To complete the Module 6 (Cyberconflict) Case Analysis, read “Trump inherits a secret cyberwar against North Korean missiles” (or read the PDF version attached below) by David Sanger and William Broad and then use an unlocked ethical tool (“Ethical Tool: Deontology” attached below) and the Boylan reading from this module in order to answer this question:

Is the Cyberwar Trump inherited a just war?

Write your case analysis according to these guidelines:

First, in 150–300 words, write an introductory paragraph that presents in summary (only) the details about the case presented by Sanger and Broad that are relevant to your argument. End with a thesis statement addressing the prompt, e.g., “In this Case Analysis I will argue that [ethical tool] shows us that the cyberwar Trump inherited [was/was not] just because [reason].”

Next, in several paragraphs totaling 500 words, (a) use one or more central concepts from Boylan to analyze the case; (b) use your selected ethical tool to assess the actions taken in the case, as understood through your analysis; and (c.) argue for what you think was the right thing to have done based on this assessment and analysis.

Finally, in 150–300 words, summarize your position and make other concluding remarks. Don’t make your argument here—you should be making your argument using our authors and your tool for ethical reasoning throughout the entire main part of the paper. The conclusion should summarize the argument and then consider objections or alternate views, respond to those objections, consider wider implications or related cases, and/or consider problems in or drawbacks to your position. Don’t try to do all of these different things— do whichever of them you think fits best with your position and argument. Also: Don’t be afraid to recognize problems in your argument! Working through moral issues shouldn’t be about winning arguments; it should be about trying to figure out the best solutions by presenting arguments, admitting problems and concerns, and listening to and responding to the concerns and arguments of others.