Slashdot Mirror


Trans-Pacific Cable Plans Mired In US-China Geopolitical Rivalry

An anonymous reader writes "Attempts to build a new telecommunications cable between the US, New Zealand and Australia have become a nexus for the growing rivalry between the U.S. and China in the Pacific. The U.S. is reportedly creating a technology ring fence to match its military one and contain China's ambitions in the Pacific. The U.S. military could even help pay for any planned new cable to link its bases in American Samoa with its expanding military presence in Australia's Northern Territory. It has been made 'very clear' U.S. authorities would not allow significant Chinese investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of Chinese gear in its construction. 'It was made very clear. These are cables connecting whole countries. These are very political things,' one insider said."

162 comments

  1. Don't mess with America by arcite · · Score: 4, Funny

    Submersible hunter-killer drones lie in wait to defend America's freedom cable and orbital defense platforms defend the space above from communist tyranny. Long live freedom's reign.

    1. Re:Don't mess with America by girlintraining · · Score: 0, Troll

      Submersible hunter-killer drones lie in wait to defend America's freedom cable and orbital defense platforms defend the space above from communist tyranny. Long live freedom's reign.

      Says the guy living in the country with the highest incarceration rate on Earth source

      We're defending something, sure, but I don't think it's freedom.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Don't mess with America by SB9876 · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the parent was being sarcastic, man.

    3. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, we don't execute thousands of people every year like some other nations do.

    4. Re:Don't mess with America by gman003 · · Score: 2

      We Americans are also #1 in sarcasm.

    5. Re:Don't mess with America by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Only because we are having quite some difficultly acquiring the drugs necessary to execute people "humanely", otherwise we would be working on challenging China for executions/100,000...

      IOW, we WANT to kill more people, we just have to find new ways to do it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Don't mess with America by GarethIwanFairclough · · Score: 1

      We Americans are also #1 in sarcasm.

      Oh indeed, the United Kingdom does not exist. [/sarcasm]

    7. Re:Don't mess with America by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      What do you call drone attacks then?

    8. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We Americans are also #1 in sarcasm.

      Oh indeed, the United Kingdom does not exist. [/sarcasm]

      point UK

    9. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just retarded and need to change your name to reflect that.

    10. Re:Don't mess with America by ebno-10db · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh indeed, the United Kingdom does not exist.

      Not in any meaningful sense, anyway.

    11. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due only to the number of failed attempts at irony

    12. Re:Don't mess with America by gman003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America: Also #1 in forgetting other countries exist.

    13. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you do, there just living in other countries...

    14. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America: Also #1 in having Evil Gubberments

    15. Re:Don't mess with America by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      Nothing to be proud about.

      Given that there're more than 3000 individuals in the death row in USA, that you aren't executing thousands of people a year it's more a sign of your inability than anything else.

      But, hey, don't be so disappointed, USA is 5th in executions/year... You don't get a medal, but you still get an olympic diplomma.

    16. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Faggot.

    17. Re:Don't mess with America by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I wanted to ask what is wrong with using a guillotine ? It's very fast (probably painless) and very efficient, but then I remembered it's French and US citizen don't even like their fries.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    18. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queue theme song to "Team America"

    19. Re:Don't mess with America by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Some people don't like the ick factor of all the blood, and then there is the wailing of "what if the mechanism jams or doesn't go through". Same with hanging/shooting.

      Maybe an Iron Maiden, with some kind of mechanism to close it fast, and it's sealed so the visual of the pool of blood out the bottom doesn't make the papers.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    20. Re:Don't mess with America by metaforest · · Score: 1

      I wanted to ask what is wrong with using a guillotine ? It's very fast (probably painless) and very efficient, but then I remembered it's French and US citizen don't even like their fries.

      There was a thread on this in Slashdot not too long ago and it came up that the noggin and its enclosed brain may not lose consciousness for up to a minute or so after a clean decapitation.... I'd think there would be a significant amount of emotional and physical suffering experienced during that final 60 seconds. I tried to find the thread but no luck....

      However Google delivered a number of references to the observations of Dr Gabriel Beaurieux-1905 (which at least one person in that lost thread referenced) who wrote of interacting with the freshly guillotined head of Henri Languille:

      [T]he eyelids and lips of the guillotined man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about five or six seconds. [After several seconds], the spasmodic movements ceasedIt was then that I called in a strong, sharp voice: “Languille!” I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions – I insist advisedly on this peculiarity – but with an even movement, quite distinct and normal, such as happens in everyday life, with people awakened or torn from their thoughts.

      He goes on to describe a further interaction by calling the victim's name again in a strong voice and again having Henri's eyes fix him with a well focused gaze that seemed even more determined. A third attempt to call Henri to attend, returned no response.

    21. Re:Don't mess with America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If not an Iron Maiden, can we have an AC/DC or a Black Sabbath?

    22. Re:Don't mess with America by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Then that would be bad.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  2. NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Of course they need to lay NSA tapped cables.

    1. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all Love Big Brother . He is our savior . All Hail Big Brother .
      Of course the americans want their cable put in .. they tap it and spy on everyone and all traffic with it .
      Trust me the Americans are the enemy of the free world.
      Keep spying Big Brother . We all despise you for what you became , but we can't say it .. if we do .. it will be internment camps and psycholigical rehabilitation to come to Love Big Brother .. im so sick of them and their lies i can't keep writing

    2. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Makes one wonder if China's backdoors might conflict with the NSA installed backdoors.

