Slashdot Mirror


China Taking on U.S. in Cyber Arms Race

Pabugs writes with a CNN story about an uncomfortable development in world politics and information technology. According to General Robert Elder, an Air Force military man setting up a 'cyber command' in Louisiana's Barksdale Air Force Base, the nation of China is already in the process of developing their own 'cyber warfare' techniques. While Elder described the bulk of China's operations as focusing on espionage, they and others around the world have more serious goals in mind. "The Defense Department said in its annual report on China's military power last month that China regarded computer network operations -- attacks, defense and exploitation -- as critical to achieving "electromagnetic dominance" early in a conflict. China's People's Liberation Army has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks, the Pentagon said. China also was investing in electronic countermeasures and defenses against electronic attack, including infrared decoys, angle reflectors and false-target generators, it said."

34 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise to those watching China by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative

    China can be expected to increase strategic intelligence operations with respect to the United States and its other adversaries, especially as it continues its campaign for "multi-polarity". China employs a wide range of intelligence efforts with respect to the United States, many of which can be traced directly to intelligence capabilities within China's military and government establishment. Because China believes that the United States is a primary adversary, even as the US provides a good deal of the facilitation of China's growth, China can still be expected to continue and increase its strategic intelligence operations with respect to the US.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union, China in some ways became the de facto ideological leader of the worldwide Communist movement. China found that it could use international Communist groups and networks, just as the Soviets did, to find persons sympathetic to the causes of Communism and socialism. Indeed, China has actively interacted with and supported international Communists, even persons or organizations known to be involved in criminal activities such a counterfeiting and money laundering. Chinese government officials have been known to meet with those in Communist organizations and student groups abroad, and there are indications such resources are leveraged in a similar fashion as with Russian intelligence.

    As something of a flag bearer for world Communism, Beijing has become a "second Rome for Marxism-Leninism". China's Communists, much like the former Soviet Union's, believe world socialism is inevitable and that the Americans are a symbol of what is standing in their way. With the Soviets, the watchword was American "imperialism"; with the Chinese, American "hegemony". However, the Chinese also understand that many in the United States and the West in general view Communism negatively. As such, resources are also devoted to putting forth the images of Capitalism and quasi-democratic ideals, even as the vast populace of China enjoys no such benefit therefrom.

    Part of China's strategic campaign is aided by its own system of government. As a system of government with control over much its own press, and even considerable influence over foreign press, China is executing an internal propaganda campaign against the United States with China's own people. At any opportunity, US intentions are painted as at best questionable and at worst aggressive and malicious. This environment, over time, will continue to enhance any support among the general populace for anti-US policy, or actions that must be taken against the United States, possibly with respect to quasi-autonomous disputed areas, such as Taiwan. Without access to multiple viewpoints on a situation, the Chinese people are fed a picture of the world as the Communist leadership wants it seen. Today, that includes mass censorship of the internet, and any sites associated with resistance movements, reformist groups, human rights organizations, and so on.

    The propaganda does not stop at China's borders. The effort extends internationally, as China labors to appear clothed in the ideals of Capitalism and free markets - which it, in turn, knows will be seen by many experts as indicative of the decline of Communism. Some propaganda operations are not so subtle, with international news organizations living under the threat of losing their Beijing presence if information that is perceived too negative is published about China.

    The continuing enhancement of these ideas lead to easing of trade restrictions, which in turn increases the transfer of high technology into China, and, especially, the finances so critically needed for the silent buildup of China's strength, military and otherwise. China is diligently working to continue to build its conventional army and navy, while also growing its strategic and high technology military capabilities. Chinese military theorists have envisioned new battlefields, where conflict does not happen in open warfare but also on the Internet, via the worl

    1. Re:No surprise to those watching China by DJ_Maiko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      & the U.S. doesn't do any of this?

      I swear, we as Americans are so freaking self-righteous! We're the ONLY ones that can protect "our" internet. We're the ONLY ones who can monetarily profit from the expansion of China. We're the ONLY ones who should own nuclear weapons & should dictate who else can & can't!

      I'd give you a +1 just for the length if your long, drawn-out diatribe wasn't riddled with subtle rifts of "I'm American, Hear me Roar!" You speak of "the spread of propaganda" & the use of "deception, disinformation & influence" by the Chinese yet we, as Americans, have been doing it for MUCH longer! As Robert Burns said in a poem:
      "Ah that there would be someone to give us Eyes to see ourselves as others see us"

      --
      Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi
    2. Re:No surprise to those watching China by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China in some ways became the de facto ideological leader of the worldwide Communist movement Communist? Certainly they're still authoritarian, but China hasn't been communist in decades.

