Wars are a tragic part of our history and will almost certainly be a tragic part of our future.
我们处于历史上悲惨的阶段，而且几乎肯定地会延续到未来。
Since the establishment of the United Nations,
自从联合国创立以来，
wars of aggression have been outlawed and multilateral conventions refer to armed conflict instead of war.
侵略战争已经被禁止，通过多边协商解决武装冲突取代了战争。
But the wars of the future won't be like the wars of our past.
不过未来的战争不同于过去的战争。
Alongside traditional warfare, our future will include cyberwarfare,
除传统战争形态外，未来战争还包括网络战，
remotely fighting our enemies through the use of a new class of weapons,
即使用新形态的武器在远距离同敌人战斗，
including computer viruses and programs to alter the enemy's ability to operate.
包括电脑病毒以及电脑程序以打乱敌人的操作能力。
And not only is cyberwarfare not covered by existing legal frameworks,
网络战非但没有被现行法律框架所涵盖，
but the question of what exactly constitutes cyberwarfare is still highly debated.
而且关于构成网络战的具体行为如何定义仍然有争议。
So, how can we deal with cyberwarfare if we can't even agree on what it means?
那么，如果我们甚至不知道什么是网络战，我们该如何处理网络战呢？
One way forward is to envision situations where new international laws may be needed.
那我们先想像一下需要建立的新国际法。
Imagine a new kind of assassin, one that could perpetrate a crime without firing a single shot or even being in the same country.
设想一种新的暗杀行为，一种没开一枪就可能犯罪的杀手，甚至发生于同一国度之中。
For example, an individual working for the government
比如，一个为政府工作的个人，
uses a wireless device to send a signal to another foreign leader's pacemaker.
使用无线设备给另一国领袖的心脏起搏器发送信号。
This device directs the pacemaker to malfunction, ultimately resulting in the foreign leader's death.
该设备会导致心脏起搏器功能紊乱，极端情况下会导致该国领袖的死亡。
Would this cyber assassination constitute an act of war?
这种网络暗杀行为是否构成战争？
As a second example, imagine an allied group of nations cooperatively infiltrating the computer systems of an enemy nation's nuclear warship.
再举一个例子，想像一下联盟国家互相协作以入侵敌国的核武器电脑系统。
This attack results in a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier almost melting down,
该入侵导致核动力航空母舰几乎核融化，
which was stopped just short of killing thousands of soldiers and civilians.
这险些导致成千上万的士兵和平民死亡。
As a defensive measure, the enemy country responds by unleashing a defensive cyberattack
作为防卫措施，敌国反击并发动网络战，
that results in the allied nations' power grids going down.
导致同盟国的电网中断。

Hospitals can no longer treat patients, entire regions without heat or clean water,
医院将无法治疗病患，大部区域失去供暖和饮用水供应，
all ultimately causing tens of thousands civilian deaths.
最终会导致成千上万的平民死亡。
The origin of the power failure was the counterattack, but the fragile infrastructure, feeble cybersecurity,
切断电力供应的最初意图是反击措施，但是脆弱的基础设施，软弱的网络安保
and the antiquated state of the power grid all contributed to the deaths of the civilians.
和陈旧的国家电网，叠加在一起导致平民的无辜死亡。
Could the country fight back? Who would they fight?
那么国家可以反击吗？他们又该向谁反击呢？
And would their retaliation be considered an act of war?
他们的报复措施会否被视为战争行为？
Do they constitute war crimes against humanity?
他们是否构成针对人类的战争罪行？
Who is to be held responsible? The computer programmers who wrote the code?
谁又该负责呢？编写电脑程序的程序员？
The military project manager who oversaw the creation of the code?
军队中负责监督编码的项目经理？
The commander who hit the button, setting off the event?
按下按钮，发动事件的指挥官？
The hardware engineer who created the computers, knowing that they were intended to enable an attack?
明知电脑会被用来发起攻击的制造电脑的硬件工程师？
Because war has been with us for so long,
因为战争已经在我们之间存在多年，
we have laws to deal with figuring out who should be held accountable for their actions in combat.
我们创建了法律来定义谁应该为战争行为承担责任。
These legal frameworks aim to contain and prevent atrocities from being more atrocious.
这些法律框架的目的是限制暴行并防止更加残暴行为的发生。
Commandeering civilian planes and using them as weapons, dropping atomic bombs,
征用民用飞机并把它们用作武器，投放原子弹，
the use of gas chambers or poisonous gas in conflict, all of these actions, if committed,
使用毒气室或在冲突中使用化学武器，所有这些行为，一旦确认，
constitute acts of war and war crimes under customary international law and the Hague conventions.
依据现有国际法和海牙公约，将被视为战争罪行。
Again, the current legal framework stays silent on hypothetical questions and countless others because there are no easy answers,
不过，现有法律框架对于这些假想情景和类似行为无能为力，因为对于它们没有简单的解决方法，
and there are only two ways to make progress on these questions: peace or new laws.
只有两种方式能促进这类问题的解决：追求和平和新的立法。
So, what hypothetical but plausible scenarios can you imagine falling under the burgeoning definition of cyberwarfare,
那么，你能够设想到什么样的假象情景和相似的行为符合白热化的网络战定义呢，
and how might you design an international legal framework to deter these activities?
又要怎样设计国际法框架来阻止这些行为呢？