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."
The Golden Tool. (Score:3, Interesting)
"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."
And when they've achieved their goals how will they feel when the next superpower does them the same way?
Re:The Golden Tool. (Score:5, Interesting)
And when they've achieved their goals how will they feel when the next superpower does them the same way?
It's not like the current superpower doesn't use "cyber warfare" to obtain technology transfer and market dominance [europa.eu] (search for "Published cases".
There's nothing really new here, except for possibly some alternate methodologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the list.
As an European, I'm somewhat disappointed that our governments don't close most US installation over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, USA and Europe are tied to the hip as allies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that our governments would like that, and the US intelligence service probably drop them a few morsels now and then to keep them happy.
But overall, I still think that tolerating US espionage on a large scale is a bad idea. Because it seems to me that the USA view their allies as vassals rather than partners, and that we will always get a bad deal from playing the junior partner to the NSA.
Re: (Score:2)
I think ridding Europe of the specter of Soviet invasion was a pretty good deal for Europe. The US/European hegemony is what is keeping order and peace in the world right now - I think it's working relatively well.
China's advantage (Score:5, Informative)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Am I forgiven if I would prefer a hypothetical US/China war to take place without too much killing? I always find it odd how such paradigm shifts are somehow read as ingenuity if they come from ones own side and cheating if they come from the other. But this seems like a step in a sensible direction from a purely humanitarian standpoint, at least when set against the alternative.
Not, you understand, that I share the view that, for example, Taiwan is a 'natural' part of China. I don't happen to think that
Re: (Score:2)
Am I forgiven if I would prefer a hypothetical US/China war to take place without too much killing?
I suppose so. But wars often have a habit of not stopping when you think they should. A war that starts with information warfare could very well end with an exchange of nuclear weapons. That's the perils of escalation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent analysis of the situation. The "egg against a rock" appraisal is pretty-much the universal conclusion of most people who don't fall prey to the "counting noses" fallacy (i.e.: First Persian Gulf War).
I wonder, however, if this research on the part of the Red Chinese also includes an unbiased analysis of the impact of IW upon their military's own, highly-rigid C3I infrastructure and whether they will dare an attempt to fix it, given the typical totalitarian state's paranoia toward its own armed for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I always find interesting in your posts is the pervasive paranoia about Chinese PSYOPS.
There are many problems with this sentence:
1) There is no way to corroborate its premise. "Some circles" and "is apparently proof" mean absolutely nothing. Either name the circles, or don't propagate the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I didn't say (or mean) EMP (Score:2)
An electromagnetic weapon [wikipedia.org], such as an E-bomb [slashdot.org], doesn't imply only an above-ground nuclear detonation for the purpose of creating an electromagnetic pulse -- though that is often the first thing that comes to mind. Nor does it even imply a bomb or explosion.
You can also have directed energy weapons that disable electronic gear on a much smaller scope and scale (say, a naval vessel). This is the kind of attack we're talking about -- not a nuclear detonation.
That's not to say the US still wouldn't respond with
RTFA before you summarize? (Score:4, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the ex-Nazi's who bombed Piazza Fortana in 1968.
I'm unfamiliar with this attack and Google doesn't show any info on it. [google.com]
???
Re: (Score:2)
try Piazza Fontana bombing [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And it happened in 1969, not 1968.
Re: (Score:2)
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
This has been going on in industry for years. PR and advertising firms manipulate public discourse in social media at the service of industry and political causes, including here at Slashdot. What the Chinese are doing is simply capitalizing on the very large effect that can a s
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that this is not used by the left do you?
Does it really matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a lot easier to perform the manufacturing for a competing country and then just copy their design. It amazes me how naive American companies are when they outsource to China and then are amazed when their products are copied.
Re: (Score:2)
Products can be copied without having outsourced them in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet by doing that, you are always copying yesterday's design and never quite catching up to the competition. That's what the Soviets discovered the hard way and the Chinese are set to rediscover. You can't pretend to innovate by copying. You have innovate independently to get ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet by doing that, you are always copying yesterday's design and never quite catching up to the competition. That's what the Soviets discovered the hard way and the Chinese are set to rediscover. You can't pretend to innovate by copying. You have innovate independently to get ahead.