      --
      Deleted
    3. Re:No surprise to those watching China by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's comfortable on the chair of moral relativism, isn't it?

      If you believe that Communism and freedom and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, I can see your line of reasoning. Sure, Capitalism is in the mix as well, but Captialism only exists and flourishes in a manifestly free society. Some believe that neither model is "better"; just different - the old "Under Communism, man exploits man - under Capitalism, it's the other way around" bit.

      Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on. Sure, freedom is tempered with the rule of law, and no system of government is perfect, but to quote Winston Churchill, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

    4. Re:No surprise to those watching China by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Communist? Certainly they're still authoritarian, but China hasn't been communist in decades.

      I don't even know where to go with this, except to say that you are a shining example of everything I just said in the very post to which you responded.

      And if you're going to get all semantic about it in the same way that some people say "the United States isn't really a 'democracy'; it's a federal republic," then go for it. But otherwise, it's perfectly acceptable and indeed correct to refer to China as Communist.

      China has had a massive, documented, and concerted effort to get people of all stripes, from authors to analysts to politicians to government officials to individuals members of societies such as yourself, to believe they are no longer "Communist". Apparently it's working quite well.

    5. Re:No surprise to those watching China by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As something of a flag bearer for world Communism, Beijing has become a "second Rome for Marxism-Leninism"

      A 'second Rome', or a 'Constantinople'?

      I don't ask to be some semantical nazi or anything, but this phrase piqued my interest a bit... When Rome basically went splat and fell into the dark ages, Constantinople was basically it. There are a lot of the same parallels, too - The Eastern Roman Empire wasn't nearly as outgoing, wan't nearly as -how do I put it- 'extroverted'? Also, Rome wasn't nearly as refined. The paralels are starting to pile up at this point.

      China does do one thing different, though - it welcomes outsiders and uses as much as it can from them. It also exists in a far different geopolitical environment.

      I also think that China's political system is (slowly) being changed over time, and could not survive for long if a hard enough adversity hit them - either politically or economically. Something on the order of the Great Depression (a global one, like in the early 1930's) would likely foment some very bad mojo in Beijing, and traditional tolerance by the masses aside, I don't think the Chinese gov't could withstand it w/o either collapsing or going back to the iron fist.

      I guess that, while it is good that the West does see them as something to be reckoned with, I believe that the Chinese political system is an increasingly fragile one, but will hold up - as long as times are good.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:No surprise to those watching China by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There was nothing in that post that took a decidedly pro-american stance. The poster could easily be from any country in the free world.

      The fact is that china puts a lot of energy into it's relationship with the US, and vice versa.

      What China is doing, rather, what was presented as what China is doing, has no bearing on how good or evil the US is. There was no insinuation of what you suggest whatsoever.

      Rather, I hear a massive anti-us stance in _your_ post.

      And as someone else mentioned, China is orders of magnitude older than the US. Learn some history and politics before you start flinging excrement around, you're showing yourself for the monkey that you are inside. Use that brain of yours and elevate yourself above. Your post was WAY more guilty of doing exactly what you have accused the gp's post of doing.

      --
      No Comment.
    7. Re:No surprise to those watching China by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thanks for continuing to prove my point. China's leadership is just as Communist, in ideal and much of the practice, as they ever were. "Red-baiting" has nothing to do with it. Call the leadership pragmatic if you wish, but China is still solidly a Communist nation.

      Also, the United States has pockets of what could be called "socialism" in government and government programs. Does that mean the United States is socialist, or isn't Capitalist/Democratic? Of course not. To say that the existence of elements traditionally antithetical to pure "Communism" is proof that China is no longer "Communist" completely misses the larger point, and ignores the fact that China actually has significant intelligence programs dedicated to making people outside of China believe they are no longer Communist, and hint: it's not because they "really aren't any more".

    8. Re:No surprise to those watching China by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *Sigh*

      Yeah, China has pockets of Capitalism where it's convenient. Even to the extreme in some cases. They also leverage Hong Kong in this respect to great advantage. Capitalism where it benefits the goals of furtherance of the ideals of the Chinese leadership.

