Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Government Security Worms IT Politics

China Taking on U.S. in Cyber Arms Race 262

Posted by Zonk
from the messier-than-a-tac-nuke-in-its-own-way dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Taking on U.S. in Cyber Arms Race

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:23AM (#19517983)
    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
    • by DJ_Maiko (1044980) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:43AM (#19518207) Homepage
      & 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"
      • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:52AM (#19518297)
        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."
        • 'Captialism only exists and flourishes in a manifestly free society'

          Many people say that China is more capitalist than the USA with their recent growth.
          China is hardly a free country. (and it's certainly not communist either)
          • by cunina (986893)
            Then those "many people" are pretty stupid. Growth and capitalism are orthogonal concepts.
            • I believe there are 'less' restrictions on companies in china than in the US which has helped China's growth.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by moeinvt (851793)
          "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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by CastrTroy (595695)
          Actually, according to Plato, the best form of governance would be a benevolent dictator [wikipedia.org]. 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 compute
          • by Chyeld (713439)
            As long as the computer could never be subverted, that's true. However a Diebold(tm) computer overlord would be the more likely scenario, and we would be back to corrupted humans running the show.
        • "but Captialism only exists and flourishes in a manifestly free society."

          So why is China laughing all the way to the bank?

          I agree ideology and moralising are all fine a dandy when you are sitting in a chair, but what you call "moral relativity" is what China calls "pragmatisim". And even though I wholeheartedly agree with Winston, you cannot sell democracy to people who don't want it (if that's a hard concept for you to swallow then think about why generals and CEO's are not elected by the people unde
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by beckerist (985855)
          "Under Communism, man exploits men - under Capitalism, it's the other way around"
        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Friday June 15, 2007 @11:47AM (#19519901)

          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.

        • by fbjon (692006)

          It's comfortable on the chair of moral relativism, isn't it?
          I prefer sitting on the chair of moral relativism to the broomstick of moral absolutism.
          • Simply because one doesn't subscribe to the principles of moral relativism, in the negative sense of the term, does not make one a moral absolutist, in the similarly negative connotation.

            Rather, some people are realistic: some differences are the result of legitimate cultural and philosophical differences, as opposed to "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "evil"; but at the same time, there are intrinsically better ways of doing things if you believe that freedom is a universally valuable principle.

            When you d
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GeckoX (259575)
        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 ma
        • by GeckoX (259575)
          Very interesting that this whole branch has been modded the way it has.
          The original post was not condemning China, it was merely indicating the way things are. No one said the US was any better in their own right.

          And yet unless you outright bash the US, you get modded into oblivion.

          Interesting.

          And I'm no american, and have very little love for the politics and position of the US within the world.

          Interesting.

          Sure would be nice if the world was as black and white as /. moderators appear to think it is.
      • by Colin Smith (2679)
        Kudos on quoting Burns.
         
      • by smoker2 (750216)
        Or even :
        May the Lord have the gift to give us,
        to see ourselves as others see us.
        Allegedly when his trousers fell down (NOT).
      • Right, well done. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kahei (466208) on Friday June 15, 2007 @10:59AM (#19519195) Homepage
        & 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.

        • by fbjon (692006)

          There has never been an American propaganda initiative that was 5% as effective as the Chinese PR machine
          You forgot Apple.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ogive17 (691899)
        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.
    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:50AM (#19518271)

      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.

       
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by daveschroeder (516195) *
        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.

        C
        • by Colin Smith (2679)

          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.

          Right... It's all a big conspiracy. 1000 million Chinese are all in on it!!!!!!

          http://www.ft.com/cms/s/db3a3248-19be-11dc-99c5-00 0b5df10621.html [ft.com]

          It's actually much worse than communism. Now, the whole world is going to have to compete with the chinese.

          • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Friday June 15, 2007 @10:33AM (#19518859)
            *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.
            • "because they know that appears "friendly" to the West, and primarily to the United States"

              Political foes stabbing the US in the back - I'm shocked!
            • 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".
        • As the gp stated, China is primarily authoritarian these days. Their communist ideology has been greatly softened, to the point where the official hero is not the little worker bee anymore, whose path to glory consisted of sowing his comrades' shoes at night and in anonymity. Instead, party propaganda is trying to leverage old sages like Lao Tse to cement their authority.

          Communism is nothing but a tool for political control in the hands of the Chinese Central Authority. They realized that the consistent pur
          • Ick - you're studying military intelligence, and this is the best they can teach you? Scary. Looks like there's at least another Iraq-style intelligence fiasco in our future. In case you're wondering, that fiasco was one of analysis and conclusion, not of data.
    • by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:58AM (#19518383) Journal

      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

    • 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 [news.com.au] and fake and deadly products [cnn.com]

      this hypercapitalism is resulting in gated communities of ultraric
    • by jandersen (462034)
      You don't have to have been particularly 'watching China' to know these things - anyone with a brain knows that these things happen, and all you are doing is to proclaim banalities in a loud and clear voice. Just a few examples:

      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"

      Yes, duh - this is what nations do, even to their 'friends'. Israel spies on America, America s
      • by hasbeard (982620)
        Here's a question to ask yourself: "Which country routinely censors the Internet to keep information from its own citizens?" Another question to research: "Which country called out its own troops and tanks to stop its own people from demonstrating and exercising dissent (with a large loss of life)? Ask yourself this question: "Which country would I feel most comfortable in expressing dissent toward the government, the US or China?" When you have thought about these questions ask yourself this: "Do I stil
    • by adam1101 (805240)
      So your point are:

      - China is growing in power and influence in many subtle and not so subtle ways

      - China is COMMUNIST, and may be DANGEROUS

      Did I miss anything? And did you really need so many words for that?