If there's one thing that Microsoft's rise to dominance suggests, it's that copying the true innovators goes far, as long as it's cheap, and your consumers are convinced it's good enough.
The Soviets didn't sell things to the largest consumer markets in the world, nor did the big companies in those markets ship the majority of their manufacturing to them. Most consumers don't give a damn about quality or innovation because it costs more up front.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese have already discovered it, judging by the fact that they have mostly moved from Soviet weaponry to their own, locally designed as well as produced, and have developed it quite a bit from where they started - tanks, planes, even assault rifles.
However, copying is still useful as it provides easy m
Re: (Score:2)
And yet by doing that, you are always copying yesterday's design and never quite catching up to the competition.
There are two almost opposite but relevant responses to this.
The first is Microsoft. They've shown that it doesn't matter if you don't quite catch up to the technical leaders. If you have the biggest marketing budget and customers who mostly can't recognize quality products, you'll win the war while the innovators fight the battles with each other. You watch the innovators, make cheap knockoffs
Like Microsoft? (Score:2)
You mean like how Microsoft keeps innovating instead of copying others to ... er... never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a good long-term strategy. Manufacturing costs are continually falling. For around $500 you can build a rapid prototyper which will build almost all of the components needed to create a copy of it. On an industrial scale, this kind of progress is doing even better. Within ten years, expect factories that can be reconfigured in software to produce any kind of consumer electronics (they already exist for certain categories of products). When this happens, a large workforce is no use - fabricatio
Should be about 1/2 its length and GPS info wrong (Score:3, Informative)
This is hardly a Chinese problem (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you think freepers are? They may be dumb as bricks, but they know how to stay on message and work as a team.
Now they're really starting to lose it as Obama is practically a shoe-in. Expect them to start lashing out in the coming months, online and off-line. Everything from website vandalism to murdering people like that guy in Tennessee.
Re: (Score:2)
Context for the unfamiliar. [knoxnews.com]
Welcome to the future.
Yellow peril (Score:2)
This is propagandising at worst, fearmongering bullshit at best. Most of the attacks in the second link were unattributed or only loosely attributed to China, the pdf assumes from the start that China is developing asymetrical warfare capabilities then ponders on what they might be. Logically, of course every large nation has some form of cyber warfare capability, it's just that I doubt that China has any real advantage in this sphere.
The Big Question (Score:2, Interesting)
Our heavy trade relationship with China is based on the assumption that capitalism leads to democracy. But, what if this is not the case? If we are wrong, we've merely created another Soviet Union. Is there any current evidence that the premise is working? Chinese citizens seem as nationalistic as ever.
Re: (Score:2)
"Chinese citizens seem as nationalistic as ever."
Do you know they actually have elections in China?
Sure they only effectively have one party, but as you say, they seem as nationalistic as ever (looking at the thousands of volunteers in the Olympics - they weren't slave labour, or faking their enthusiasm), so it may well be that "One Party" is as many as they want.
After all, the USA seems to be happy enoug
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese gov is a big threat to the chinese citizens (and those in Tibet and perhaps Taiwan).
The US gov is a big threat to US citizens (and various people around the world).
Re: (Score:2)
based on the assumption that capitalism leads to democracy
No, capitalism is a PREREQUISITE for democracy, not a guarantee that it will happen.
Humans suck (Score:2)
So, operating under the unfortunate assumption that the US and China will be enemies, we must build India. It is out only chance to have a decisive advantage. India + USA + Europe will beat China + Russia(?) + (portions of) Africa(??). Maybe we can get the Brazilians on our side for good measure.
There is a big drawback (Score:2)
to this kind of asymmetrical warfare. If China cripples the US economy with information warfare, or even by ceasing to by US debt, then the US loses the ability to buy cheap Chinese crap. If no cheap Chinese crap is bought, the peasants get restless and start doing things like protesting in Tiananmen Square, which is what happened the last time the Chinese economy was doing anything but growing by leaps and bounds.
Given a situation in which the United States and China and Europe are going through rocky eco
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Useful Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
But in a real sense America can use all the bashing it can get. Seriously. Time to wake up. The fact that you think it matters whether criticism comes from within or without is, it seems, proof of this. Speaking in the broadest terms, America (corporately, I don't mean every single individual) has developed a tendency to view everything 'religiously' rather than empirically. There are white hats and black hats, not right actions and wrong actions. There are us and them, not cooperative-minded people and antagonistic people. This underlies everything from teaching non-science in science classes, to voting for people you know are wrong for the job because of the party they belong to, to making social policy decisions on the basis of whether or not they seem too 'socialistic' rather than looking at what effect (positive or negative) they would have, to choosing friends and enemies among other nations without stopping to think about their internal structures and agendas.
So, now, having said that, I'm not an American. Does that make me a troll? Because like most other non-Americans I do not want to be your enemy. But the key point is that the reason I don't want to be your enemy is not, if you will, that I'm afraid of afraid of rabid dogs and I don't want to meet your war machine in a dark alley, but because I'd like to see the world become a better place, and it would be just great if America (which used to hold itself up as a beacon of hope in this regard) would at least join in.
So there you have it. I'm un-American. I'm wearing the black hat. Mod me troll and make me go away. Because, I guess, it's easier than understanding that much of the rest of the world—specifically, those parts of it where we still believe that the political process can work and wars should no longer be necessary—has lost its respect for you as a power.
Re:Useful Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
You are clearly not an American, b/c your criticisms are characteratures of the polar extremes of America that Europeans (not all, just the lazy-thinking ones) love to lampoon and use as examples of American demise to make them feel better about themselves. Few Americans vote party lines (if at all, but that's a different issue), the school boards who put creationism in the science curriculum are quickly voted out of office in the following election (even in Kansas), and I think if you bothered to meet some normal Americans (rather than the party operatives who play ones on TV), you would find that Americans have a very pragmatic approach to everyday life, which includes views on life, business, and policy.
I would also not attach our foreign policy blunders to the collective views of the American people. The administration has consistently been a lone cowboy (pun intended) in this area - very few viewpoints had a place at the table in the last 8 years (even our own secretary of state was sidelined). Many of us lament the moral high ground our country has lost since the end of the cold war because of the lapses in judgment with regards to torture, just war, and diplomacy that a handful of reckless unelected officials with too much power have conducted on our behalf.
Re:Useful Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
"The administration has consistently been a lone cowboy (pun intended) in this area"
It's easy to blame those in power, but as a nation you voted the fuckers in (or at the very least you let them steal the election without massive Ukraine style protests in the streets), so you do bear part of the responsibility.
It's the old Evil-thrives-where-good-people-do-nothing deal.
Reelection (Score:2)
So what is your excuse for re-electing Bush in 2004? That you had no idea what he would do in 2003?
Re: (Score:2)
So USA is a democracy, but people can't change the system they don't like? Can't elect the government which will change the system? Seriously, what's the difference then between USA and USSR except that the lesser did have only one Party instead of two? Remember, USSR's Constitution was among most democratic ones.
I personally thing that things are the way they are because most US-Americans support them and/or don't want to change anything.
So, either stop whining and change the system or stop pretending you
Re: (Score:2)
Guys, you voted Bush back in for 4 more years after it was all out! Don't even try to say that the US populace didn't play a large part in your "foreign policy blunders" - it won't fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would also not attach our foreign policy blunders to the collective views of the American people. The administration has consistently been a lone cowboy (pun intended) in this area - very few viewpoints had a place at the table in the last 8 years (even our own secretary of state was sidelined).
I'm not American either and I agree with the GP. I don't know who else to blame BUT the American people. I know lots of Americans and have lived there and travel there a lot for work and holidays - most of the Americans I know are utterly embarrassed by the state of the country (my aunt is so horrified she has been volunteering and donating a LOT of her time for Obama because she believes he's the only chance to save face and get out of the woeful situation the US is in now).
I can't quite reconcile how eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never voted for Bush." But 51% of them must be lying, right?
39% are lying about whether they voted at all. Only about 32% of eligible voters voted for Bush ( 51% of 61% of eligible voter turn out [gmu.edu]). But, that's beside the point. I was not refuting our responsibility as citizens to elect public servants who represent our views. I was pointing out that your characterizations of Americans' "tendency to view everything 'religiously' rather than empirically," was depicting a small (although, over represented in the media) sliver of the American public.
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps it's time to think about how those 'funny Europeans' got those ideas in the first place. Smoke, fire, etc.
