Policymakers and academics have raised concerns over escalation should states adopt a more proactive cyberspace posture. The unspoken context for those fears is potential, episodic, offensive cyber operations that threaten to cause, or cause, physical damage. This narrow focus excludes an equally, if not more
important, strategic space—actual, continuous, strategic competition without resort to armed attack, a space which, according to 2018 U.S. strategic guidance, poses a central challenge to national security. U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) has described a strategic approach to cyberspace intended to counter and contest adversary gains: persistent engagement. This approach is assessed through a re-consideration of Herman Kahn’s On Escalation. It is concluded that competitive interaction in cyberspace short of armed conflict in an agreed competition, as opposed to spiraling escalation, best explains the dynamic from persistent engagement and, consequently, prevailing concerns of escalation are unwarranted. Agreement to compete robustly short of armed conflict may be the grand strategic consequence of cyberspace.
Persistent Engagement, Agreed Competition, and Cyberspace Interaction Dynamics and Escalation