Slashdot Mirror
Upcoming Cyberwars
Jamyang writes "In the run-up to the first anniversary of September 11, Taiwan's President has accused China of threatening Taipei with "terrorist" tactics in a speech that will fuel Beijing's current fury: "Communist China has accelerated development of 'unrestricted warfare' similar to terrorist methods," he said. Reuters man in Taipei reckon he's referring to "Unrestricted Warfare" [PDF] by leading PLA strategists - Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui - who famously argued that China should focus on "asymmetric engagement" in the 21st century. In fact, many related secret documents have leaked out of China lately. Taiwan's Defense Ministry is taking the threat of infowar very seriously, as can be seen in their 2002 Defense Whitepaper. If the U.S. gets tied up in a ground war in the Middle East, China's going to be real tempted ...."
The agreement we have with Taiwan doesn't state we will go to war with them, just that we will supply them with the military equipment (supposing they can pay for it) they will need to fight the war themselves.
We are under no obligation to go to war with China should they take action against Taiwan. Taiwan is quite capable of defending themselves. In fact Taiwan has a larger military than most super powers for this very reason. If you make the argument that China is larger with a superior military force, I will simply remind you of Vietnam and our failed attempts there.
In the last 100 years no country has successfully invaded another. The world just doesn't take to kindly to that. There is a few possible exceptions (china and tibet), but putting them in context will still lead you to the same conclusion. The country on defense has a significantly high advantage. This advantage is why we didn't finish Saddam Hussein in the 90's.
Would the US intervene if China invaded Taiwan? Absolutely. The intervention might not take the form of massive troop deployments, but you could certainly expect massive air and sea-based theater weapons such as cruise missiles, fuel-air bombs, and the like to be brought to bear on massed Chinese forces.
Whether China could defeat Taiwan is certainly open for debate, but the US would not sit idly by and let China launch an unprovoked attack without doing something about it. For the US not to do so would be tantamount to approving of the invasion, which is ludicrous to imagine.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Now that the US has decided to wage a war against terrorism many other countries have decided to crack down own their own internal problem populations by painting them with the terrorist brush.
Russia did it with chechnians, China did with the minority muslim population in the west. In the case of Israel it has used the post 9-11 US position to crack down much harder on the palestenians to the point of putting eight hundred thousand people under curfew and starving the population into submission.
Before 9-11 all of these actions would have been objectionable to the US govt and the public at large but post 9-11 nobody has raised an eyebrow.
Even in the US anybody who disagrees with the govt gets tagged with the terrorist label. The environmentalists, the "anti globalists", hackers, music swappers, open source developers etc.
It should not surprise anybody to see taiwan jumping on board this bandwagon.
My suspicion is that the term will dilute itself just like the word nazi did after it got overused so much. Feminazi, green nazi, surf nazi, soup nazi etc. When you start labeling everybody with the same tag pretty soon the label encompasses so many people it loses it's potency.
War is necrophilia.
Am I the only one that's getting tired of every world leader referring to the activity of their rivals as being "terrorism"? It reminds me of how, during the Cold War, every problem a nation faced was either blamed on "communist subversion" or "imperialist aggression."
Computer viruses as terrorism? Well, maybe if they're targeted to drop planes from the sky, cause nuclear power plant malfunctions, etc -- but everyday preparation for infowar is not terrorism.
Besides, terrorism is almost always the weapon of the weak (excluding "terror" against one's own population). Strong countries find lobbing a few missiles to be much more effective. There is real danger of full-scale conventional war if Taiwan declares independence from China, and I suspect that computer viruses will be the last of their concerns.
Make cheese not war 8:)
I think perhaps you have it backwards - could it be that non-Americans hate the US so much because the United States is always cleaning up spilled milk?
For example, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll last week, 69 per cent of Canadians said the U.S. shares some of the responsibility for the attacks, while 15 per cent said all of the responsibility sits on American shoulders.
If we Canadians feel that way, how does the rest of the world feel? You are bound to get stung when you stick your hand in the hornets' nest looking for honey.
Personally, I am getting tired of hearing about this "cyber-terrorism". You know it's nonsense. I know it's nonsense.
It's simply another idiocy spewed by the cabal ruling the US, another area where they will spread violence and prohibitions, another area where humongous amounts of money will be spent.
Please, let's just drop this. Let's not make it news when somebody Up Top yet again talks about it with furrowed brow. Cyber-terrorism is ridiculous. It hasn't happened yet, and you can't convince me that there are any real signs of it happening in the near future.
The only thing that will happen is that vast amounts of money will be spent without result. Again.
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
You misunderstand - if you read the article, you'd see that those 15% believe that US foreign policy led to the attacks. Rather, had US foreign policy been handled differently, the attacks would have never happened. That's not to defend those 15%, I personally believe that it takes two to tango, but hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion. My point isn't to defend those 15%, or 69%, for that matter. It's just to say that if a closely allied country can find blame in the US, how do people in other countries feel?
And other cultural vandalism.
If I dislike America the Capitalist it'd because of it's success. It's ironic that the majority of Americans I have met are some of the friendliest and generous people I have met but when I walk through my town it makes me sad that everywhere I see Corporate America mocking me with it's ownership of my environment. Within 5 miles of my house there are 4
McDonalds, 2 Wal-Marts, 2 Starbucks and 1 GAP.
As en experiment I just went and turned on my TV. Of the seven channels two of them are shwoing American programmes (Happy Days & something with Tia Carrera as Indiana Jones).
Of course, much of it doesn't start out as unwanted, I like Happy Days but as time goes by this cultural expansionism gets a bit much. Suddenly there are no shops but American shops. All your canned drinks say "made by the Coke Company" and there's nothing but Saved By The Bell or WWF on TV.
America can seem like a guest who brought round a six pack and a pizza but doesn't know when to leave.
Just ask Osama. The Americans come to help stabilise the region but then decide to maintain a military presence that goes far beyond the initial mandate. Now, I will admit, that this presence is probably to *my* benefit, but for some Muslims it's offensive (like Conservative Islam is to me).
I'm not suggesting that any of this makes it okay to spill American blood. Far from it. But that's what it's like living under American influence.
It's no wonder the people try to protect their culture from outside influence. They want dominion over their own affairs.
Perceived common enemies are the stock in trade for the human race be it burglars, burgers or Burghers. There's money/power to be made in "solutions" to all of these.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter