You should have to have a licence to use the internet (and related idiocy)

[Cain]

OP - I don't see US, China, and Russia signing on to a no-cyberwar treaty like this, and I don't see anybody else signing it without the US, Russia, and China also agreeing to it.  But then I also don't know anything about IR, so that's probably wrong.  Has any military technology or strategy ever been banned without it having first been used in a war?

I've only slept four hours, and the last time I really looked into this was a few years ago, but I believe chemical and biological weapons (of the 20th century variety) were banned by successive Geneva conventions even before their first use, because of the recognition that the methodology they employed went against long standing norms and traditions of warfare (for instance, biological weapons continue to do damage well after the end of the war, and there is no way to differentiate between civilian and military targets with one).

I also think prohibitions against aerial bombardment were being drawn up in 1925 or so, along the lines of prohibitions against naval bombardment of civilian areas.  It never really caught on though, as people were too busy fapping over the Washington Naval Treaty and the Kellogg-Briand pact.

But in short, its not unheard of for at least discussions of prohibitions of new weapons to take place.  Usually, treaties like these are based around past principles (the Just War tradition being a favourite), and so due to their more abstract nature can easily be transferred to new technologies.

I can't see the major powers signing up though, unless a smaller power, like, say, a rogue military dictatorship started using it to great effect, and threatened all of them.  Usually the great powers very quickly come to a position of agreement, when lesser powers start being uppity and getting ideas above their station.