Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security The Military Technology

How China Will Use Cyber Warfare To Leapfrog Foes 235

The Walking Dude writes "A lengthy article published in Culture Mandala details how China is using cyber warfare (PDF) as an asymmetric means to obtain technology transfer and market dominance. Case studies of Estonia, Georgia, and Project Chanology point towards a new auxiliary arm of traditional warfare. Political hackers and common Web 2.0 users, referred to as useful idiots (PDF), are being manipulated through PSYOPS and propaganda to enhance government agendas."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How China Will Use Cyber Warfare To Leapfrog Foes

Comments Filter:
  • China's advantage (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Sunday November 02, 2008 @11:30AM (#25602719)

    "Information Warfare" (IW), sometimes called Information Operations (IO), spans several arenas, from the purely technical to the social and psychological. The goals and missions of IO and intelligence in general, particularly against and within non-free societies, will constantly be at odds with the democratic nature of the United States and the West. Even so, the United States currently doesn't appear to acknowledge the scope of the information campaigns China has executed against it. The thought in some circles that China isn't the danger others believe it to be is apparently proof that China's long-standing information campaigns to convince Americans of just that appear to be working quite well. China's motives are strategic rather than tactical in nature; that is, they do not necessarily serve any direct or immediate specific purpose, but rather serve to create influence in its own favor over long periods of time. For this reason, many in the US see China as something of a misunderstood ally, while China simultaneously builds out its military capability.

    While cyber warfare is now routinely considered in various analyses of China and other nations, the larger question of why China is so diligently pursuing this path is overlooked. China's activities in this realm are assumed to be part of a natural technological progression. However, a study of literature examining China's efforts in Information Warfare viewed against the backdrop of the importance of the Information Revolution which is sweeping the globe paints a picture of a nation looking to the information realm as a critical and key mechanism to modernize its military capabilities. Similar to how the Industrial Revolution ushered in a new era and greatly enhanced nations' abilities to wage war, the Information Revolution again could change the face of conflict. China's motivations for expanding its cyber warfare capabilities against the United States may transcend that of simple technological evolution, and warrant a deeper examination. Why, then, can China be expected to expand its Information Warfare capabilities, particularly with respect to the United States?

    The US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute encapsulates these findings in one simple thought: to China's leadership, it could mean a pathway to modernization that would obviate the need for costly and time-consuming interim modernization. "IW offers opportunities to win wars without the traditional clash of arms" (Yoshihara 2001). Indeed, China appears to be focused on the notion of such asymmetric warfare. Yoshihara (2001) goes on to explore the current state of Chinese IW and IO philosophy. The focus of Chinese theoreticians appears squarely focused on the possibility of IW offering China a decisive option to defeat a superior adversary by crippling its command and control capabilities. Moreover, Yoshihara (2001) notes that some Chinese military scholars consider the notion of victory without conventional battle; not only via disabling information-based attacks in the electronic realm, but even via more subtle psychological operations (PSYOP) designed to alter and shape an adversary's thinking.

    Part of China's motivations for the intense focus on the information realm stems from China's fascination with recent conflicts driven by information. China witnessed the decisive US tactical victory in the Persian Gulf War, and wondered how such practice could be applied by its own military. China is cognizant of the fact that it, too, will be subject to information-based attacks as it becomes more dependent on information-based systems. China's focus is on building a high technology war-fighting machine, with the prospect of skipping costly interim steps to modernize its military capabilities.

    Pervasive in the Chinese writing on IW is the notion of shaping the environment to facilitate military objectives; critically, the Chinese "view information warfare as a tool to counter the overwhelming military superiority of the United States" (Armistead 2001). It is this thought

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Sunday November 02, 2008 @11:35AM (#25602755) Journal

    "Useful idiots" in this document is referring SOLELY to the 'patriotic hackers' - ie unofficial pro-China hackers who cheerfully attack anti-Chinese or other targets of opportunity without official support or sanction.

    The Useful Idiots that the summary refers to have been around forever: people who are easily manipulated by professional intelligence services without a great deal of effort because they are naive, idealistic, or simply ignorant - such as the Red Army Faction, the German anti-nuke movement, and protests against Reagan in the 80s.

  • by Watson Ladd ( 955755 ) on Sunday November 02, 2008 @11:45AM (#25602823)
    Or the ex-Nazi's who bombed Piazza Fortana in 1968. Or the American public who supported a gang of thugs who attempted to topple a democratically elected government in Nicaragua. If this is sophistication, pray for the sake of the world that we have more naivety.
  • by JohnnyComeLately ( 725958 ) on Sunday November 02, 2008 @12:34PM (#25603119) Homepage Journal
    Very good write up, but repeats itself and occasionally goes off on tangents. The US GPS info is wrong. GPS is not used for communications. L-Band is one way with no receivers on the bird. It (GPS) does cross-link NUDET data, but again, this isn't comm. There also aren't "five alternate constellations." There's just one constellation of 24 satellites. There are 6 orbits, with 4 birds per orbit. As he mentions, if you knock one out, then there is no way you're taking another satellite from another orbit and bringing it over. It would defy the law of physics (aka orbital mechanics) and even if those could be overcome, there's no where near enough hydrazine on the satellite to pull it off. There is a possibility they'd knock one satellite out that had an on-orbit spare nearby, but that would be an exception not norm.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 02, 2008 @12:50PM (#25603229)

    I'll do better than that. After the Spanish American war Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and Guam were taken. Cuba and the Phillipines fought for and achieved independence from the U.S. Puerto Rico has no effective representation for most things. Guam is worse off and is basically dominated without any real representation. Remaining U.S. territory in Cuba, Japan and Germany are havens for crime, with the local justice systems forbidden from prosecuting crimes committed by garrisoned forces: rape, assault, fraud, and many other crimes committed against their citizens. Japan especially has a lot of problems with this. There is a very recent case of an U.S. Army Europe NCO raping several children producing child porn for nearly a decade who was let off with 2 years prison and minimum punishment. This is the short reply.

  • Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Informative)

    by schnikies79 ( 788746 ) on Sunday November 02, 2008 @01:52PM (#25603663)

    He isn't running for election in Europe or the rest of the world, he is running in the U.S. Only U.S. citizens have a say-so.

    It really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or classifies him or his opponents as.

  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Sunday November 02, 2008 @03:53PM (#25604587) Homepage
    Wow talk about a post that lacks links with reality.
    First Guam and Puerto Rico have had votes, multiple times, on what they want to have happen to them, votes keep coming up as keep it as is. The ball is currently in their courts and they don't want to rock the boat from the current benefits they are receiving. Personally I think we should give them a set date when they have to decide and force the to decide.
    What kind of joke is this about the military bases being a havens of criminals??? As a general rule if you commit a crime on base you will be tried by the US or turned over to the locals, if you do something off base you will be almost always be tried by the local government, this is in the SOFA, the main benefit you get is that you be held on the military base during the time up to the trial. In addition to local government penalties you also face the chance of the military trial and punishment.
    The rape case of Christopher A. Barberi was against US citizens while on a military base and back in the USA, so it fell under US law and a military court, if done off base and a German citizen based on past cases it would of been handled over to the German courts. The light sentence is because he could not be charged for some of the crimes because of statue of limitations and their were questions about the reliability of the girl to the point of having relatives saying she was lying. The case in Japan where you had an accused raped not being tried by the Japanese court systems was because the accuser said she lied about the accusation so the Japanese government dropped the case, the person was still tried by the military court because of actions before it was dropped.

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Working...