    3. Re:NSA by radiumsoup · · Score: 1

      so far, this ^ is the only comment worth reading :)

    4. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh gosh, i sense a re-hash of the israeli submarine cable-cutters....
      or was that the Indian-Ocean and the African-Oceans irrespectively....

    5. Re:NSA by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Remember those cut cables in Suez canal? This was US military/NSA operation.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    6. Re:NSA by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they need to lay NSA tapped cables.

      Exactly.

      This is nothing to do with politics, just practicality.
      The NSA knows well just how much stuff can be gleaned from an under sea cable, so why would they want anyone else putting their equipment in place to tap into later? Too many taps spoils the surprise.

      When the US worries about Chinese routers and switches it is most likely that someone in government already has "un-detectable" back doors into US made switches, routers and software. When they worry and bluster in congress about Chinese Cellular transmitter equipment it is likely because they already have all the other manufacturers compromised.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:NSA by icebike · · Score: 2

      Cutters aren't the problem the US is worried about.
      Taps are.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:NSA by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      NSA tapped, but not Huawei tapped.

    9. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "NSA on Tap". There's a product line in there somewhere - tshirts, mugs, doormats, etc.

    10. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Trust me the Americans are the enemy of the free world.

      And China isn't?

    11. Re:NSA by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      oh gosh, i sense a re-hash of the israeli submarine cable-cutters....
      or was that the Indian-Ocean and the African-Oceans irrespectively....

      Remember, we've always been at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia. Or was it the other way around?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    12. Re:NSA by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Nah, the Illuminati coordinates this sort off thing all the time.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:NSA by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I miss the Cold War, when there were competing systems instead of a race to the bottom.

    14. Re:NSA by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      IEEE 802 should set up a working group to write interoperability standards for communication backdoor systems.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    15. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is a threat to its immediate neighbours. The US tends to blunder around the whole world.

    16. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my thoughts exactly. As a NZ'er I'd rather have uncle sam spying on me than Charlie Chan.

    17. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I miss the Cold War, when there were competing systems instead of a race to the bottom.

      I'm uncertain if you meant your statement in jest. If so, jolly good. If not....... Really, do you comprehend how many times the world nearly experienced total ecological collapse due to nuclear winter? Nuclear Near Misses

    18. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previous link seemed to be messed up. http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/20-mishaps-maybe-caused-nuclear-war.htm

    19. Re:NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd rather have a military beef contractor spying on you than a fictional super-detective... Whatever floats your boat. As an expatriate New Zealander, I would personally rather have no-one spying on me.

    20. Re:NSA by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      While the NSA might have taps. Huawei certainly does. Here's the relevent part of a Defcon 20 presentation: DEF CON 20 - Hacking Redacted Routers.

      Huawei security is so bad that almost anybody could hack the things. Hell, the NSA probably uses these as the "easy" test when hiring hackers.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  3. toleration violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    would not tolerate the use of Chinese gear in its construction.

    Given the USAs recent activities, maybe the use of USA companies and gear should also not be tolerated.

    1. Re:toleration violation by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's already happening.

      Brazil is pulling away from doing business with US tech firms.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/nsa-spying-gives-advantage-to-brazil-s-local-tech-firms.html

      Germany is pissed:
      http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/08/14/german-backlash-to-nsa-spying-gets-stronger/

      EU in general is looking elsewhere for technology:
      http://gigaom.com/2013/06/07/nsa-spying-scandal-fallout-expect-big-impact-in-europe-and-elsewhere/

      Business world wide is starting to look elsewhere:
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/09/10/how-the-nsa-revelations-are-hurting-businesses/

      Cloud Computing was just sentenced to death by NSA
      http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/spying-bad-for-business/

      The NSA revelations will prove to be one of the biggest detriments to US computer technology business in decades.
       

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:toleration violation by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      So with both Chinese and American gear unacceptable, where do you buy your networking equipment? Seriously.

    3. Re:toleration violation by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Some chances: Alcatel-Lucent is still a French company.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:toleration violation by Friend+of+Nature · · Score: 1

      Ericsson (and soon, Nokia).

    5. Re:toleration violation by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Logically as it is bound to essential infrastructure. All government sourced, installed and owned. All based around open source hardware and software to ensure compatibility and so the public can be aware of what is going on. Cost more, hmmm, so what. Greater public control and scrutiny. Basically if a country does not produce their own communications infrastructure then their communications is under the control of who ever does, end of story.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:toleration violation by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      You do realise, of course that there has been exactly ZERO evidence of any form of backdooring in the
      chinese gear that the US is working to block and has successfully blocked now from many projects, mainly
      3G/4G cell rollouts?

      You dont think that just perhaps the whole thing was a smokescreen to make SURE that the backdoored US
      gear was used, rather than the actually secure chinese gear?

      Hmmmm.

    7. Re:toleration violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to scrap TCP/IP and roll out something new.

    8. Re:toleration violation by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1
      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    9. Re:toleration violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost more, hmmm, so what.

