Skip to content

Mad Scientist Laboratory

… Exploring the Operational Environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Mad Scientist APAN
  • The Convergence podcast
  • TRADOC G-2 Multimedia
  • Guest Bloggers
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy
  • Terms Of Use

Tag: external recognition

Posted on July 9, 2018July 3, 2018

66. Virtual Nations: An Emerging Supranational Cyber Trend

[Editor’s Note: Mad Scientist Laboratory is pleased to feature today’s guest blog post by Ms. Marie Murphy, addressing the rise of Virtual Nations and the associated national security ramifications.]

The world is becoming increasingly digitized, and there is a rising threat from online organizations that could mimic and come to rival governments. These virtual nations are cyber communities which have succeeded in gaining power, influence, or capital comparable to that of a nation-state, posing a unique security threat that does not respond to traditional Army methodology and technology.

Source: Information Age

There are two broad categories of virtual nations. The first is when a nation-state digitizes all of its information and government services, potentially offering programs such as e-Residency. Estonia was the first digital nation and leads the pack in this technology. The second are virtual nations not supported by any government, existing only online, such as Asgardia, which recently launched a nanosatellite into orbit containing its citizens’ data[i]. These organizations are called nations by virtue of sign-up based “citizenship” and a political or ideological allegiance. Both categories rely on blockchain technology to maintain their operations[ii].

The latter category possesses the greater threat potential towards the US and its military. By 2050, as certain ideologically based online communities become more prolific and organized, members may begin to feel a stronger attachment and sense of belonging to their online identity than to their nationality[iii]. Once virtual nations are large enough to have power and control over the beliefs and actions of their citizens, they may begin to demand official recognition. They would already possess internal recognition: everyone within the nation believing that it is a nation. The second type of recognition, external, is granted through recognition by an outside body[iv] and signifies its legitimacy (which can take multiple forms, from terrorist organization all the way to governing entity).

Source: Today’s Military

It is highly unlikely that virtual nations will be officially recognized by 2050. If this becomes the case in the far distant future, the US Army is bound by its own doctrine and rules of engagement, as well as by international law and UN convention. This is the preferable scenario because it allows the Army to follow the combat and operation rules with which it is already familiar.

Source: AP

As of now, there is no official recognition for virtual nations. This makes virtual nations more dangerous because there is no external accountability or regulation. The idea of virtual nations will grow in popularity as some people become disenfranchised with their state government and search in larger numbers for organizations of other like-minded people online. Negotiation and diplomacy may not be options with virtual nations, enabling and possibly incentivizing sudden and unilateral action.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was the modern nation-state, which will not be quickly supplanted. However, the political power of the nation-state will start to decline as virtual nations begin to offer comparable services and security. Legitimate government actions may blend in with those of individuals and non-state actors in a haze of anonymity[v]. Given that virtual nations are not yet prolific enough to have a significant impact on operations and global society, there are several key questions that the Army should begin to examine now, ranging from operational to legal and moral:

• How can the Army modernize to defend against attacks not only from isolated cyber groups or nation-state supported hacking efforts, but from massive online organizations with widely distributed membership?

• What happens when the plurality of people belong to virtual nations and they value their doctrine above that of their nation-state?

Source: i-hls.com

• What is the protocol if cyber war extends to the physical or conventional domain?

• Can the US Army legally and ethically conduct targeted cyber or physical strikes against civilians who are involved in a cyber-attack or acts of cyber warfare? If so, who is targeted if the attack comes from multiple different dispersed systems?

• Are the people behind the computer screen writing malicious code viewed as combatants?

Considering this plethora of unknowns, there are some steps that the Army can take today and in the future to prepare for the rise of this new type of organization:

Source: smallbusiness.co.uk

There is a need to update Army doctrine addressing how the Army would engage in cyber war against a virtual nation or similar organization[vi]. Such a conflict will involve consistent and coordinated efforts from participants in multiple countries without state affiliation. These nations can amass support and launch or counter actions much quicker than the Army is used to, and the lack of adversary proximity presents a logistical and operational challenge for the Army. Doctrinal changes made in 2013 continued to emphasize human capabilities after a decade of intensive COIN (counter-insurgency) operations. However, there is still a gap in understanding how CEMA (cyber-electromagnetic activities) and IO (information operations) should work together in synchronicity to fight virtual threats[vii]. Closing this gap would bring the Army one step closer to optimally operating in the digital domain and effectively using all of the tools at its disposal.

Source: U.S. Army

The Army should also continue expanding its cyber force, investing in drones (which could drop small payloads on servers that facilitate attacks or acts of cyber warfare), and making improvements on technologies that can decrypt and trace online accounts to their owners. The Army will also need an updated database of potentially hostile virtual nations and their capabilities. These future capabilities will require closer interactions with the Intelligence Community (IC).

Source: Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford

The future may bring a world where a person’s identity is not based on their geography but on their, political, entrepreneurial, or ideological subscriptions. The Army will not just combat government-sponsored or fringe hacking groups in 2050. These virtual nations pose a unique threat to the US because they are not deterred or combatted through traditional doctrine and tactics.

Special recognition belongs to USAF Lt. Col. Jennifer “JJ” Snow for her inspiring research and writing on this topic.

Marie Murphy is a rising junior at The College of William and Mary in Virginia, studying International Relations and Arabic. She is currently interning at Headquarters, US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) with the Mad Scientist Initiative.

____________________________________________________________

[i] “Asgardia, the World’s First ‘Virtual Space Nation’,” The Week, 20 Nov. 2017.

[ii] “The Nation State Goes Virtual,” Nesta, 2018.

[iii], Frey, Thomas, Juan F “Kiko” Suarez, and Eduardo Suarez, “The Virtual Country: Six Possible Scenarios for the Creation of Viable Virtual Countries,” The Wirtland Institute, n.d.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Wagner, Daniel, “In the Era of Virtual Terrorism, All Cyber-Enabled Nations are Equal,” International Policy Digest, 20 Nov 2017.

[vi] Banach, Stefan J, “Virtual War and Weapons of Mass Deception,” Modern War Institute, 19 April 2018.

[vii] Sheiffer, Matthew J, Lt. Col. “U.S. Army Information Operations and Cyber-Electromagnetic Activities: Lessons from Atlantic Resolve,” Army University Press, 19 March 2018.

HOT!!!

Explore the latest TRADOC G-2 OE content on the Operational Environment Enterprise

Download and check out our new OE Assessment — TRADOC Pam 525-92, The Operational Environment 2024-2034: Large-Scale Combat Operations

Learn more about how our Pacing Threat fights in ATP 7-100.3, Chinese Tactics

Click here to read the Army Future Command’s new AFC Pamphlet 525-2, Future Operational Environment: Forging the Future in an Uncertain World 2035-2050 addressing the mid- to far term OE and watch the associated video!

Watch the TRADOC G-2’s Threats to 2030 video addressing the challenges facing the U.S. Army in the current OE (i.e., now to 2030)

PRIMERS ON THE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

The Changing Character of Future Warfare video

Potential Game Changers handout

TP 525-92-1, The Changing Character of Warfare: The Urban Operational Environment

The Arctic Through 2035: An Overview of the Operational Environment and Competitor Strategies for U.S. Army Training, Doctrine, and Capabilities Development

The Information Environment: Competition & Conflict anthology

MORE OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES…

Foreign Military Studies Office OE Watch

Watch The Future of Unmanned Maritime Systems Webinar [via a non-DoD network]

“THE CONVERGENCE” — Army Mad Scientist Podcasts

Former Undersecretary of the Navy James F. “Hondo” Geurts and Dr. Zachary S. Davis, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, discuss Strategic Latency Unleashed: The Role of Technology in a Revisionist Global Order and the Implications for Special Operations Force and how to think radically about the future, capitalize on talent, and unleash technological convergences to out-compete our adversaries, and when necessary, defeat them decisively in conflict.

COL John Antal (USA-Ret.), author and innovator in the interactive gaming and learning industry, discusses the implications of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, the psychological effects of drone warfare, and the future of maneuver.

COL Scott Shaw, Commander, U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group, discusses the future of ground warfare, including lessons learned from the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in 2020 and the realities of combat for tomorrow’s Soldiers.

Dr. David Kilcullen, bestselling author and expert on unconventional warfare, discusses how the U.S. Army must prepare to engage “Dragons” and “Snakes” as they employ Liminal Warfare and blended cyber-kinetic operations to avoid our conventional warfare dominance.

Mr. Doowan Lee, CEO and co-founder of VAST-OSINT, discusses disinformation, changes over time in approaches to information warfare, and collaboration between Russia and the Chinese Communist Party on information operations.

Click here to listen to other episodes of “The Convergence”

Mad Scientist Partner Sites

Modern War Institute Podcasts

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work Assesses the Future Battlefield

Dr. Moriba Jah on What Does the Future Hold for the US Military in Space?

Elsa Kania on China and its Pursuit of Enhanced Military Technology

Small Wars Journal Mad Scientist Page

U.S. Army War College War Room

U.S. Army Intelligence Center of Excellence Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin

Australian Army The Cove

Australian Defence College The Forge

Search

ARCHIVES

  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017

Content has been removed to align with the President’s executive orders and DoD priorities in accordance with DoD Instruction 5400.17, “Official Use of Social Media for Public Affairs.”

  • Twitter
Proudly powered by WordPress