Luciano Floridi wonders [pdf] whether just war theory applies to cyberspace:
The body of knowledge and discussion behind just war theory is detailed and extensive. It is the result of centuries of refinements since Roman times. The methodological question we face today is whether information warfare is merely one more area of application, or whether it represents a disruptive novelty as well, which will require new developments of the theory itself. For example, within the jus ad bellum, which kind of authority possesses the legitimacy to wage cyberwar? And how should a cyber attack be considered in terms of last resort? And within the jus in bello, what level of proportionality should be attributed to a cyber attack? Or, how do you surrender to a cyber enemy?
Michael Tanji critiques the application of concepts from conventional war to the Internet more broadly:
The stupidity of phrases like “digital Pearl Harbor” doesn't require further elaboration. “Cyber deterrence” only makes sense if there were any meaningful analog between the lasting impact of using nuclear weapons versus digital ones. “Digital arms control” is such a non-serious idea as to be laughable. Legacy futures make for great newspaper copy and think-tank literature, but proposing solutions for a world that doesn't exist isn't helping the world that actually does.
The Dish 