      And as I just said in another post:

      The United States has pockets of what could be called "socialism" in government and government programs. Does that mean the United States is socialist, or isn't Capitalist/Democratic? Of course not. To say that the existence of elements traditionally antithetical to pure "Communism" is proof that China is no longer "Communist" completely misses the larger point, and ignores the fact that China actually has significant intelligence programs dedicated to making people outside of China believe they are no longer Communist, and hint: it's not because they "really aren't any more".

      It's interesting folks like yourself think it's all about "red-baiting", or artificially calling the Chinese "Communists" because it makes them a more palatable adversary. China has invested a significant amount of intelligence resources over the last twelve or so years into making people erroneously believe that they have abandoned Communism and are really now a quasi-Capitalist state, because they know that appears "friendly" to the West, and primarily to the United States. This is thoroughly and well-documented, and your refusal to believe that might actually be the case is interesting.

    9. Re:No surprise to those watching China by moeinvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on . . ."

      It's too bad that those people don't get together and create a sovereign nation where all of the citizens could enjoy those benefits.

    10. Re:No surprise to those watching China by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, according to Plato, the best form of governance would be a benevolent dictator. However, this has yet to happen in actuality. It would probably be the best thing. But finding a human with absolute power, who wouldn't get corrupted in some way or another is hard/impossible to come by. It may make sense to have a computer making the decisions for everyone such that the rules end up making the most people happy, instead of the people with the most money, as things tend to go now. Since a computer has no need for money, and can't be threatened, it would actually be able to do the job fairly well.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:No surprise to those watching China by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in the gp's post that indicated the US doesn't do the same thing.

      The one difference, thought, is how much control the state has over the media. I know some /.'ers will disagree, but opposition is not quelled in the US. This is easily proven by the amount of negativity that surrounds Bush.

      You talk like that in China, and you disappear.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    12. Re:No surprise to those watching China by beckerist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Under Communism, man exploits men - under Capitalism, it's the other way around"

    13. Re:No surprise to those watching China by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's comfortable on the chair of moral relativism, isn't it? If you believe that Communism and freedom and democracy are just two sides of the same coin, I can see your line of reasoning.

      And this right here folks is why propaganda is a bad idea. Sure it can help you sway citizens to your cause, but in the end the populace is a bunch of people whose ideas are so clouded by the propaganda and emotions tied to it, they don't even understand the terms they are discussing.

      Communism is an economic system akin to capitalism. It, in fact, co-exists with capitalism on some level in every nation on earth. Did you grow up in a family where your parents and the children shared resources and allocated them as a group? That is a very small communist cell operating within a larger capitalist economy. The US currently and always has been a nation of widespread communism. The term "communism" in the US, however, has been assigned a different meaning. Ironically, that meaning is "a totalitarian government that advocates extreme socialism." Socialism is also an economic system and one also in widespread use in every nation on earth. Public schools, roads, police, the military, welfare, prisons, etc. are all examples of socialism. Even more confusingly, the term "socialism" in the US has been co-opted to mean any socialist program that is new and not something we've always had and don't consider.

      Every economy is a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism. The economic system you have and how it favors those three components does not determine what type of government you have, but it does influence it. For example, economies that favor extreme socialism, like the former soviet union and current day China (although in decreasing amounts) have more consolidated decision making. That is consolidated power. The more of this that exists, the easier it is for a totalitarian regime to seize that power. For this reason, democracies that favor socialism to extreme extents, tend to fail and become totalitarian states (dictatorships and oligarchies).

      Sure, Capitalism is in the mix as well, but Captialism only exists and flourishes in a manifestly free society.

      You have it backwards. As I explained, moderate capitalism helps to prevent a totalitarian regime from taking over the government and it lends itself to the overthrow of those regimes, although not necessarily to democracy.

      Some believe that neither model is "better"; just different

      Your fallacy is in equating capitalism with democracy and in failing to see that all economies are a blend of the three economic systems. Favoring any one of those three models to an extreme leads to a breakdown of the system. Too much capitalism leads to wealth condensation, where all the money and hence power consolidates into only a few hands, thus also making it easy for a totalitarian regime to take over and motivates the people to aid in overthrowing those in power (since it is the only way to return to a more level economic playing field). The US is perilously close to that end of the spectrum right now, as wealth disparity continues to rise in this country.

      Thankfully, many people don't see it that way, and have recognized the benefits of freedom, free access to information, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and so on.

      Sadly, very few people in the US see much of anything clearly when the term "communist" is mentioned, even when applied to an extreme socialist state like China. How often do you see the press point out and explain the difference?

      ...to quote Winston Churchill, "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

      I agree with him. I just don't conflate democracy with capitalism as you seem to. One is a system of government and one is an economic system. Extreme capitalism can just as easily destroy a democracy as extreme communism or extreme socialism. The key is to have a moderate, balanced economy instead of being an extremist.

    14. Re:No surprise to those watching China by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't even know where to start with this. You read a book which is clearly anti-china, and a defense journal, and you somehow think you understand the big picture of what's going on in China? Then when anyone tries to disagree with you, you say, "by disagreeing with me, you have thereby proved my point."

      Reasons China is not communist:
      - Most of the farmers own their own land, and can sell it if they want to.
      - Most of the companies are privately owned, and there is PLENTY of competition (check out this month's national geographic for a clear picture of the competition.)
      - The government has been selling off the businesses they do own.
      - If you actually go there, you may get the feeling all anyone cares about is money.

      Your issue is not that China is communist, it is that China is authoritarian. You can't even get your terms straight (communism is not necessarily authoritarian at all). No one disagrees that an authoritarian China is a bad thing, however, you cannot deny that the situation is much better than it was in 1979 (read Wild Swans and you will see how much better it has gotten). The hope is that with prosperity the situation will ease, and the Chinese will become more free and less authoritarian in a peaceful manner, much like what happened in Taiwan and South Korea in the 80s.

      In the end, China IS going to become an international power, that cannot be stopped anymore than a center break can be stopped in chess when it is ripe. Of course they want a strong military to match the US. No one in the world likes to be pushed around by us. But what are we going to do to stop it? Bomb them? Bad idea. Stop trading with them? That will slow them down, but they have enough other trading partners that they would still grow rapidly, and it would hurt us more than them.

      The only thing we can do is accept the fact that China is going to become a world power in the next few decades, and adjust our strategy appropriately. For better or for worse China is coming, and we are much better off spending our energy preparing for it than wasting our time in a hopeless effort to try to prevent it.

      --
      Qxe4
    15. Re:No surprise to those watching China by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good post! I must point out that traditional communism WILL NOT happen in a free society.

      Well, traditional communism, would be communes, and they certainly do happen in a free society. There are quite a few just in this area.

      You have to MAKE THEM do it. Thus Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, blood drenched butchers all.

      Ahh, perhaps you're referring to the agendas of the "communist" political parties in Russia and China. Those did not advocate communism any more than the democratic party is for greater democracy. It was just a name they used. Their agenda was (ostensibly) to consolidate power so that at some point in the distant future a socialist state could be perfected. As far as I know, none of them ever tried to establish actual communist cells of increased size within their populations.

      Northern European socialism is quite different.

      Socialism is socialism. In much of Europe, nations have some fairly reasonable levels of socialism in their economies and directed in ways that help to balance the other aspects. In the former soviet union they advocated extreme amounts of socialism, which worked quite poorly. The US actually engages in similar levels of socialism as Europe, ours is just directed very differently... mostly towards the military-industrial complex which actually exacerbates wealth consolidation as much as it ameliorates it.

      Dictatorship = Dictator controls population with cooperation of some major industrial powers.

      When wealth and power consolidate, I don't think it makes much difference whether that begins in the private sector or in the government. Either way people with political power gain wealth and people with wealth gain political power. The distinction is lost in the shuffle. Is Cheney a wealth private sector industrialist who leveraged that into political power, or a politician who exploits his position to gain wealth for his industrial concerns? He's both of course.

    16. Re:No surprise to those watching China by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, we did not or at least not as you suggest. In my family we received only the basic items (food, clothing, shelter, and education) and items directly associated with those needs free of charge (and even then they were allocated by the parents, not the children).

      Those items more than qualify your family as a communist cell. The allocation of resources within the cell may be democratic or it may be authoritarian. The method is immaterial to whether or not it is communism. One of the local housing co-ops votes on what groceries they buy. The monastery near where I used to live was authoritarian, with the highest ranking monk making all the final decisions. Both were communist cells.

      If we wanted anything else then we had to save our allowance money...

      On of the interesting aspect of communism is that usually, not all resources were shared, just some of them. In some cases the only item shared might be a set of season tickets to a ball game, whereas in another it might be almost everything, with the exception of body parts.