      Cost is partly development, partly volume scaling, and partly per-unit royalties.

      The development cost is an upfront cost, volume scaling applies to both inhouse/incountry equipment and COTS, and per-unit royalties apply only to COTS.

      It could be that a country that mandated open hardware for infrastructure and achieved wide deployment ends up with lower costs overall. No per-unit royalties owed, less total development costs, and better volume scaling, as you don't have the cost of artificial crippling to scaling and the additional development cost of crippling features that is embedded in COTS systems.

      It worked for Google and Facebook, why not then for a national infrastructure project*.

      * Of course, I know the answer in this is backroom dealings, corruption, bribery and nepotist cleptocracy.

  4. Let me guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The US wants to be the only body involved who can spy on the traffic and perform man-in-the-middle attacks.

    It's stopping terrorism.

  5. Giving the example to the world by gmuslera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now if the rest of the world have a hint, they just need to use their own words

    It has been made 'very clear' (some country) authorities would not allow significant U.S. investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of U.S. gear in its construction. 'It was made very clear. These are cables connecting whole countries. These are very political things,' one insider said."

    Brazil is already doing something of this, and more countries should follow.

    1. Re:Giving the example to the world by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Now if the rest of the world have a hint, they just need to use their own words

      It has been made 'very clear' (some country) authorities would not allow significant U.S. investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of U.S. gear in its construction. 'It was made very clear. These are cables connecting whole countries. These are very political things,' one insider said."

      Brazil is already doing something of this, and more countries should follow.

      Many Brazilians seem to think that the U.S spying is just an excuse to get social media sites to open offices and place their servers in Brazil where they could be pressured or even censored by the government.

    2. Re:Giving the example to the world by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      Given that NZ is a willing partner in the "Five Eyes" SIGINT hoovering operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement , I'd imagine the yanks are pretty worried about losing access to a shit-load of data.
      I wonder if NZ will get any political currency from keeping The Commies at bay - free-trade agreement, anyone?

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  6. Of course! by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The USA wants only their taps and backdoors working on those cables!

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    1. Re:Of course! by auric_dude · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, USS JImmy Carter is on the job https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Jimmy_Carter_(SSN-23) , http://defensetech.org/2005/02/21/jimmy-carter-super-spy/ & http://cryptome.org/eyeball/mmp/jimmy-carter.htm but things may well have moved on a fair bit since then.

  7. Isn't this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pot calling the kettle black one stamped Made in the USA the other Made in China.

    1. Re:Isn't this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the US still make pots and kettle's, or has that entire industry been moved o China with the rest?

  8. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you want them to keep the loans in place and continue lending right?
    US national debut to Mainland China is around $1.277 Trillion.

  9. Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been made 'very clear' U.S. authorities would not allow significant Chinese investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of Chinese gear in its construction.

    Maybe they shouldn't have sat by and watched all US manufacturing migrate overseas then.

    1. Re:Hah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... but... enlightened self interest! Market efficiencies! Invisible hand!

  10. Flip it by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China is building a cable across the Pacific, and American firms want to invest and use their equipment. Suddenly it sounds rational to disallow foreigners. How's that work?

    I get the idea that Americans just aren't allowed to do anything that's in their national interest. If the Chinese government (and that's what state-owned enterprises means) wants to invest and install their own equipment, then the Americans must allow them! The Chinese will install spyware on the cable? Oh, boo hoo you Americans will just have to take it because you're bad people and hurt puppies!

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Flip it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everybody will just have to build their own transoceanic cables, with only their own equipment. The Chinese will send data down the Chinese cable and the Americans will send data down the American cable, but since neither wants to cooperate, the other end of the cable is not connected to anything, so the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

      The point of these cables is that there are several parties to the project who are going to use them. It is thus entirely unreasonable to insist on excluding one party from the build. Yes, the US may fear that the Chinese will bug the cable, but this is a case of "it takes one to know one". There is no doubt that the Americans will bug the cable, so if the US wants to exclude China, then China would be perfectly justified to demand exclusion of US technology. And then you get the situation with two useless cables. If you don't want to talk to each other because the other might be listening, then don't build a cable.

    2. Re:Flip it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a nice game of chess?

    3. Re:Flip it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about bugging, it's just a straw man, it's just another rearing of Amercian protectionism.

      These cables are sold in lambdas/fractional-lambdas as point-to-point links between their users teleports on both sides of the cable.

      The assumption should be that all international lightpaths are bugged, and teleports should use encryption at their termination point to each lightpath. More importantly, given the current evidence, internet users should assume all internet connections are bugged, and use end-to-end encryption or encrypt at the edge of their AS (as is already standard practice in VPN/VSNs).

      So once again, the bugging is not the issue, letting China get a foothold in photonic networks is. America is currently a world leader in photonics and semiconductors (and many other things), they used to be world leaders in Nuclear energy, Rocketry, Aerospace, but they let those things slide to Europe and Russia and China. America doesn't have a monopoly on physicists or engineers, and if they carry on trying to push leadership by protectionism they could let the things they continue to lead slide to others. They need to get back to a focus on technical leadership, and give up this clingy, doomed approach.

  11. Re:Easy answer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    China had, at last count, almost two thousand nuclear weapons and climbing.

