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 ...."

Comments

The new reason for everything!

[lpret]

Terrorism! That's the new blanket statement we can use for everything it seems. It used to be "those commies" who were somehow able to corrupt and affect everything that went bad. Missle Defense System not working? Commies! The price of wheat high? Commies!

Somehow we've gotten into the same trap again, things that have been happening for months, if not years, are now blamed on "terrorist activity." I think every skirmish in the past 12 months have all been blamed on terrorism to differing plausibility: Afghanistan/Taliban, Israel/Palestine, Philippines/Abu Sayyaf, N. & S. Korea, and now Taiwan/China. I mean, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been going on for over 50 years! Is it just a new catchphrase or is it a realisation of the tactics used by one side or the other? And by the US gov't declaring war on terror, it means that the US will have an obligation to help all of these countries in their "War Of Terror" .

Re:The new reason for everything!

[nzhavok]

(Only joking Frenchies).

Actually whether you know it or not you're not joking see this article if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Re:China can get away with it.

[Ryu2]

I would submit that Taiwan itself is more of a deterrent than the US for preventing any hostility between China and Taiwan... the reason is simple: Taiwan is now China's third largest investor, next to the US and Japan -- even despite limits on investment activity set by the Taiwanese government. Other than the most advanced technology, much of Taiwan's high-tech manufacturing, such as chip fabs, has been farmed out to factories in Guangdong and Fujian provinces, as well as many other parts of China. The relationship is a lot like say, US and Mexico for instance.

Taiwan pumps a LOT into the Chinese economy, and the Chinese know it. The leaders of China may be aggressive, because face is everything, and they want to maintain a strong posture to the world. Nevertheless, they are not irrational or suicidal. A trade embargo between Taiwan and China would be plenty damaging enough, even without US military intervention (which is also a guarantee -- Taiwan and the US are still subject to terms of their mutual defense treaty, signed as part of US switching diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979.)

Re:Wrong - China can't get away with it

[RoguePsion]

I highly doubt that the US would risk using nukes against the Chinese short of them using nukes on taiwan, and even then there would probably be much hesitation. Even a tactical nuclear strike would be unwise; nuclear weapons have only been used twice offensively, and the debate on whether it was "right" or not still continues. Besides that, China's nuclear capability may be weak, but do you think the Russians would sit idly by, even if the fallout didn't drift into Russian territory?

However, it does seem unlikely that China would risk (conventional) war with the US over Taiwan; they may have over one billion people, but much of their military technology dates back to the fifties. In the case of invasion, the US would almost certainly come to Taiwan's aid, for better or for worse.

U.S interests.

[jericho4.0]

The Bush administration has shown a lot of interest in passing laws that restrict rights. The evidence that Al-Queda has any cyberwar capabilities beyond that of a pimple-faced script-kiddie is weak, but stories still pop up about the threat that they entail and the measures that are going to have to be taken to combat it.

I wouldn't be suprised if a story like this, from a very dependent ally, was encouraged by the powers that be.

Oh yeah, remember; if you or anyone you know smoked a joint since 9/11, you're supporting terrorisim.

Re:Why China wants stake in Taiwan so bad

[cyberon22]

Taiwan is a major source of investment capital for China, and only seems likely to increase in importance as one in the future. Taiwan recently eliminated an official requirement that investment in the mainland had to be chunneled through third parties, and removed its cap on mainland investment of $50 million last year.

Considering that the single largest threat to the CCP is probably the economic instability and mass urban unemployment that comes with state-owned enterprise reform, market liberalization and WTO accession, it seems exceedingly unlikely that the CCP will take any steps whose immediate consequence will inevitably be a sharp reduction in foreign capital inflows -- inflows the top leadership (or at least Zhu Rongji) seems to recognize is absolutely vital to maintain rapid growth in the country and prevent the financial sector from choking under the weight of insolvency.

THAT being said, if Taiwan actually makes a move towards independence, as seems increasingly likely, it's anyone's guess what might happen, since much of the political legitimacy of the CCP also seems based on catering to Chinese nationalism. Could they afford not to react?

All this being said, having actually read "Unrestricted Warfare" (in English), I think the threat of China as a digital renegade is completely overblown, if it is politically convenient for those with other reasons to dislike/distrust the country. There is nothing in the report that any other military institution isn't already considering. And lest we forget, the US itself targeted civilian communications infrastructure in Serbia during the Kosovo War. In any event -- its likely that air superiority will continue to be the decisive factor in contemporary military conflict -- and China doesn't have remarkably good aerospace airforce and knows it.

Re:No big surprise there.

[subsolar2]

So you are saying that Israel was overreacting to the near daily suicide bombers? How else were they supposed to solve that problem?

I think neither side is in the right on this issue. The Israekies have behaved miserably and so have the Palistinians. For each attack by the other side, level of violence is escalated. Frankly I think we in the U.S. are at the root of the problem since we helped draw in Israel & erase Palestine at the end of WWII.

Where? When? The closest you can come to that is a few speeches by illinformed senators. The DMCA does not have a terrorist clause.

I'm from Wisconin, the home of McCarthyism, all you need is a small group of illinformed congress people and the right public sentiment to turn the whole US population against a small group. In the late 40s & early 50s and can happen any time society is under stress

Public officals have labeled anti-globalist and environmentalist protestors as being terrorists, and the anti-war protesters during the late 60's were treated the same. Some of this may be deservied because of the methods used by the extreamests if the above groups.

- subsolar

Re:With that last question I ask another

[FeloniousPunk]

For example, according to an Ipsos-Reid poll [globeandmail.com] 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.

Dumping on the US is the national sport of Canada, behind ice hockey, and has been for a long time. Nothing new or surprising about those numbers, and I daresay they have much less to do with deep analysis of international affairs and a lot more to do with the usual Canadian complexes vis a vis the US.
Nothing new to see here, move along.

Re:No big surprise there.

[Elwood P Dowd]

As far as I can figure out, there are two ways to define good and evil:

1) Good is anything that God likes, and evil is anything he doesn't like.
2) Good is anything that is better than other things, and evil is anything that is worse than other things.

I can't figure out a way to define absolute good and evil without using God in the definition. Without religion, good is relative, and evil is relative.

Whenever I hear GW speak, I get the distinct feeling that he's using the religious definition of good and evil. It makes me feel like I've been used every time he does it.