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 ...."
I know it has been said before, but this is really too tempting. Are all government leaders using Clancy's latest novels to determine their course of action?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
...and those evil linux 'hackers' in China will be prosecuted, then a joint-venture will pop up between China and the US to prosecute everything that has the word 'hacking' into it - expecially the linux kernel.
:)
Damn, look at those linux guys, they have hacking also in the core of their operating system! thank god Palladium will save us.
now let's see your sense of humour
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
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"
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
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.
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.)
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
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.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
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.
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
I'm glad you remembered Tibet (it is afterall China we are talking about). If one means invasions sucessfully repulsed, there were not a lot of those. However, in a lot of places one nation was able to hold on to another from a few years (name any of the countries invaded by the Germans in WW2) to about 50 years for the DDR and even more for the countries comprising Soviet Russia. For example, some of the Central Asian countries were not associated with Russia until about 80 years ago.
In any case the PRC sees the ROC as part of China. They do not perceive it as another country, just a last bastion of power held by a regime chased out of the rest of the country. If they start to accept it as a separate country then there is a chance for long term peace.
To be serious Taiwan and China enjoy a very profitable business partnership and there are many in China who know this. However there are still a few hawks around (especially in the military) who perceive otherwise. Let us wait for the next People's Congress to see who gets in.
We used nuclear weapons. As you know, that causes 8 squares of pollution and makes everyone hate you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Germany invaded major countries like Poland and France, and thoroughly occupied them in addition to consuming various smaller countries as, basically, stepping stones. Care? Well, the Czechs know how much the rest of Western Europe really cared, until the UK, Switzerland and Spain were basically all that weren't assimilated by Italy or Germany.
Russia, for its part, invaded Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Finland... and the world, generally speaking, didn't do a damn thing about them.
The US invaded Grenada -- nobody lifted a finger. The US invaded Panama and implemented some regime change -- again, nobody interfered. The USSR and Cuba funded and trained Marxist revolutionaries all over Latin America and Africa, and nobody but the US really gave a damn.
How much outside intervention have we seen in Jammu and Kashmir? None.
How much outside intervention have we seen when the Turks invade Iraq? Basically none.
If you got the power, or you're not threatening THEM immediately, most of the world won't care. Like Chamberlain, they'll happily sign over a third party's land to somebody else if it doesn't hurt their short-term interests.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.