      It would be more accurate to say that my family was and is a mini-capitalist unit (w/some minimal socialist policies...and I do mean minimal) operating within a larger capitalist society.

      Actually, that would make you a communist cell as well as a mini capitalist unit. All communist cells operate within a larger economy, that is what differentiates it from socialism.

      There is nothing wrong with wealth condensation provided that the total production per person and therefore the standard of living rises right along with it (which tends to happen in free market capitalism).

      Well, you're right. We disagree on this. Wealth disparity is the single strongest correlative factor to violence in a society. Murder, robbery, beatings, all go up with wealth condensation because even if the average production per person rises, the disparity still rises. The idea that it was poverty and not disparity that was so strongly linked has been fairly well debunked since the 60s.

      It is the responsibility of the government to enforce rules and ensure fair dealing, in much the same way that the referee enforces the rules and ensures fair play in a competitive sporting competition.

      There is an inherent unfairness to inequality of birth which has been well recognized for a very long time. Have you ever heard the saying "it takes money to make money." That is wealth condensation in a nutshell. The problem is, in an unregulated capitalism some people are born with more wealth, and since that wealth condenses more wealth all other factors being equal, the society becomes less and less economically equal until the system collapses when the poor revolt against the aristocracy, usually with a lot of bloodshed and pain and suffering and random results for a new government.

      The combination of democracy with free market capitalism has overwhelmingly and consistently, despite some difficulties, delivered the best economic outcomes...

      I don't think you understand. No one has ever had a purely capitalist free market and if it was tried it would not survive a week. The US is a blend of capitalism, communism, and socialism, just like pretty much all other economies. To have pure capitalism, you'd have to have families no longer sharing resources to eliminate the communist element. You'd have to do away with all socialized services like government run police, military, roads, etc. not funded by donations because they are socialism.

      All the economies that survive for any length of time are ones that have a similar balance of these elements. The US is just as socialist as the EU, although we direct it differently. We are probably a little less communist and becoming even less so in many ways as atomic families divide into smaller cell sizes (although extended families among the very poor are getting larger).

  2. Probably get modded for Troll, but... by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I gotta say that it feels like that particular war's started already, and it's just that nobody actually told us.

    Whether intentional or just a result of all those pirated copies of Winderz, the sheer number of bot-net/zombie attacks coming from China is staggering.

    Too bad the "Great Firewall of China" is so concerned about information going IN to the country... I guess its perfectly fine if a citizen's computer sends thousands of emails for v1@gr@ or posts a zillion commercial messages into someone's threaded discussions... Just as long as it doesn't inform the user of how they've got very little freedom and a horrible standard of living, or say anything bad about the Chinese gub'ment!

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:Probably get modded for Troll, but... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whether intentional or just a result of all those pirated copies of Winderz, the sheer number of bot-net/zombie attacks coming from China is staggering.

      Actually, the US is quite a bit ahead on the botnet/zombie attack category. China is more making up for it with other scans and attempted worm propagation from non-zombied (just infected) machines. More attacks are coming out of China than anywhere else, but the US is still hosting more botnets/zombies than China.

  3. China owns a lot of US debt by svendsen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm more concerned how much of the US debt china owns. Imagine china dumping all the debt and buying Euros. Pretty much most articles I have read said it would crush the dollar. That alone would probably be enough to start and end a war all at once.

  4. easy by otacon · · Score: 2, Funny

    access list 110 deny ip any any

    Victory.

    --
    In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
  5. Another strange twist in our China relationship by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It'll be interesting to see what China (and Asia in general) does in the next 50 years. On one hand, they publicly denounce the US and treat us like an enemy. On the other, we've pretty much lost all of our manufacturing capability to them. No US producer can ignore their vast quantities of cheap labor and hospitable business climate. Now that the Communists have no real power there, what's going to fill in the void?

    What will be even more interesting is a conflict that forces us to begin manufacturing domestically again. I wonder how long it'll take to ramp up all the factories that closed up during the last 30 years or so?

    Any country on Earth with enough technological resources to protect would be stupid not to start thinking about ways to defend it in a conflict. China's no exception.

    1. Re:Another strange twist in our China relationship by svendsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if China decides to take all the factories and convert them to war production and drafts a lot of its billion citizens you've got a lot of military power quickly. Sure they won't be well trained or equipped but if anything the last couple of decades has shown better trained and equipped doesn't give you a huge advantage it once did.