    • by miffo.swe (547642)
      When the US go out and makes new lows in argumenting for its right to torture, imprison and kill people without just cause or even any trials China looks good. The US is morally bancrupt and the world see the need of an opposing force, be it communist or whatever. Its bloody obvious that a US without something holding it back will do whatever it feels like no matter who or what gets hurt in the process. China will therefore get support it really doesnt deserve because of crappy US foreign policy. The cred
    • by phantomfive (622387) on Friday June 15, 2007 @12:12PM (#19520299) Journal
      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 [nationalgeographic.com] 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 [amazon.com] 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.
    • While China is clearly a growing world power, nearly all of this power is derived from pure manpower and numbers.

      Actually, their natural resources aren't too miserable. Not great, but not miserable.

      Really though, stopping them shouldn't be hard, if someone is willing to be ruthless enough. Their prime blind spot is a near-complete lack of concern for environmental safety. Ergo, Evil Geniuses for a Better Tommorrow (Inc.) should set up a few shell companies to start manufacturing products for within

    • the Chinese people are fed a picture of the world as the Communist leadership wants it seen

      Was it not Mao Tsetung who once said, "the information that is given to the peasants must be carefully controlled so that they draw the right conclusions from it," or something to that effect. This is an old standard from the communist play book and should not be surprising in the least.
  • The American people are paying for it all too. Isn't that nice of them.

     
    • Yes, and unfortunately both major political parties are in the pocket of business interests who want to keep it that way. I will and do pay more for things made in the US or in countries I consider more friendly to us, but by and large people will continue to buy at the lowest price point they can find, and our Government is willingly selling away the store, so to speak.
  • by DigitalSorceress (156609) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:30AM (#19518055)

    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!

    • ...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.
    • Re: (Score:3, 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.

    • 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!

      Aha!

      1) Develop one's own virus/bot package to attack vulnerable computers
      2) Deploy bot net
      3) Program all computers on bot net to begin spamming the world (including the Chinese Secret Police) about China's lousy human rights record, Tiananmen Square, and Falun Gong.
      4) All such computers in China are taken out and shot, along with thei

  • of a new Cold War? This time not with nukes, but cyber warfare?
    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      I am looking forward to it. Cyber warfare and electro-magnetic dominance means that communication and remote controlling can be disrupted on a battlefield. Logically that would mean that we will see more drones with AI capabilities, able to take decisions even when cut from the HQ. That should bring a lot of army money into the AI field.

      Of course this also brings many SF scenarios closer to reality as well.
    • China will strike first by freezing all World of Warcraft gold farming accounts thereby causing chaos online.
  • I'm fairly sure I saw almost that exact quote on Slashdot about a month ago. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/28/183 5250 [slashdot.org]
  • Infrared Decoys and Angle Reflectors?

    Eh?

    The article doesn't seem to explain what the hell these are supposed to be - can someone enlighten me? It seems as though, by branding ICT warfare as "electromagnetic warfare", they've confused the issue somewhat. What does infrared have to do with internet tubes and a bunch of ones and zeros?

    If they mean "Chaff and Mirrors", well... what the hell? Whom did they get this info from, and were they trying not to giggle when they said it? Or did I just not grasp the ar

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kalirion (728907)
      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.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BlueTrin (683373)

      "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)

  • by svendsen (1029716) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:34AM (#19518097)
    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.

    • by winkydink (650484) *
      Crushing the dollar would crush the cash cow that fuels China's economy. The current situation is the financial equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction.
      • by svendsen (1029716)
        I disagree. One if there was a war I don't think China would see us as a cash cow, they would see us as a cow to try to cut up into pieces then sell for more in the short term, and once the war was over their would be reconstruction, trade, etc. so money would still come in.

        Two look at the US during our depression what got us out of it. By gearing up the country for war jobs and money were produced. China would do the exact same thing. And since they have a ton of US factories well that wont be a pro
        • by winkydink (650484) *
          How does China switching from production for export to domestic production fuel it's own economy?
    • by Colin Smith (2679)
      Dumping the debt would damage the US economy badly, beyond what Bush has already accomplished, it'd cause inflation to increase massively and correspondingly the dollar to drop. They'd be insane to dump the debt though, it'd be the nuclear option, they'd lose billions. It doesn't make sense until the Chinese economy has diversified enough to import/export from/to other countries.

