On a Monday morning earlier this month, top Pentagon leaders gathered to simulate how they would respond to a sophisticated cyberattack aimed at paralyzing the nationâ€™s power grids, its communications systems or its financial networks.
The results were dispiriting. The enemy had all the advantages: stealth, anonymity and unpredictability. No one could pinpoint the country from which the attack came, so there was no effective way to deter further damage by threatening retaliation. Whatâ€™s more, the military commanders noted that they even lacked the legal authority to respond â€” especially because it was never clear if the attack was an act of vandalism, an attempt at commercial theft or a state-sponsored effort to cripple the United States, perhaps as a prelude to a conventional war.
These recent events demonstrate how quickly the nationâ€™s escalating cyberbattles have outpaced the rush to find a deterrent, something equivalent to the cold-war-era strategy of threatening nuclear retaliation.
So far, despite millions of dollars spent on studies, that quest has failed. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the most comprehensive effort yet to warn potential adversaries that cyberattacks would not be ignored, drawing on the language of nuclear deterrence.
But Mrs. Clinton did not say how the United States would respond, beyond suggesting that countries that knowingly permit cyberattacks to be launched from their territories would suffer damage to their reputations, and could be frozen out of the global economy.
Inside the National Security Agency, which secretly scours overseas computer networks, officials have debated whether evidence of an imminent cyberattack on the United States would justify a pre-emptive American cyberattack â€” something the president would have to authorize. In an extreme case, like evidence that an adversary was about to launch an attack intended to shut down power stations across America, some officials argue that the right response might be a military strike.
William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, who oversaw the simulation, said in an interview after the exercise that Americaâ€™s concepts for protecting computer networks reminded him of one of defensive warfareâ€™s great failures, the Maginot Line of pre-World War II France.
Mr. Lynn, one of the Pentagonâ€™s top strategists for computer network operations, argues that the billions spent on defensive shields surrounding Americaâ€™s banks, businesses and military installations provide a similarly illusory sense of security.
â€œA fortress mentality will not work in cyber,â€ he said. â€œWe cannot retreat behind a Maginot Line of firewalls. We must also keep maneuvering. If we stand still for a minute, our adversaries will overtake us.â€
But if it is obvious that the government cannot afford to do nothing about such breaches, it is also clear that the old principles of retaliation â€” you bomb Los Angeles, weâ€™ll destroy Moscow â€” just do not translate.
Left unsaid is whether the Obama administration has decided whether it would ever threaten retaliatory cyberattacks or military attacks after a major cyberattack on American targets. The senior administration official provided by the White House, asked about Mr. Obamaâ€™s thinking on the issue, said: â€œLike most operational things like this, the less said, the better.â€
Others are less convinced. â€œThe U.S. is widely recognized to have pre-eminent offensive cybercapabilities, but it obtains little or no deterrent effect from this,â€ said James A. Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies program on technology and public policy.
The office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates â€” whose unclassified e-mail system was hacked in 2007 â€” is developing a â€œframework documentâ€ that would describe the threat and potential responses, and perhaps the beginnings of a deterrence strategy to parallel the one used in the nuclear world.
Google broke the silence that usually surrounds cyberattacks; most American banks or companies do not want to admit their computer systems were pierced. Google has said it will stop censoring searches conducted by Chinese, even if that means being thrown out of China. The threat alone is an attempt at deterrence: Googleâ€™s executives are essentially betting that Beijing will back down, lift censorship of searches and crack down on the torrent of cyberattacks that pour out of China every day. If not, millions of young Chinese will be deprived of the Google search engine, and be left to the ones controlled by the Chinese government.
An Obama administration official who has been dealing with the Chinese mused recently, â€œYou could argue that Google came up with a potential deterrent for the Chinese before we did.â€