ABSTRACT
The term asymmetric threat (or warfare) often refers to tactics utilized by countries, terrorist groups, or individuals to carry out attacks on a superior opponent while trying to avoid direct confrontation. Information warfare is sometimes also referred to as a type of asymmetric warfare perhaps due to its asymmetry in terms of cost and efficacy. Obviously, there are differences and commonalities between two types of asymmetric warfare. One major difference lies in the goal to avoid confrontation and one commonality is the asymmetry. Regardless, the unique properties surrounding asymmetric warfare warrant a strategic-level study. Despite enormous studies conducted in the last decade, a consensus on the strategy a nation state should take to deal with asymmetric threat seems still intriguing. In this article, we try to shed some light on the issue from the handicap principle in the context of information warfare. The Handicap principle was first proposed by Zahavi (1975) to explain the honesty or reliability of animal communication signals. He argued that in a signaling system such as one used in mate selection, a superior male is able to signal with a highly developed "handicap" to demonstrate its quality, and the handicap serves "as a kind of (quality) test imposed on the individual" (Zahavi 1975, Searcy and Nowicki 2005). The underlying thread that inspires us for the attempt to establish a connection between the two apparently unrelated areas is the observation that competition, communication and cooperation (3C), which are three fundamental processes in nature and against which natural selection optimize living things, may also make sense in human society. Furthermore, any communication networks, whether it is biological networks (such as animal communication networks) or computer networks (such as the Internet) must be reasonably reliable (honest in the case of animal signaling) to fulfill its missions for transmitting and receiving messages. The strategic goal of information warfare is then to destroy or defend the reliability (honesty) of communication networks. The handicap principle that governs the reliability (honesty) of animal communication networks can be considered as the nature's version of "information warfare" strategy because it is a product of natural selection. What is particularly interesting is to transfer the evolutionary game theory models [e.g., Sir Philip Sydney (SPS) game] for the handicap principle to the study of information warfare. In a broad perspective, we realize that the handicap principle may actually contradict the principle of asymmetry in asymmetric warfare. Anyway, not every species of animals has evolved expensive signaling "equipments" like male peacocks (whose exaggerated train is an example of handicap). Furthermore, the handicap principle is not only about communication, and it also embodies the spirits of cooperation and competition. In human societies, communication modulates cooperation and competition; so does in animal communication networks. Therefore, to evolve or maintain a sustainable communication network, the proper strategy should be to balance (modulate) the cooperation and competition with communication tools (information warfare tools), which is perhaps in contradiction with the asymmetric strategy. There might be a paradox in the strategy of asymmetric warfare, and whether or not information warfare can be used as an asymmetric tool is still an open question.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- Dawkin, R. and J. R. Krebs. 1978. Animal Signals: information or manipulation? pp.282--309. in "Behavioral Ecology", eds. by J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Godfray, H. C. J. and Johnstone, R. A. 2000. Begging and Bleating: The evolution of parent-offspring signaling. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 355, 1581--1591.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grafen, A. 1990a. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144:473--516.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grafen, A. 1990b. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144:517--546.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamilton, W. D. 1963. The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior. American Naturalist, 97:354.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hamilton, W. D. 1964. The genetic evolution of social behavior. (I) & (II). J. Theoretical Biology. 7:1--52.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kilner, R. M. & C. A. Hinde. 2008. Information warfare and parent-offspring conflict. Advances in the Study of Animal Behavior. pp283--335.Google Scholar
- Krebs, J. R. and R. Dawkins. 1984. Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation. In "Behavioral Ecology". Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Ma, Z. S., A. W. Krings, C. C. Hung. 2009a. "Handicap' Principle for Computer Security, the Semantic Web and Social Networking. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS 5854, pp. 458--468. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ma, Z. S. 2009b. A New Extended Evolutionary Game Theory Approach to Strategic Information Warfare. J. Information Warfare 8(2):25--43. 2009.Google Scholar
- Ma, Z. S., A. W. Krings, F. T. Sheldon. 2009c. An outline of the three-layer survivability analysis architecture for modeling strategic information warfare. Fifth ACM Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research Workshop, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. April 13th--15th, 2009. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maynard Smith, J. 1991. Honest signaling: Sir Philip Sydney game. Animal Behavior, 42:1034--1035.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maynard Smith, J. and D. Harper. 2003. Animal Signals. Oxford University Press. 164pp.Google Scholar
- Noe, R., J. Hooff, and P. Hammerstein. 2001. Economics in Nature. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Parker, G. A., N. Royce, I. Hartley. 2002. Intrafamilial conflict and parent investment: a synthesis. Philos. Trans. Soc. Lond. B 357:295--307.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Searcy, W. A. and S. Nowicki. 2005. The Evolution of Animal Communications. Princeton University Press. 270pp.Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46:189--226.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Triver, R. L. 1974. Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist. 14:249--264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Triver, R. L. 1985. Social Evolution. Menlo Park, CA. Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
- Vincent, T. L. and J. L. Brown. 2005. Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection and Darwinian Dynamics. Cambridge University Press. 382pp.Google Scholar
- Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection--a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205--214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zahavi, A. & A. Zahavi. 1997. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The handicap principle, strategic information warfare and the paradox of asymmetry
Recommendations
Relationship Discovery Ontology in Asymmetric Warfare
Proceedings of the 2008 conference on Formal Ontologies Meet IndustryNowadays, with battles increasingly being fought in urban theaters, enemy combatants can include not only the military but also pseudo-military forces and the civilian population. Given the new battlespace and the realities of the Information Age, ...
Comments