  6. Black Lotus has trained us well ... by gentimjs · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. there's always a way in ..

  7. Outsourcing by rlp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of US companies are outsourcing software development to China. Hardware vendors are moving the bulk of their manufacturing to China. At the same time, the US military is relying more and more on off the shelf software and hardware. Seems to me that there's ample opportunity for mischief (hidden trojans, etc.). Curious, that no one seems to be concerned about this.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  8. Re:Inframa-watchits?? by kalirion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's pretty simple. All missiles have an IR port for commands. If there are infrared decoys, the enemy won't know which is the missile to hack! And an angle reflector will reflect the enemy's hacking signals right back at him (think shiny shield against Medusa.)

  9. yea... by dingDaShan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am an american studying in China, and can say that I have not seen a single legal copy of xp, music cds, dvds, software, or in fact, any electronic media. Even Chinese movies are nearly completely ripped off even though they cost about $1.5 USD. My friend bought a laptop here and it came with complimentary copies of photoshop, xp, office, and more. The environment here is nothing like you would picture communism to be. In fact, it isn't communism at all. Chinese communism means something entirely different than Soviet communism meant, just as democracy means something different to every country. The people here don't dislike the US. They are not brainwashed to do so. Most people simply do not care about big issues. There are definitely important international issues though. The Taiwan situation is a significant example. Taiwan is a hot issue here, but most people just want to make enough money to be able to buy more. True capitalists. Furthermore, the laws are completely different than the actual situation. Enforcement is selective, and many laws are not enforced at all. As to provide insight into the actual story: every major country has information security and warfare as a priority. Why would China not want to? Also, as far as China is concerned, Taiwan is a rogue state... why should security not be important in that context as well? China and the US are MAJOR trading partners. The US and the Soviet Union were not so much. The list goes on...

  10. Re:Inframa-watchits?? by BlueTrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    "China also was investing in electronic countermeasures and defenses against electronic attack, including infrared decoys, angle reflectors and false-target generators, it said."

    The article said that in addition of all of this, they also invested in ECMs and general defenses against electronic attacks.

    I see your point, but you could also consider that the infrared targetting systems are electronic also ... (chaffs are considered as ECMs because they are a counter for electronic targetting systems)
    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  11. the chinese are old school authoritarian by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they don't represent an ideological threat they represent a power center threat. that's a big, fundamental difference, and a crucial one in how to view china

    ideologically, the chinese are severely compromised: a communist system only in name. in actuality the chinese are more capitalist than the worst excesses of the gilded age under the robber barons. witness the latest scandals just today: disgusting child labor and fake and deadly products

    this hypercapitalism is resulting in gated communities of ultrarich next to a countryside of desperate and teeming poor. communist my ass. china is orders of magnitude more capitalist than any society on this planet. and ruled by a "Communist Party". ha!

    ideologically bankrupt, china is therefore just a power center. the only real threats to the united states and the west are ideological ones. centers of power without an ideological center cannot grow and spread, but merely sit there. in actually the reverse holds true: power centers without ideology fall under the sway of other foreign ideologies, and the chinese in that respect are ripe to fall under the influence of a new ideology. the only real model close to anything china coudl become being a western democratic one

    i actually hold no illusions that democracy will cheerfully and without resistance spread across china any time soon. china is historically bureaucratic and authoritarian, and will in fact take generations to go truly democratic, if ever. but if china is on course anywhere, however slow, it is towards that kind of enlightenment. it's either that or the continuation of the longstanding chinese historical tradition of stifling authoritarianism and layers of indolent bureaucracy. which would be a shame, as it would doom china to the long term decay and inwardness and lack of progress that it faced centuries before. china in fact has a chance to democratize now, with difficulty, and with every passing decade the chance of that becomes less, and the certainty of its historical bureaucratic inertia reasserting itself becomes more

    there is only one other real ideological threat in this world, something china is not in danger of coming under, and something that is a real threat to the usa: militant islamic fundamentalism. i fear and worry about a theocracy in tehran with an atomic bomb way way more than i worry about the chinese. the chinese are ideologically dead in the water. tehran meanwhile is ideologically muscular and virulent

    the west did in fact defeat/ witness the collapse of communism. don't fool yourself into thinking communism is still a threat. the only real threat today to the west is militant islamic fundamentalism. the chinese meanwhile are ideologically toothless, and therefore no real threat. they just want to make money

    i say to the chinese: remember and listen to the plan sun yat sen laid out a century before for china. sun yat sen, the hero to both the nationalists and the chinese:

    1. expel foreigners. done
    2. centralize power. done
    3. democratize. not done. yet

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  12. We got 'em beat by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Forget the Chinese, we Canucks already have all your contractors pegged with our Supr-Dupr Spy Coins! All your base are belong to us!

