I have often wondered: if a third World War broke out today, how different would it be?
With so many devices connected under the umbrella of the “Internet of Things”, are we leaving ourselves vulnerable, and what safeguards exist to prevent large-scale abuse?
The core problem now is our expectation that information should be instantly accessible. At the same time, decentralised and increasingly capable hacktivist groups are emerging, adding to the persistent threats of terrorism and geopolitical tensions that have long affected humanity. Can we afford this level of exposure?
Popular culture has explored similar ideas. For example, the Call of Duty Modern Warfare series imagines scenarios in which automated defence systems are compromised and turned against citizens. We already operate remotely piloted aircraft and drones in conflict zones; consider the potential devastation if such systems were hijacked by malicious actors operating from anywhere in the world.
In principle, critical defensive systems should operate on isolated local networks, shielded from external intrusion. The greater concern involves systems that need secure remote access—financial institutions and stock exchanges among them.
On Wall Street, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) is helping banks prepare for large-scale cyberwarfare through simulations such as “Quantum Dawn 2”. Though the name might sound like a video-game level or a sci-fi sequel, the exercise plays a crucial role in developing defenses and coordinating responses between institutions in the event of an attack.
The first iteration of that simulation notably featured a physical assault on a bank by armed attackers. After reviewing that exercise, organisers found significant communication breakdowns between teams. The follow-up exercise focused entirely on office-based cyber incidents—an indication of how reliant modern systems have become on networked technologies.
In the UK, the Defence Academy published a report titled “The Global Cyber-Game”, which outlines a variety of potential conflict scenarios. The study warns that the internet is effectively becoming militarised: it is increasingly indispensable for modern life and operations, and therefore an attractive target in any future conflict.
High-profile incidents have underscored those risks. Not long ago, Chinese-based attackers reportedly breached Google’s servers and accessed a year’s worth of U.S. intelligence data, illustrating the real-world consequences of large-scale intrusions. More recently, revelations about the PRISM programme sparked widespread debate about government surveillance and data security.
Such incidents have made clear that cyber security is not a niche technical issue but a matter of national and global importance. The questions remain: are governments, corporations, and civil society taking the right measures to defend critical infrastructure? Are prevention, detection and response practices being implemented with sufficient urgency and coordination?
Global cyber security and the potential for cyber-enabled warfare demand sustained attention. Strengthening defences requires not only technical solutions—segmentation of networks, robust encryption, and resilient backup systems—but also better communication and coordinated planning between public and private sectors, regular training exercises, and transparent policies that balance security with civil liberties.
What are your thoughts on global cyber security and the risk of cyber warfare? Are we treating these threats with the seriousness they deserve, and what further steps should be taken to protect critical systems and the public?