打個比方，假設你是棒球界類固醇興奮劑泛濫年代的一名重磅擊球手。基於道德和健康方面的考慮，你可能反對使用興奮劑，但許多競爭對手都在用，因此你面臨著加入他們行列的巨大壓力。
再打個比方，假設你是一所好高中的學生。也許你想擁有一個正常的青春期，不過，你被一群學習小狂人包圍，他們從6歲開始就在為申請大學這件事忙活。你發現，自己不可能獨自退出這場永無止境的激烈競爭，同時還申請到心儀的大學。因此你面臨著巨大的壓力，要以自己厭惡的方式行事。
| 戴維・布魯克斯 |
你可以把這些情況叫做「野蠻連鎖效應」(brutality cascades)。在某些特定種類的競爭中，遊戲規則由最野蠻的玩家設定。其他所有人，不管願意與否，都面臨予以仿效的壓力。
政界充斥著野蠻連鎖效應。比如，假設你是一名當選議員的正常人。你不想把全部時間花在籌款上，你想文明地對待對手，有可能的話甚至做出一些妥協。
但是，你發現自己的競爭對手整天都在籌款，比起文明和妥協來，他們更喜歡野蠻和專制。時間不長，你就發現，為了生存，你必須遵守他們的準則。
或者再看看國際事務領域的一個例子。美國是一個始終捍衛公海經濟準則的傳統資本主義國家。我們認為，與對話類似，如果全球經濟擁有最大限度的開放、互信和自由交流，將會使所有人受益。
但是中國出現了，這個超級經濟體的想法更具重商主義色彩。許多中國人，至少是軍工複合體裡的人認為，全球經濟是一種戰爭形式，一種尋求國家主導權的鬥爭。
美國和歐洲則傾向於認為，對外國私營企業進行網絡攻擊的做法會傷及自身。這樣做也許可以學到一些東西，但是這會摧毀促進自由交流的信任。不久之後，貿易就會枯竭，因為無人想與盜匪做生意。投資者會抽身尋求透明度更高的合作夥伴。
不過中國的網絡重商主義者認為，欺騙是種天然的戰爭手段，網絡攻擊完全合情合理。你的競爭對手辛勤工作獲取了智慧財產權，而你自己的體系更封閉，因此創新並不是你的競爭優勢，所以偷竊是一種更快捷、更廉價的方式。別人會因此恨你，但那又能怎樣?他們反正都會恨你。這是戰爭啊。
在野蠻連鎖效應的帶動下，隨著競爭的持續，中國的行為方式並不會向我們靠攏，而是我們向他們靠攏。目前的走向正是如此。
西方企業應對網絡攻擊的第一反應是築起高牆。它們沒有對全球市場敞開大門，而是開始變得更像密不透風的堅固城堡。
接下來，私營企業和西方政府的界限開始模糊。當西方企業受到攻擊的時候，它們馬上向所在國的政府尋求技術和政治支持。一方面，美國軍方正在深化對計算機反間諜行動的介入，從而拉近了軍方和私營企業之間的距離;另一方面，大家看到數碼界黑水公司(Blackwater)的崛起，這些私營網絡安全公司與資訊時代的軍隊的行為方式別無二致，不僅提供對外國攻擊的防禦，還可以對來自中國和俄羅斯的敵人進行反擊。
不久之後，全球經濟就會變得不那麼像《大富翁》(Monopoly)，而更像是《大戰役》(Risk)。中國的軍工複合體盤踞棋盤的一方，而西方的軍工複合體則盤踞另一方。
野蠻連鎖效應很難擺脫。你可以宣戰，乾脆努力消滅那些你認為在破壞競爭的人。
或者，你可以嘗試建立所謂的「朋友圈」。這種方法首先要建立用來規範競爭的合法性準則，也就是創建一個規範國內政治行為或全球網絡間諜活動的《日內瓦公約》(Geneva Convention)。然後，組織起一個儘可能全面網羅同道的聯盟來維護這些準則。
最後，將剩餘的違規者孤立起來，並發出一個信號：如果加入我們的朋友圈，並且遵守我們的準則，那麼你們就會獲得壓倒性的好處;如果繼續待在圈外，那麼你們就會付出毀滅性的代價。
歐巴馬總統努力與那些他眼中的共和黨狂熱分子進行鬥爭的時候，他在這兩種策略之間舉棋不定。他既沒有將預算對決大力推進到讓共和黨人名譽掃地的地步，也沒有提供足夠的誘惑來讓共和黨中的務實派分子衝破黨派界線。
在應對中國方面，第二種選擇顯然是更好的策略。先創建禁止針對公民和私營企業實施網絡攻擊的《日內瓦公約》，再組織一個廣泛的聯盟來予以執行。
不幸的是，設立標準現如今是一門奄奄一息的藝術，因此我們要繼續忍受這種野蠻連鎖效應。
翻譯：黃錚
——紐約時報
The Brutality Cascade
By DAVID BROOKSMarch07,2013
[page]
Let’s say you were a power hitter during baseball’s steroids era. You may have objected to steroids on moral and health grounds. But many of your competitors were using them, so you faced enormous pressure to use them too.