  12. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should we take it in the ass from NSA / America and not China?
    Which country is heading to the future, and which is stagnating (at best).

    When Americans learn to play nice in the world they can come back and have a seat at the grown up table.
    Until then why not use cheaper Chinese cables and equiptment.

  13. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they actually hold true to their word is open for debate, but China also tried to push for a "no first strike" agreement but no one would sign on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use
    "China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances."

    I like the nato reponse :"preemptive nuclear strike is a key option"
    So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options" such as enless threats of using them?

  14. War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the US military will absolutely prevent is another Pearl Harbor attack.

    1. Re:War is coming by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

      Doubt they could prevent it, but I'm sure they would respond very heavy iron fist.

    2. Re: War is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know... they could have prevented the first one, but needed a pretext for war.

      Sad but true. Look it up.

  15. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's billions of chinese, and only millions of Americans.

    There is only one order of magnitude difference between the populations of USA and PRC, not three as your post implies.

  16. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Which is a meaningless statement for many reason. It's not like China is our poor mother who lends us a few billion every time we get into trouble. "Debt" on a national scale doesn't work that way, and US debt levels are not out of the ordinary.

    Nobody understands debt.

  17. Competitive Balance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh? Is the NSA afraid they'll have competition in the "listening in to the whole world" business if they allow China to install a cable that could contain Chinese backdoors and no USA backdoor? Sucks to be them.

  18. Limk to Asia not America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australia and NZ need more links to Asia than USA.
    With all the NSA shenanigans, Im sure most people would prefer their data didnt go to the US anyway.
    Asia is growing and US is stagnating, plan for the future.

  19. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather take it in the ass from China than the NSA, 'cause the Chinese won't come down on me if I critisize my own country (the USA). The NSA would put me on a list of suspectable terrorists. I'd definitely pick Chinese interference over NSA.

  20. Step up the game by Reliable+Windmill · · Score: 1

    China and Russia must step up the game. I don't trust U.S gov in their ambitions to rule the world. They care less for the good of everyone, and more for securing their own place at the top.

    --
    Signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Step up the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no-one trust american ambitions. its an "understatement".

      americans dont trust huawei parts, but that, too, is an "understatement"

      subversely, israeli company get contract for wifi and cellphone mast of Capitol Building;

      same time as wifi/cell service tender, them israeleese point finger at huawei!!!

      then, African communications cables are severed by (anchors?) +++read subscript+++ ISRAELI NUCLEAR ATTACK SUBMARINES!!!! active in Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Seas!?!

      busy bombarding the terrorist dolphins and whale-pods with radio-waves! if they allow the terrorist whales to form pods, maybe they will try to develop legs to terrorize the martians with next step up!!!

      uhhh, wasn`t this about the data-security of the undersea cables in the Pacific-Rim, not unlike those of the Horn of Africa and the Indian Ocean (cut by israeli submarines)? If israeli bastards cut Chinese cable, they would just blame the Japanese, like when the israeli submarine sunk the S.Korean ship, they blame N.Korea.

  21. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    China needs someone in their corner with nuclear weapons. Either that, or develop their own.

    There are only 8 states known to have nuclear weapons (nine if you count Israel). If you are too fucking ignorant to know that China is one of them, which undermines most of your supposed argument, then you have no business discussing foreign policy.

    And China isn't running around hunting down its ex-pats in Russian airports when its citizens come forward and say what its government is up to. They just stare blankly into the camera and then say "We make you iphone! iPhone good! You want more iphones? Shut up." ... and that's the end of it. -_-

    This manages to be both idiotic, ignorant and racist all in one, so that's awesome.

    Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

  22. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were translated, millions of Chinese would laugh.

  23. Re:Easy answer... by girlintraining · · Score: 0

    China had, at last count, almost two thousand nuclear weapons and climbing.

    Uhh, try 200-300. And they presently lack an effective delivery mechanism. They're testing one now. They are not a significant threat to the United States at this time. Russia is.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  24. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you understood what I just said.

  25. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    hey dumbass ... every space faring nation (china is one) has a delivery mechanism.

  26. This Doesn't Help the People by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    the growing rivalry between the U.S. and China

    If anything the US and Chinese people have grown closer over the past decades; scratch that - for certain the US and Chinese people have grown closer over the past decades.

    Only a bunch of crazy old men claiming to represent the people could continually fuck this up. To them I say: "get out of the way."

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:This Doesn't Help the People by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you referring to the US Congress or the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  27. Re:Easy answer... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until somebody develops the ability to nuke all it's enemies globally instantly, and synchronized down to the second globally, there's no point in signing such an agreement as MAD pretty much ensures that nobody is going to be using nuclear weapons.

    Consequently, that treaty was just an effort to bolster China's image on the world stage. If there were really any purpose to such a treaty, it would have been signed a long time ago.

  28. Re:FP by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Nobody understands debt, including Paul Krugman.

  29. Re:Easy answer... by hedwards · · Score: 1

    You seriously think they'd be able to get a nuke onto a ship without being noticed? If it were truly that easy, we wouldn't be bothering with missiles at all.

