Reference list
- Acton, J. (2017). Cyber weapons and precision-guided munitions. In G. Perkovich, & A. E. Levite (Eds.), Understanding cyber conflict: Fourteen analogies (pp. 45–60). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
- Allhoff, F., Henschke, A., & Strawser, B. J. (eds.). (2016). Binary bullets: The ethics of cyberwarfare. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Arimatsu, L. (2012). A treaty for governing cyber-weapons: Potential benefits and practical limitations. In 2012 4th international conference on cyber conflict (CYCON 2012) (pp. 1–19).
- Arquilla, J. (2016). Ethics for the coming epoch of conflict. In A. Henschke, B. J. Strawser, & F. Allhoff (Eds.), Binary bullets: The ethics of cyberwarfare (pp. vii–xii). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bertoli, G., & Marvel, L. (2017). Cyberspace operations collateral damage-reality or misconception? The Cyber Defense Review, 2(3), 53–62.
- Buchanan, B. (2016). The cybersecurity dilemma: Hacking, trust, and fear between nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Davis, P. K. (2001). Effects-Based operations (EBO) (Defense analysis No. MR-1477-USJFCOM/AF) (p. 120). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1477.html
- Denning, D. (2001). Obstacles and options for cyber arms controls (p. 13). Presented at the arms control in Cyberspace, Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/file/11264231/Obstacles-and-Options-for-Cyber-Arms-Controls/
- Deptula, D. A. (2006). Effects-based operations. Air & Space Power Journal, 20(1), 4–6.
- Dipert, R. R. (2010). The ethics of cyberwarfare. Journal of Military Ethics, 9, 384–410. doi: 10.1080/15027570.2010.536404
- Dunn-Cavelty, M. (2012). The militarisation of cyberspace: Why less may be better. In C. Czosseck, R. Ottis, & K. Ziolkowski (Eds.), 2012 4th international conference on cyber conflict (CYCON) (pp. 141–152). Tallinn, Estonia: NATO CCD COE Publications.
- Gavrichenkov, A. (2015, August). Breaking HTTPS with BGP Hijacking. Presented at the Black Hat USA 2015, Las Vegas, NV. Retrieved from https://www.blackhat.com/us-15/briefings.html#artyom-gavrichenkov
- Giles, K. (2012). Russia’s public stance on cyberspace issues. In 2012 4th international conference on cyber conflict (CYCON) (pp. 1–13). Tallinn: NATO CCD COE Publications.
- Hare, F. (2007). Five myths of cyberspace and cyberpower. SIGNAL Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/Signal_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1333&zoneid=209
- Herr, T., & Rosenzweig, P. (2015). Cyber weapons and export control: Incorporating dual use with the PrEP model. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 8, 301–319.
- Jenkins, R. (2016). Cyberwarfare as ideal War. In A. Henschke, B. J. Strawser, & F. Allhoff (Eds.), Binary bullets: The ethics of cyberwarfare (pp. 89–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kaag, J., & Kaufman, W. (2009). Military frameworks: Technological know-how and the legitimization of warfare. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22, 585–606. doi: 10.1080/09557570903325496
- Landale, J., & Meinrath, S. (2015, November 4). Opinion: The troubling Stuxnet effect. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2015/1104/Opinion-The-troubling-Stuxnet-effect
- Lee, R., Assante, M., & Conway, T. (2016). Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid (Defense Use Case) (p. 29). Washington, DC: SANS ICS.
- Lin, H. S. (2010). Offensive cyber operations and the use of force. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 4, 63–86.
- Lin, P., Allhoff, F., & Rowe, N. C. (2012). War 2.0: Cyberweapons and ethics. Communications of the ACM, 55(3), 24–26. doi: 10.1145/2093548.2093558
- Murray, S. F. (2007). The moral and ethical implications of precision-guided munitions. Alabama: Maxwell Air Force Base.