Let’s say you are a student at a good high school. You may want to have a normal adolescence. But you are surrounded by all these junior workaholics who have been preparing for the college admissions racket since they were6. You find you can’t unilaterally withdraw from the rat race and still get into the college of your choice. So you also face enormous pressure to behave in a way you detest.
You might call these situations brutality cascades. In certain sorts of competitions, the most brutal player gets to set the rules. Everybody else feels pressure to imitate, whether they want to or not.
The political world is rife with brutality cascades. Let’s say you are a normal person who gets into Congress. You』d rather not spend all your time fund-raising. You』d like to be civil to your opponents and maybe even work out some compromises.
But you find yourself competing against opponents who fund-raise all the time, who prefer brutalism to civility and absolutism to compromise. Pretty soon you must follow their norms to survive.
Or take a case in world affairs. The United States is a traditional capitalist nation that has championed an open-seas economic doctrine. We think everybody benefits if global economics is like a conversation, with maximum openness, mutual trust and free exchange.
But along comes China, an economic superpower with a more mercantilist mind-set. Many Chinese, at least in the military-industrial complex, see global economics as a form of warfare, a struggle for national dominance.
Americans and Europeans tend to think it is self-defeating to engage in cyberattacks on private companies in a foreign country. You may learn something, but you destroy the trust that lubricates free exchange. Pretty soon your trade dries up because nobody wants to do business with a pirate. Investors go off in search of more transparent partners.
But China’s cybermercantilists regard deceit as a natural tool of warfare. Cyberattacks make perfect sense. Your competitors have worked hard to acquire intellectual property. Your system is more closed so innovation is not your competitive advantage. It is quicker and cheaper to steal. They will hate you for it, but who cares? They were going to hate you anyway. C』est la guerre.
In a brutality cascade the Chinese don’t become more like us as the competition continues. We become more like them. And that is indeed what’s happening. The first thing Western companies do in response to cyberattacks is build up walls. Instead of being open stalls in the global marketplace, they begin to look more like opaque, rigidified castles.
Next, the lines between private companies and Western governments begin to blur. When Western companies are attacked, they immediately turn to their national governments for technical and political support. On the one hand, the United States military is getting a lot more involved in computer counterespionage, eroding the distance between the military and private companies. On the other hand, you see the rise of these digital Blackwaters, private security firms that behave like information age armies, providing defense against foreign attack but also counterattacking against Chinese and Russian foes.
Pretty soon the global economy looks less like Monopoly and more like a game of Risk, with a Chinese military-industrial complex on one part of the board and the Western military-industrial complex on another part.
Brutality cascades are very hard to get out of. You can declare war and simply try to crush the people you think are despoiling the competition.
Or you can try what might be called friendship circles. In this approach, you first establish the norms of legitimacy that should govern the competition. You create a Geneva Convention of domestic political conduct or global cyberespionage. Then you organize as broad a coalition as possible to agree to uphold these norms.
Finally, you isolate the remaining violators and deliver a message: If you join our friendship circle and abide by our norms, the benefits will be overwhelming, but if you stay outside, the costs will be devastating.
In his effort to fight what he regards as Republican zealots, President Obama is caught between these two strategies. He never quite pushes budget showdowns to the limit to discredit Republicans, but he never offers enough to the members of the Republican common-sense caucus to tempt them to break ranks.
Clearly the second option is better for dealing with the Chinese. Establish a Geneva Convention that bans cyberactivity against citizens and private companies. Establish a broad coalition to enforce it.
Unfortunately, standard-setting is a dying art these days, so we are living with these brutality cascades.