      They are selling it off though, which along with the US government borrowing like no tomorrow is why the US is already experienci
  • I wonder what imaginary land the US military and political leaders live in that makes them think they could tool up in space and land defense systems and have no-one else respond...

    If China had started first, the US would be responding, and it would be 'Right' and 'Good' that they do so.

    China is doing exactly the same thing, and it's bad? Hello? Reality calling, this is not a surprise....
  • easy (Score:3, Funny)

    by otacon (445694) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:37AM (#19518135)
    access list 110 deny ip any any

    Victory.
  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:38AM (#19518147)
    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.
    • by svendsen (1029716) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:41AM (#19518185)
      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.
      • The last couple decades have shown just the opposite: How devistating a small, but well trained and equipped military can be. Some nations have moved away form conscription because of it (like France). What we are seeing is the inability of a small military to deal with guerrillas, which is an entirely different thing.

        The question with China isn't if they could build a lot, but could they do anything with it. The first challenge they'd face is getting all that stuff across the ocean. This would not be a qui
        • by svendsen (1029716)
          You are assuming China would want the mainland US. My assumption is they simply take Taiwan, and other surrounding countries. Hell they aren't that far away from the middle east to send some troops over. Send a few hundred thousand into the middle east and see what happens.

          Then they dump the US dollar (our economy tanks. maybe china takes a hit but at this point it is a war). Now you have a US with a weak economy, weak military, out of the middle east (wonder how much gas costs after that), etc.
        • The US invades China. In the first battle, a million Chinese are killed for the loss of two Americans. In the second, a million Chinese are killed for the loss of three Americans. In the third, a million Chinese are killed for the loss of four Americans.

          The Politburo asks Chairman Mao for a statement. He says "We run out of Americans first".

          Now look at the world map, preferably centred on the North Pole, think about global warming, and think _where_ an invading Chinese army would be heading.

    • by Ogive17 (691899)
      US manufacturing is starting to re-localize. They've found that you get what you pay for. My company has factories in China (and so do some of our suppliers). Our factories there were built to support the Chinese market (our global strategy is to built the cars/motorcycles where we sell them). I've heard it many times that China has no management experience. They do not know how to run the factories, and in turn they are losing the business.
    • by Azghoul (25786)
      And seriously, how long do you think it would take for us to reconstitute our "manufacturing capability" that you believe we've "lost" to them?

      We still output more every year than the year before. We're just so frigging productive we don't need the factory space or workers to get it done. In a true emergency, you don't think it'd take more than 6 months to crank up production, do you?
  • by gentimjs (930934) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:39AM (#19518161) Journal
    .. there's always a way in ..
  • Outsourcing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rlp (11898) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:53AM (#19518315)
    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.
  • If so, they have the right.
  • yea... (Score:5, Informative)

    by dingDaShan (818817) on Friday June 15, 2007 @09:55AM (#19518345)
    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...
  • This is a race to see who can be the most expensive, adversarial, angry, destructive, and lacking in social sophistication. I've had Chinese friends and acquaintances in 5 countries, and I'm betting on the U.S. government being more mentally ill than the Chinese government.

    Frankly, that's what it is, a kind of socially contagious mental illness.

    I work for the day when the U.S. government is able to live in the world without killing other people. The mental illness of the U.S. government encourages un
  • by Maury Markowitz (452832) on Friday June 15, 2007 @10:05AM (#19518469) Homepage
    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?
  • It was my understanding that the US government has basically decided they also want to do this so that they could do the same thing in similar circumstances.

    Why on Earth would they be surprised that someone else would do this?

    I mean, the US continues to build up its missile defense and loads of other things and saying other countries shouldn't worry about it. But, it's not really realistic to assume that everyone else will just sit by while the US ramps up their capabilities.

    I don't imagine any of the supe
  • "has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks"

    Why don't they make a 'computer system' that don't get viruses. And anyone who uses a computer on a military network that is suseptable to 'viruses' needs their collective heads examined. Besides which the real US military network is isolated from the Internet. Besides which winSEC was diluted so that the security services could monitor the real enemy, their own people.
  • The US's critical defense systems are completely isolated from the internet. I fully expect the same of our Chinese counterparts. That leaves only civilian targets. The only goals that either side could have in mind involve the total crippling of the opposing countries economy and infrastructure. Imagine not a nuclear wasteland, but rather an economic one. No food shipments, no way to buy food with no income, etc. Imagine the chaos that would ensue as everyone tried to get by and the country's own gov
    • "The US's critical defense systems are completely isolated from the internet. "

      What about people who have passwords to the military system on their person device?

      People who are in the military but use voip for there non-military time conversations?

      I could go on.

      Yes, there are civilian targets. Radio stations, power grids, etc.

      This is an expected development and should surprise no one.
  • First off, everyone step back and take a good look at what is at stake here. Neither China nor the U.S. of A. will destroy the other country's economy or infrastructure. Nor will these governments destroy their new toy - the internet.
    So what WILL they do? Stand side by side and have a pissing contest to see which country can get the other one to spend the most on "defense".
    Nothing to see now - or for the next thirty years. But this is a sign of where techs should look for new jobs.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...