  30. what's the difference? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    American cable = NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, ICE spying
    China cable = PLA, Korea spying

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLO and PyongYang,

      unlike american cable-tappers, do not care if internetizen reads about interNAZ ZIONal banking-cabals, insider-trading and Madoff,
      whereas american cable-tappers target people of ALL COLOURS (ink white). The gentiles are not as aloof as they once were.

      High-speed data connections are good, good,good, good for education, business, and online-gaming.

      just like African high-speed internet cables were cut, it blocks timely and effective communication.

      China does not spy on people who are educating themselves, rather agitating.

      China understands the value of information, and China has a great role to play in the future of this planet. They are learning the lessons of the ails of western-corruption and hegemony, from Marx to Keynes.

      If the letter from the Chinese Celestial Court had reached Her Majesty the Queen of England in a timely fashion, the Opium Wars would have been avoided. Then it was the silk-road or the merchant-shipping-highway. This demonstrates the HUMAN value of high-speed communications, and the terrible consequences when groups interfere in communications.

      So, African high-speed internet cut by israeli nuclear attack submarines? interesting hypothesis, but for what motive?

      Point really goes to China, because the yoke of western merchants and financiers will not be thrown off by Barack "Bernanke" Obama, the Greek avenger, or the Vikings of Iceland (although they did make a go of it). When a Nation and a People are constantly bullied, broken-down, and kicked while theyre down, the "lessons learned" do not reverse the status quo, which in the 21st century is DEBT. However, a wise old dear told one, "learn from your mistakes, but even better, learn from the mistakes of others." Such is China to the future of mankind.

      so, next time your metadata gets leaked, your phonebook leaked, your joogle android splutters, dont blame the Asians.

  31. Re:Easy answer... by hedwards · · Score: 0

    I love how the anti-American bigots trot this sort of bullshit out, without context.

    The US had a sterling record compared with any other nation that's gone through an industrial revolution. What's more, the industrial revolution happened well before we had any concept of the long term consequences to the destruction. The Chinese are well aware of global warming and the rest, they've chosen to engage in dangerous policies because they view it to be better than enforcing their own regulations.

    As far as the lakes and rivers go, again, nobody realized the consequences when things were being built. But, now that we do know better, the water is being cleaned and for the most part is clean.

    As for the currency manipulation, you wouldn't be saying that if you knew what was going on. The Chinese government still owns most of the enterprises in China. They withhold pay that should be going to the workers in order to lend money to American businesses and the government. The net effect of that is that you've got a lot of people working for very little and the normal adjustment to the currency value doesn't happen because they're sending cash back to counter act that.

    In the long term that's extremely dangerous as at some point they won't be able to afford to keep lending money, at which point the wages will need to rise and when that happens they won't be able to export as many goods. It's going to get extremely nasty if they don't manage it right. Or they'll wind up with prolonged stagnation as things catch up.

  32. Re:Easy answer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Informative

    And they presently lack an effective delivery mechanism.

    Except for the 65 odd ICBMs.

  33. Re:Easy answer... by artor3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options"

    What's so hard to understand about that? NATO will only use nukes in defense. That includes defending against chemical or biological attacks, for example. Signing on to a NFU treaty would take away that option.

  34. Re:Flip it back by artor3 · · Score: 1

    So you want the objectively more oppressive country on top, to the detriment of billions, because it won't personally affect you. What a great guy you are.

  35. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and why the fuck would you not consider israel? you know damn well they have nukes.. they just don't advertise it, as an official and verified declaration of their capability would make iran go crazy nutzo.

  36. Because we can trust American hardware by msobkow · · Score: 1

    <SARCASM>Because we can trust American hardware not to have NSA back doors, right?</SARCASM>

    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  37. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya know, using a strawman & following it up with an ad hominem, really changed my mind in this case. I was totally wrong that I, as a U.S. citizen, have more to fear from the NSA than from China. I'm really glad you opened my eyes to the fact I was wrong, by pointing out how selfish I was being to not think about how 1 billion Chinese would be no better or worse off than they already are. Which, wasn't really the point I was making, but hey, you sure did tear down that point. Thanks! :-)

    PS. Recommend you learn more about Chinese oppression from some sources that aren't so biased against China, and learn more about U.S. oppression, then compare the two, before you make blanket statements about who's more "objectively more oppressive", to support your world view.

  38. Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese should just build a cable anyway and run it for cheaper than everybody else. I know where the traffic will go.

  39. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "without context", nice, please share some "context" when it would be OK to polite a river until it catches fire, or bury nuclear waste in cardboard boxes. Also reconcile this with why third world nations are not allowed to consume energy and evolve.

    Oh, Yes, we learned... September 19, 2013 at 6:20pm

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-13500-gallons-of-oil-spill-i

  40. What a laugh by asamad · · Score: 1

    What they are worried somebody else it going to be listening in on every conversation apart from them !

  41. So where is the context for China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I love how the anti-American bigots trot this sort of bullshit out, without context."

    So where is the contect of all the "bad things" that the pro-Merkin shitheads bang out all the time?

    Or is the context "I'm a Merkin, therefore I cannot be a bad guy"?

  42. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His point was that if you have space capability, you have the ability to launch a nuke *without ships* - any orbital lift capability can double as an ICBM with relatively minor modifications, and can theoretically hit any point on the planets surface.

