed, copied or corrupted.
This prompted a number of senators to describe the attack as a "state of war" launched by foreign countries against the United States, which calls for a response.
"This is a hostile act that rises to the level of the attack, which is described as a war," said Chris Koons, a Democratic senator from Delaware. "It is a large-scale attack that targeted our military and intelligence systems in a way that I have never seen before in my entire life."
The American response is further complicated by the fact that the discovery of the attack coincides with an inconsistent transition of power from a republican administration to a democratic administration, in addition to not having a clear strategy to respond to cyber attacks.
If a person flew a military aircraft of a state in the airspace of a state without prior permission, there is an international agreement regulating these cases, and these breaches, and a state may respond with a similar military attack by shooting down the plane;
But there are no governing and regulatory agreements for such technological and cyber breakthroughs.
The recent attacks leave Washington confused, as the world in general lacks comprehensive international agreements on electronic warfare or cyber espionage, and no one knows how to reach agreements with players, some of whom are states, and some of them are people and pirates who work for themselves, some of them large companies, some of them small companies and some of them non-organizations Governmental and some of them are terrorist organizations.
The United States, China and Russia possess a lot of advanced technological capabilities militarily, as well as arsenals of conventional weapons, including aircraft, bombers, armored vehicles, submarines and missiles, in addition to nuclear and chemical weapons.
The issue is further complicated in laying down rules governing future technological conflicts, as there are no clear breaks between the association of major technology companies and governments and armies in their countries of origin.
For example, Washington has considered a number of Chinese technology companies to have a suspicious relationship with the Chinese military, and has imposed various sanctions on them.
The number of Chinese companies listed on the US blacklists has reached more than 270 companies, led by Huawei and ZTE, which work in the field of telecommunications, Hikvision for surveillance systems, and Smiek. (SMIIC), the largest Chinese semiconductor manufacturer.
Since the end of World War II in 1945, the major powers have believed in the theory of mutual deterrence, which means that any party can start a fight.
But the other side will be able to respond, and this delicate balance has allowed for many decades to prevent wars between major countries.
Today the major countries do not know any theory of electronic deterrence, and there are no rules governing the rules of cyber engagement, and all of this increases the risk of confrontations that humanity has never known before.