- Office of General Counsel Department of Defense. (2016). Department of defense law of war manual (DoD Manual) (p. 1236). Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190
- Office of the Under Secretary of Defense/Chief Financial Officer. (2016). Program acquisition cost by weapon system (Budget Analysis No. 6-919FF76) (p. 83). Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
- Owens, W., Dam, K. W., & Lin, H. (eds.). (2009). Technology, policy, law, and ethics regarding U.S. Acquisition and use of cyberattack capabilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12651/technology-policy-law-and-ethics-regarding-us-acquisition-and-use-of-cyberattack-capabilities
- Peterson, D. (2013). Offensive cyber weapons: Construction, development, and employment. Journal of Strategic Studies, 36, 120–124. doi: 10.1080/01402390.2012.742014
- Puckett, C. B. (2004). In this era of smart weapons, is a state under an international legal obligation to use precision-guided technology in armed conflict. Emory International Law Review, 18, 645–723.
- Rashid, F. (2014, February 26). Treaties, multi-national agreements needed to ban cyber weapons: RSA Chief | SecurityWeek.Com [On-line News]. Retrieved from http://www.securityweek.com/treaties-multi-national-agreements-needed-ban-cyber-weapons-rsa-chief
- Rid, T. (2012). Cyber war will not take place. Journal of Strategic Studies, 35, 5–32. doi: 10.1080/01402390.2011.608939
- Rid, T., & McBurney, P. (2012). Cyber-weapons. The RUSI Journal, 157(1), 6–13. doi: 10.1080/03071847.2012.664354
- Rovner, J., & Moore, T. (2017). Does the internet need a hegemon? Journal of Global Security Studies, 2, 184–203. doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogx008
- Rumsfeld, D. (2002, January). Remarks at National Defense University. Speech, Fort McNair, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/transformation-secdef-31jan02.htm
- Schmitt, M. N. (2005). Precision attack and international humanitarian law. International Review of the Red Cross, 87(859), 445–466. doi: 10.1017/S1816383100184334
- Schmitt, M. N. (2013). Tallinn manual on the international law applicable to cyber warfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schmitt, M. N. (ed.). (2017). Tallinn manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sharp, W. G. (1999). Cyberspace and the use of force. Falls Church, VA: Aegis Research Corp.
- Short, M. (2002). Operation allied force from the perspective of the NATO air commander. International Law Studies, 78(1), 19–27.
- Slayton, R. (2017). What is the cyber offense-defense balance? Conceptions, causes, and assessment. International Security, 41(3), 72–109. doi: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00267
- Smeets, M. (2017). Organisational integration of offensive cyber capabilities: A primer on the benefits and risks. In 2017 9th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon) (pp. 1–18). doi: 10.23919/CYCON.2017.8240326
- Smeets, M. (2018). A matter of time: On the transitory nature of cyberweapons. Journal of Strategic Studies, 41(1–2), 6–32. doi: 10.1080/01402390.2017.1288107
- Stevens, T. (2017). Cyberweapons: An emerging global governance architecture. Palgrave Communications, 3. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2897454 doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.4
- Strawser, B. J. (2010). Moral predators: The duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles. Journal of Military Ethics, 9, 342–368. doi: 10.1080/15027570.2010.536403
- Streltsov, A. (2007). International information security. Disarmament Forum, 3, 5–14.
- Taddeo, M. (2016). On the risks of relying on analogies to understand cyber conflicts. Minds and Machines, 26, 317–321. doi: 10.1007/s11023-016-9408-z
- UN GA Doc. A/66/359. (2011, September 14). Retrieved from https://ccdcoe.org/sites/default/files/documents/UN-110912-CodeOfConduct_0.pdf
- Yoo, J. (2017). Embracing the machines: Rationalist war and new weapons technologies. California Law Review, 105(2), 443–499. doi: 10.15779/Z38D50FX0X
- Zehfuss, M. (2011). Targeting: Precision and the production of ethics. European Journal of International Relations, 17, 543–566. doi: 10.1177/1354066110373559