  43. Re:Easy answer... by auric_dude · · Score: 1

    Would the United States ever actually use nuclear weapons? http://thebulletin.org/would-united-states-ever-actually-use-nuclear-weapons# would suggest that targets and reasons for the use of the US nuclear weapons are rather limited and the perhaps the US has an over abundance of kit in the post Cold War era.

  44. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Americans learn to play nice in the world they can come back and have a seat at the grown up table.

    Please do not confuse Americans with their government. Quite a few of us strongly disapprove of what the NSA has done and have been noisy about it.

  45. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's why Bush was trying to get the U.S. to develop nuclear bunker busters?

  46. Re:Easy answer... by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    Would the United States ever actually use nuclear weapons?

    Er... the United States is the (singular) country to ever have used nuclear weapons (plural). Granted, it probably won't use them (again). But as far as statistics go, so far it's still USA 2 x 0 Everyone-Else-Summed.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  47. Re:Easy answer... by peragrin · · Score: 1

    um 1.3 billion verses .3 billion

    where is that order of magnitude again?

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  48. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you make a post stating China is not a nuclear power, you lose all right to arrogantly correct someone later about specific numbers of warheads. Also, you're still a moron. China is a space faring nation. Any nation that can send up space launches can deliver warheads anywhere in the world.

    Stop posting. Really. Stop. Every post you make embarrasses you further.

  49. Then let the countries decide by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?

    Given the inherent malignity of state entities, which is the least-worst?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Then let the countries decide by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US, certainly. In China, Snowden would have been hunted down by internal security, given a quiet trial, and executed shortly thereafter and his organs harvested. In America not only was Snowden able to escape due to not having to go to a government office and get an exit visa for his passport (documenting where you're going, when, for how long, and showing airline tickets and hotel reservations, then the government will allow you to leave) but he was soundly cheered by many Americans.

      As a Westerner who has been in China for years now and speaks Mandarin, people only like China because they reflexively hate America and either don't know anything about China or project their wants and desires on China. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

      You can shame America into doing things...what just happened in Syria? China just doesn't care unless you're Chinese. And even then, it's a stretch.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Then let the countries decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can shame America into doing things...what just happened in Syria? China just doesn't care unless you're Chinese. And even then, it's a stretch.

      Which is a whole lot better than how America only cares when you have oil, and in that case, you either tow the line or get invaded eventually.

      "Shame" America into doing things?? Ever heard of Rowanda? It is much worst than Syria, but there ain't oil fields in Africa, so you can go ahead and try "shaming" America into doing something to help Rowanda, but don't hold your breath though.

      In international politics, America has no sense of shame, at all. For example, just look at how many blunders America did try to catch Snowden, and see how shameless she afterwards. Not to mention all the lies she told the world to start wars in the past. Has America ever apologized for lying to the world?

      You yourself just like America because you reflexively hate China, as your post amply demonstrated.

    3. Re:Then let the countries decide by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 1

      Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?

      Given the inherent malignity of corporate entities, which is the least-worst?

      An alternative and eqally valid wording.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    4. Re:Then let the countries decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know about that, China may threaten you and your family. But America has been threatening entire countries if they give Snowden a break.

      If I want to fly through HK on my way elsewhere I dont need anything and can stay for up to 30 days, most flights avoid getting too close to America cause of freedom and all the extra paperwork you need.

      Which country has global roaming death squads who will kidnap and kill anyone they so choose?

      People dont reflexively hate America, they hate America cause Americans are dicks.
      Reflexively people used to always love America, thats no longer the case. There are reasons for that change.

      You really think Snowden would have played out any differently if NSA hadnt been asleep at the wheel? Only their incompetence allowed things to get this far. How many other Snowdens have been quietly disappeared?

      Americans have no shame. Remember the Iraqi Information minister during the gulf war, non Americans see all your politicians like him and view your country accordingly.

      Ive also been in China for years, and apart from immigration at the airport noone has ever asked me for my papers. If i was in America id be stopped and frisked every other day.

    5. Re:Then let the countries decide by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Rwanda. If America did get involved it would have been cast *just like Somalia*, white people killing black people. If America didn't get involved, it's the callous whites allowing genocide to happen. I notice you conveniently left out the fact that the UN refused to authorize action in Rwanda, and America should never act unilaterally.

      Actually, I am quite a rare bird. I am both pro-America and pro-China. You don't find those very often.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Then let the countries decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I notice you conveniently left out the fact that the UN refused to authorize action in Rwanda, and America should never act unilaterally.

      "America should never act unilaterally"? Bwhahahahahaha! Spoken as if America cared about UN resolutions, and had not started numerous wars and bombed whomever they liked in the past decades already! If I had a dollar every time America said or done something they "should never" do, I would be rich by now!

      The amazing thing about American flag-waving supporters is, they will trot out the party line no matter how many times their country had shown, by direct action, that those lines were pure lies and propaganda.

    7. Re:Then let the countries decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?

      Given the inherent malignity of state entities, which is the least-worst?

      Now falling back to "they are doing that too!" excuse now, are we? This is so lame.

      Think about it, which government can do the most harm to you, leaving you with no recourse and no help?

      If you are Chinese, then obviously the Chinese govt. However, the Chinese govt can do very little to an American living in America. Nor can the Chinese govt do to most Chinese living outside China, see Chinese dissidents living in America as example.