    Why does anyone believe anything that comes out of the Pentagon any more?

  13. Re:Cyber attacks by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Ok, could somebody please explain to me what classifies as a cyber-attack? It seems all these are applicable only to public Internet, not private networks. What's all the fuss?"

    Day 1.) You, the lazy and over confident American, are preparing to release a new technology and enjoy all that profit that is bound to rain down for years, if not decades. You've been confirming patents, training vendors, stockpiling components and lining up sales channels. Some of that data has traveled public networks, but so far, most has circulated on your private network. And someone has been watching both.

    Day 2.) All of the details of your plan have been harvested, mined and translated out of English into not one, but at least 1/2 dozen foreign languages.

    Day 3.) Investments in all of the related technologies are planned and set to take place at the appropriate times to (a) profit (b) control the resources at their roots (c) position what appear to be innocuous bond traders so that when the time is right, the trigger is pulled and your firm is put in a less than favorable global market light.

    Day 4.) Copies, clones and variants of your new technology are made available in vast markets where you have no reach.

    Day 5.) You release your technology into the market place, like a new born calf, and wait for it to take those first precious steps all on its' own.

    Day 100...) Instead of finding yourself the captain of industry all of those domestic pundits said you'd be, you have this feeling that maybe you've wasted your time, somehow.

    Day 500.) The sadness you feel, seeing others profit from your firm's hard work and yankee ingenuity can hardly be put into words. Your staff put in the time - your investors put in the money - you put in years of your life. Is it possible there are others like you? Is it possible you and other domestic companies gifted the futures of concerns outside your country? How could something like this happen?

    How could the good old USA be leap-frogged by developing nations dominated by dirt farmers and polluted countrysides? How?

  14. Right, well done. by kahei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    & the U.S. doesn't do any of this?

    No, it doesn't. It does a bit here and there but it has no effective overall strategy.

    I swear, we as Americans are so freaking self-righteous!

    You misspelled either 'complacent' or 'doomed' but I don't know which; either would make sense.

    You speak of "the spread of propaganda" & the use of "deception, disinformation & influence" by the Chinese yet we, as Americans, have been doing it for MUCH longer!


    No, you haven't. You want to think you have, but you haven't. There has never been an American propaganda initiative that was 5% as effective as the Chinese PR machine for their attack on India. You wish you could do it (and then you'd have fun feeling all guilty about it) but you can't. Do you think the Iraq strategy would be in such a mess if you could do what the Chinese did in 1962?

    I know of what I speak. So can you, if you read Xinhua every day. Just read it. After a few months, you will start to believe. It is a whole other history, a whole other way of looking at the world. America has nothing like it. That is why America is losing; that is why America is cast as the bad guy when they invade one lousy country for oil or whatever, and China gets to flatten the whole of central Asia, northeast Asia, and half Africa as far as I can see by this point, and yet remain Teh Cool.

    You lost already. Going "oh but we are so bad for employing these elite evil technologies and techniques, teehee, oh wicked wicked us for being so kickass" does not help. Watch Fox, watch CNN, watch Al-Jazeera, even watch the BBC if you have to, and you will see different spins, different biases, different points of view. Watch Xinhua even in English and you will see a different reality. "Tibetan People Bask In Glow Of Rosy Future". When you can come up with a headline like that and have 1/3 of the world take it as truth, THEN you will be making progess.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  15. The best way to get information into China by whyde · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...is to write it in the whitespace on $100 bills. They're quite happy to accept the free flow of our money, but not the free flow of information. I'll hereby dub this IP over TD, or "IP over Trade Deficit". Working on the RFC now.

  16. I'm just curious at this point.... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How is the Chinese leadership Communist? Please describe specific ideologies, approaches and goals that show their communist tendencies. I'm just wondering how you're going to manage that without resorting to the American definition of Communism: "authoritarian government with populist crowd control methods that doesn't like the US".

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.