THE DUAL-USE PROBLEM
Routers, switches, and servers are inherently dual-use: the same hardware that runs a hospital network can run a targeting cell. Export controls focus on weapons and chips; general-purpose IT gear flows on commercial terms even when the end user is a military command.
THE KILL CHAIN
Modern air operations run on what doctrine calls F2T2EA — find, fix, track, target, engage, assess. Each stage is a data pipeline: sensor feeds, geolocation, identification, weapon assignment, strike, battle damage. Collapsing the cycle from hours to minutes is the entire point of networked warfare.
WHO BUILDS THE BACKBONE
A handful of Western firms supply the global networking stack used by militaries — Cisco, Juniper, HPE/Aruba, Palo Alto, plus Israeli and increasingly Chinese alternatives. Switching costs are immense: a military that standardizes on one vendor's certificates, training, and management software is locked in for a decade or more.
THE NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE
International law since 1947 holds that industrialists can be criminally liable when their products knowingly enable atrocities. IG Farben executives were convicted for supplying Zyklon B; bankers were convicted for financing slave labor. The doctrine survives in the Rome Statute's aiding-and-abetting provisions for genocide and war crimes.
THE ICJ FINDING
In January 2024 the International Court of Justice ruled it plausible that Israel's conduct in Gaza violates the Genocide Convention. The ruling triggered legal obligations for third states under Article 1 of the Convention — including duties on companies operating under their jurisdiction — to prevent acts that could contribute to genocide.
THE PRECEDENT
Tech-sector complicity claims are not new. IBM's German subsidiary supplied Hollerith punch-card machines that catalogued Holocaust victims; the company settled a survivor lawsuit in 2001 without admitting liability. Cisco itself faced a US lawsuit alleging its 'Golden Shield' technology helped China persecute Falun Gong practitioners — dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not on the merits.