      But if you are an American, then it is the US govt, just look at Snowden as a good example. The fact that Snowden needs to hide in Russia tells you that an American won't be safe from the US govt even if he left America.

      So, how does it make sense for an average American to support the US govt snooping on their own communications? An average Chinese, however, would care less about NSA snooping than about Chinese govt snooping.

    8. Re:Then let the countries decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why wasn't the US interested in sorting out Rwanda? A big fsckin' clue - it has no oil.

    9. Re:Then let the countries decide by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      First, it's not a "defense" or justification. My point is that "not being snooped-upon" is not a credible option in 2013. SOMEONE - usually multiple someones - will be snooping on everything you do. In many cases it's corporate, and in some it's government(s). Some people misunderstand, and compare what's happening vs some utopian ideal of what they think "should be". This is misleading; our choices aren't about the "best" alternative, they're about the least-worst.

      Second, I entirely disagree with you: every one of my Chinese friends (granted, they're all studying in the US) says that they would MUCH rather have the US spying on them because there's at least a reasonable certainty that the US will work aggressively to PREVENT Chinese spying, and this is a pure good from their point of view. In fact, having grown up in China, they're far more blase about the concept of privacy in the first place, which (today) is probably a healthier viewpoint to have anyway.

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:Then let the countries decide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take the approach that all international communications are bugged, and only communicate data I have no problem being listened to (non-confidential data and encrypted data).

      Anyone who doesn't take this approach, given the overwhelming evidence of pervasive spycraft, has their head buried so far in the sand that they're hitting bedrock.

      Bugging doesn't affect the usability of an international cable at all, as long as you make reasonable assumptions, and take reasonable precautions against the assumed bugging.

  50. Re:Easy answer... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    China needs someone in their corner with nuclear weapons

    Are you forgetting Dennis Rodman's batshit insane friend? North Korea's existence depends entirely on being China's delightfully-insane-but-moderately-dangerous second cousin who is locked in the basement and only let out to amuse the neighborhood kids.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  51. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enlighten us, how does debt work? Does it have to be repaid? Will future generations be thankful the current generation had so much of it? Why did the US just have a "debt ceiling crisis" not long ago?

  52. Re:FP by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    So other countries get soft loans and have to pay them back in real hard currency... via massive taxes or selling off national infrastructure.
    "Debt" on a "US" national scale doesn't work that way? - as in never pay back "work that way" or some other trading/computer/war/political trick?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  53. Sovereign nations? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    I am not sure I understand this story: why US has its word to say about who is connecting Australia and New Zaeland? Aren't theses territories sovereign nations?

    1. Re:Sovereign nations? by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 2

      I am not sure I understand this story: why US has its word to say about who is connecting Australia and New Zaeland? Aren't theses territories sovereign nations?

      We like to think so, but we have our doubts (especially now that Tony is PM).

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    2. Re:Sovereign nations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American Samoa and Hawaii are different to Australia and New Zealand. (Ill let you figure out how)
      Aus and NZ cant just build half a cable into the middle of the pacific and hope it magically joins up with another one floating about.
      Maybe if you read the story, you might understand the story?

      tldr:
      RTFA

    3. Re:Sovereign nations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not once the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty is signed. That gives corporations supremacy over nations. Goodbye democracy. Hello global feudalism.

    4. Re:Sovereign nations? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      The submarine cable map is insightful.

      The idea to add another cable through Hawaii is not obvious. In order to improve path redundancy, going to south america would be a better idea. And at least Brazil could be interested

    5. Re:Sovereign nations? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      You deserve mod points;

  54. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options"

    What's so hard to understand about that? NATO will only use nukes in defense. That includes defending against chemical or biological attacks, for example. Signing on to a NFU treaty would take away that option.

    Everybody understood just fine. Everybody also knew full well that "defense against chemical or biological" attacks also include potential ones, i.e. pre-emptive strike. And of course, whenever convenient, cyberattacks or humanitarian disaster would be included in the list of potential "attacks" to be defended against, which basically opens the door to strike anyone anytime.

    A kind of "defense" which, for most of the world, just means "offense".

    Take a clue, nobody buy these word games anymore.

  55. Real answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they were chosen by Jeebus, or something. Im prety sure it gives them a free pass.

  56. Re:NSA and cable taps by stan_qaz · · Score: 1

    The USA is reported to have a long history of cable tapping, Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage

    http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/006097771X/ref=sr_1_1

    "For decades American submarines have roamed the depths in a dangerous battle for information and advantage in missions known only to a select few. Now, after six years of research, those missions are told in Blind Man's Bluff, a magnificent achievement in investigative reporting. It reads like a spy thriller -- except everything in it is true. This is an epic of adventure, ingenuity, courage, and disaster beneath the sea, a story filled with unforgettable characters who engineered daring missions to tap the enemy's underwater communications cables and to shadow Soviet submarines."

  57. Belongs to CHINA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Article is very racist!!! China has had sovereignty over Pacific region for 5000 years and brought prosperity and peace. America is barbaric and gives nothing to the world. Slashdot needs greater editorial oversight to ensure the respect of Chinese people!

