By Jayda Bonnick

As cyberspace reshapes global security, traditional notions of power and dominance are being redefined. This piece explores how digital vulnerabilities, private tech influence, and innovation challenge state authority in the cyber realm. Drawing on Fred Kaplan’s Dark Territory, it highlights the complex balance between connectivity and control in an increasingly digital world.
One of the defining features of cyberspace is its ever-evolving nature. Both consumers and governments alike find themselves grappling to adopt and adapt to the latest innovations while simultaneously learning what vulnerabilities lie in its wake. Fred Kaplan’s Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War examines the U.S government’s decades-long journey to understand and adopt cyber operations in the scope of its national security and military operations. Throughout the chapters, Kaplan discusses the underlying notion state officials found themselves going back to when adopting and implementing new cyber practices systemically: “whatever we can do to our enemies, our enemies could soon do to us” (Kaplan 125). This concept of reciprocity is key in highlighting the inherent insecurity that states experience in the cyber realm of global security. Cyber capabilities do not equate to power in the same way that tactical military capabilities once did in the 20th century. When both civilians and state officials rely on the Internet and digital connectivity both personally and professionally, a delicate dance has to be done by governments when asserting their position in global security.
During the Cold War’s nuclear arms race, power was determined by which nations possessed tangible nuclear capabilities, while those without such weapons gained relative power by aligning with nuclear states (Kaplan 43). This led to a bipolar dynamic between the United States and Russia, creating a generally straightforward system of deterrence. With cyber activities as the latest technology that actors are implementing into their security programs, the road to power and dominance in this space is not as linear as it is when discussing tangible capabilities. Information warfare and espionage operations are long-standing practices in security, but cyberspace brought those practices to a new level as technology became more accessible and more sensitive information became digitized.
Cyber operations can be executed against specific personnel or entire state-owned agencies, making vulnerabilities in cyberspace broader and more complex than in traditional security contexts.. The Obama administration represented the shift in people’s relationship with the Internet as it pertained to security on a personal and public level. Former President Barack Obama had to have a new Blackberry with high-end encryption manufactured specifically for him after refusing to give up his phone upon the Secret Service’s request (Kaplan 145). While the president could not part with his personal smartphone, each device becomes a potential entry point for malicious actors seeking to compromise national security. President Obama was the first president to represent the give-and-take of cybersecurity. He, like most Americans, has a personal device integrated into everyday life, one that parting ways with is seemingly impossible, while each device serves as a host and a new pathway for violating privacy. The pervasiveness of the Internet in the lives of citizens and officials alike can undermine a country’s cyber capabilities if hackers target an individual or a private server outside of the state’s control, making it hard to establish cyberpower through quantitative means, like how tactical security capabilities could be measured in past decades through number of troops or amount of artillery.
In Dark Territory, Kaplan mentions how most of the world’s Internet bandwidth flowed through US-owned infrastructure: “pieces of every email and cell phone conversation in the world flowed, at some point, through a line of American-based fiber optics” (178). Through innovation and globally relied-upon infrastructure, the United States is able to achieve a level of cyberpower that indicates its influence in the sphere, similar to Michael Mann’s definition of power in The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Mann describes power as the ability to attain goals through mastering one’s environment (Mann 6). While American-based fiber optics does not equal security for the United States, it shows how innovation in cyber can be just as important as knowing how to convert those innovations into cyber operations for a nation’s military plan.
This notion of innovation to assert cyber dominance is seen in states’ strategies to either align with or discredit private technology companies. Private tech firms and social media platforms have the funding and attention of millions of consumers, asserting their own power in cyberspace. States have to acknowledge the legitimacy of these private actors when their platforms have non-political figures with more followers than congressmen and presidents. Social media platforms like TikTok (owned by a private Chinese company, ByteDance) have faced scrutiny by American politicians in the last five years as the app has about 150 million active users in the United States alone (Kerr, Lee). With the amount of active users on these platforms, private companies have access to mass amounts of personal data that can be a tool for or a threat to state agencies and their operations. Whether it’s through allowing private firms to be in discussions around cybersecurity or, on the other end, considering legislation to bar certain actors from operating within a state’s territory, innovators in cyberspace carry weight when it comes to today’s conversations around global security and state interests.
From coding knowledge being as accessible as a free video on YouTube to less financial barriers to connect to the Internet, billions of people are active participants in cyberspace, making it both a critical resource and source of vulnerability for all of its users. Fred Kaplan’s Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War outlines the struggles lawmakers, tech experts, and military officials faced when confronted with inherent insecurity at every stage of incorporating cyber operations into the government’s infrastructure and national security plans. From adding security software to military computers to the first major cyber attack carried out by the United States, Stuxnet, there was an inability to be “ahead of the curve” offensively or defensively, making cyberpower harder to establish in the same way states have historically demonstrated security and power. The value of cyberspace lies in a state’s ability to contribute to innovations in the digital era, whether through social media platforms or investing in global cyber infrastructure. Being able to keep up with the nuances of cyberspace has not and will not guarantee foolproof protection against cyber attacks, but rather it allows actors to be perceived as leaders in a space that boasts and encourages interconnectivity and convenience despite the list of vulnerabilities that come with it.
******
Jayda Bonnick is a graduate student at NYU studying Global Security, Conflict, and Cybercrime. With a background in international relations and cybersecurity strategy analysis, she explores the evolving intersections of technology, security, and power. Her work focuses on how digital infrastructure and innovation shape global governance and national security.
Works Cited
Kaplan, Fred. “Buckshot Yankee.” In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, 125-137. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.
Kaplan, Fred. “A Cyber Pearl Harbor.” In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, 33-45. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.
Kaplan, Fred. “The Whole Haystack.” In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, 138-145. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.
Kaplan, Fred. “The Five Guys Report.” In Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War, 170-189. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.
Kerr, Dara.. “Lawmakers grilled TikTok CEO Chew for 5 hours in a high-stakes hearing about the app.” NPR, March 23, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165579717/tiktok-congress-hearing-shou-zi-chew-project-texas#:~:text=Front%20and%20center%20were%20concerns,users%20with%20the%20Chinese%20government.
Lee, Carol. “TikTok now has 150 million active users in the U.S., CEO to tell Congress.” NBC News, March 23, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/tiktok-now-150-million-active-users-us-ceo-tell-congress-rcna75607.
Mann, Michael. “Societies as organized power networks.” In The Sources of Social Power, Volume: 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760, 1-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.






