UpFront Politics: War Strategy

Why Eliminating Physical Money Will Jeopardize National Security

Why Eliminating Physical Money Will Jeopardize National Security
Posted: January 25, 2019 at 3:54 am   /   by   /   comments (0)

New security concerns are growing all over the world, especially in nations that are eliminating physical currency and establishing digital currency. The establishment of having digital money could be acceptable to cyber attacks, which can threaten the nation’s economy. If war broke out between nations or other serious conflicts, then the economy could be destroyed or severely damage before an invasion is taken in place. This article will discuss the reasons why removing all physical currency will jeopardize a nations national security, and why having physical money is essential to maintain the countries economy,

Many nations around the world are limiting their physical currency and establishing credit or other digital payment. Countries like Sweden are eliminating their physical currency. Sweden is not the only country starting to remove their physical currency. Countries like India are starting to eliminate physical money from their economy. These nations are putting themselves in great danger. Greedy bankers who want to collect fees off of credit card transactions are putting their countries national security at risk. For example, cyber attacks, internet cables being cut off, EMP attacks, and increase civil unrest.

In Europe, many countries are fearing a Russian invasion of the European Union. Europe mainly buys its energy supplies from Russia, which means Europe is reliant on Russian energy. Now, add countries that are eliminating their physical currency to an all-digital currency economy. If more European countries adopt a Swedish approach, then the result during the war or a major conflict with Russia increases the chances of Russia winning. Russia would have the ability to cut off energy, while at the same time targeting the economy of nations that use no physical currency. If Russia is more aggressive in its combative capabilities, then cutting internet cables or cyber attack can devastate the economy of Sweden without firing one bullet. The result might be civil unrest in the nation because nobody can buy or sell items. Even if the internet cables are not cut a cyber attack can hurt the economy. The combination of these attacks might take place before the invasion of the nation. It will also allow Russia to cut cost in their military by using cyber capabilities to inflict massive amounts of damage to a country before the invasion. Of course, with any cyber attack it takes time to figure out who committed the cyber attacks, but at the same time the economy will be hurting, and the average individual living in that society will be suffering

However, this is the worst case scenario of a digital economy. Having an old school system of physical cash is vital for 21 first century survival in the new age of warfare. For example, if a cyber attack does happen on the energy grid and affects half of the United States, then having physical cash can still allow people to buy and sell items. It would be of course at a slower pace, but the economy would still be able to function slowly. As a result, the economy will be damaged, but not destroyed. The economy would still be functioning, and civil unrest would take longer to start because people could still buy and sell. Compared to Sweden, which is eliminating their physical currency increases the chance of civil unrest in a couple of days. Their economy would be entirely destroyed because nobody can buy or sell.

In the end, moving to all digital economy will increase the chances of defeat in time of war and conflict in the 21 first century. A digital economy will increase civil unrest and will destroy the economy of a nation. While, having physical money in the economy will allow the society to function delaying civil unrest and not killing the economy, but still damaging the economy.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency.