According to Scott Jasper in the Strategic Studies Quarterly, deterrence is more complex than a one-dimensional plan to keep aggressors out. Deterrence by denial, deterrence by punishment and the newly-coined deterrence by entanglement are all strategies embodied within the overarching policy of general deterrence.
It has been US policy to confine our defense almost exclusively to deterrence by denial: by attempting to eliminate the ability of an aggressor to successfully obtain a payload. This strategy requires seamless defense–the ability to anticipate and guard against highly motivated attackers in a dynamically evolving field.
Deterrence by punishment, or the practice of placing a cost on the aggressor’s decision to attack, has been widely debated by policymakers and security professionals and affiliated with active defense or “hack back” practices. The final option, deterrence by entanglement, has only recently become a discussed option: the concept that mutual interests and shared political, economic and diplomatic relationships encourage responsibility and nonaggression on the cyber front.
The latter strategy stands apart as more of a diplomatic solution than a policy one, so for the purposes of this discussion we’ll focus on the first two deterrence methods.
Read the complete report here.