  58. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8 (9) sounded right, but here's the list anyway:
    United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel (Undeclared)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

  59. Re:NSA and cable taps by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    The USA has spent it's history thinking that the enemy was

    1) The British
    2) The native Americans
    3) The Mexicans
    4) The Russians
    5) The Chineese

    In time they may work out what the rest of the world has known all along. The French are the real enemy,

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  60. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Cold Fjord...sorry I mean Anonymous Coward:

    I like your style, you seem very hypocritical and proud of it.
    I just wish you wouldn't shit your panties so much dismissing an obvious inferior wannabe.
    The acrid stench of your trying too hard diarrhea is getting a bit overwhelming.

  61. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You fail to understand order-of-magnitude approximations.

  62. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, that's easy...

    1 billion = "an order of magnitude"

    1 million = "an order of Congress"

    1 thousand = "an order of iPads"

    1 = "an order of fries"

  63. Chinese gears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what they say about Chinese gears - you never get full once using it !!!

  64. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, no delivery system here... no siree...

    Not saying it's fully operational, but news reports are sketchy... I doubt you could say for sure one way or the other unless you were in the Chinese Navy.

  65. Re:Easy answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    > ... as MAD pretty much ensures that nobody is going to be using nuclear weapons.

    Unless there is a mistake, such as the one where a training program was left in NORAD computers. Or there is a system failure, such as the one that happened to Russian computers. Or there is an accidental detonation during transportation, such as nearly happened in 1961 in North Carolina. And it can be helped along by poor security, such as the US launch code of 0000.

  66. He who pays, decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's pretty simple. The ones that pay are the ones that can decide the sources for their equipment. If two entities each pay a bit, they can both decide. If two entities want to form an alliance to pay, they don't need to allow other entities in to the alliance. Thus if AU/NZ/US don't want China involved (don't forget AU has already said no to a certain Chinese manufacturer supplying for their NBN), then they can choose not to get China involved, and can choose not to use Chinese equipment.

  67. Re:Easy answer... by khallow · · Score: 0

    So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options" such as enless threats of using them?

    I gather from your question mark that you have a question. So what is it? It's rather obvious that the best defense against a nuclear attack is to stop the attack before it starts. Preemptive nuclear strike is one way to attempt that.

  68. Re:NSA and cable taps by GNious · · Score: 1

    When I was in Mississippi some years ago, I got the impression they already considered the French an enemy.

    Their War-On-Frenchfries was already well under way.

  69. Re:Easy answer... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    I love how the anti-American bigots trot this sort of bullshit out, without context.

    Talking of context... anti-American? The guy kept saying EU/US, which means a shedload of other developed countries, and you immediate peg it as an attack on American masculinity. Nice.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  70. Re:Easy answer... by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Troll

    Except for the 65 odd ICBMs.

    After thumbing through the dense tomb that you posted, which was moderated +4, Informative, I find no mention of any intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is also three years older than my link, which wasn't in PDF form, and indicated they only had regional launch capability. The document you provided indicated they had only managed to create missiles with a 500 or so mile range. Barely enough to get the nuclear ordinance they've developed far enough up-wind to not eat the radioactive fallout after. China is a big country.

    Perhaps a more careful investigation of documentation in the future would be helpful? But given how many times my factual statements have been moderated down in this thread in favor of bullshit exaggeration... it's not surprising. I expect the moderation on this one will serve to further confirm that Slashdot has become the Fox News of the IT world...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  71. Re:Flip it back by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, because China doesn't silence critics.

  72. Re:Flip it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you believe the Chinese would silence me for criticizing the USA?

  73. typical American Exceptionalism BS by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    The US, certainly.

    How many Al Jazeera offices has the Chinese military bombed in the last 10 years? Has the PM of China personally called a third world dictator to keep a journalist imprisoned and tortured, like Obama did with Yemen?

    In America not only was Snowden able to escape due to not having to go to a government office and get an exit visa for his passport

    Nonsensical talking point. Getting an exit visa wouldn't have changed anything, because Snowden chose Hong Kong precisely because it wouldn't raise red flags with the government as opposed to flying to Caracas.

    but he was soundly cheered by many Americans

    By people like Bradley Manning, who was subjected to two years of psycological torture before being tried in a kangaroo court.

    As a Westerner who has been in China for years now and speaks Mandarin, people only like China because they reflexively hate America and either don't know anything about China or project their wants and desires on China. "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

    Or, they aren't total morons and can see who the most belligerent bully in the world is. How many nations has China bombed, how many worldwide torture programs has it run while trying to tap and store the communications of everyone on the planet.

    what just happened in Syria?

    The Nobel Peace Prize winner, who desperately wanted to bomb a country, was clowned by a former KGB stooge who swooped in with a peace deal. What about it?

  74. Compared to the USA? Not even close. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    How many overseas military bases and carrier groups does China have compared to the 700+ of the United States.

    And China isn't?

    In the last 12 years, the U.S. has started two illegal wars of choice that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, millions of refugees, destabilized entire regions, conducted a worldwide kidnapping & torture program, and marks 50 innocent people for death for every alleged terrorist it bombs. And used chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq, the sort of thing it's claiming Assad should be bombed for doing.

    Tell me how China gets remotely close to any of that.

  75. cable is such a dated technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is anybody making progress with satellite?