For a country that seems to subsist mainly from marketing you have managed to ruin your image in the rest of the world quite well. (Yes, another caricature. Perhaps you should read something into the fact that those bloody, non-native english speaking Europeans, speak English just as wel as you do, too?)
Oh. I'm sorry. I shouldn't be putting you all into on basket. It's all Bush's fault. 'You' v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I say that because during the decade that I considered myself a "black hat", part of the deal was that I believed that I was crafting a system of morals to follow unique to myself and my situation, and that if those morals happened to intersect with any law of the land then it wasn't anything more than a bit of luck. Because I had to deny the applicabi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes; we made all our mistakes a century before you, and are doing rather better now, thanks. In Britain, we abolished slavery before you even had your revolution, did you know that? You don't hear about it much just because we never tried to base an economy on it.
But wrong on every other count thereafter. You are following very pattern I was speaking of: you hear what I say, conclude that I'm not part of your faction, and leap from this to the conclusion that what I say is better ignored. As it happens, I
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, it's this kind of mentality that makes me think I'll never move back to the US.
Olberman is doing more to try to fix the US than any of his counterparts. In fact all of those people have more dignity than some others.
Fox news has done so much to damage the new media but some people love it because it's like watching Jerry Springer and it makes news fun and who doesn't want their wars to be fun?
Getting your patriotism and your foreigner hating propaganda from an
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an American. I think a lot of the world is pretty pissed at us because we don't stay out of *there* so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Well , i'm not an American , for one.
But i find that in most matters regarding slashdot , nationality is irrelevant.
Anyway , i don't know much about Obama , except that the press here (in Belgium ) likes him , so that means there must be something wrong with him.
Also, the media here hates Mccain , so he can't be all bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway , i don't know much about Obama , except that the press here (in Belgium ) likes him , so that means there must be something wrong with him. Also, the media here hates Mccain , so he can't be all bad.
Such a glorious and insightful way of gauging a potential world leaders acumen. As an American I truly hope you are a leader among your peers.
Re: (Score:2)
- politicians
- who actually want what's best for the country
Well, it would make a good example for explaining a mutex locks
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The problem is that the lemming general public is unaware of the information warfare that is going on, and will continue to be swayed by it.
If you want to know who to elect, look at the people who are the diametrical opposite of everything you want the US to be, and see what they want:
Venezuela
Russia
Most of Europe
Iran
North Korea
These folks don't want someone who stands up for what's right because they want to do what's wrong and get away with it.
That's why Obama's got sacks of cash from undisclosed overseas
Re: (Score:2)
Bush was voted in twice, so the people have spoken.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you, tjstork (137384) is a year-round, ultra-right wing, shill. Ditto for pudge (3605).
Re:Why bother? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It matters in the context of the original poster's comment. According to him, Obama and Hu are ideological buddies. If you'd ask either of them about this, they'd laugh you out of the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but it does, though not directly. But you elected Bush, and see how the attitudes towards the USA has changed in the world since? It was for a reason.
So, when you vote, take that into account as well. It may well be the difference that may start (or prevent) another war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why would China do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not exactly a new strategy; in the history of the world, whenever a powerful nation/empire is in need of resources, it conquers some other nation in order to obtain those resources.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Name one, just one other nation that the US has conquered.
One.
Conquering means that the US invaded, and that the subjects are now part of the US without voting rights. Like any minority in the islamic lands for example ...
Name one. Since the US "does this all the time" can't be that hard, now can it ?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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, assaul
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that your short list does not really have countries with an abundance of resources that the US would want...unless you count white sandy beaches with drinks with little tiny umbrellas as resources.
Re:Why would China do this? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He was not covered by the military SOFA but by international diplomatic treaties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well , itself off course. Everyone knows that. ,do the native Americans have voting rights ?
Wait
Re: (Score:2)
And District of Columbia? I believe there are some issues with voting rights there.
Re: (Score:2)
Iraq? They cancelled some elections when it looked like people weren't going to vote for the "right" candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Name one, just one other nation that the US has conquered.
That's easy: The Cherokee nation. The Blackfoot nation. The Dakota nation. The Hopi nation. The Navajo nation. The Hawaiian nation. The list goes on and on.
Conquering means that the US invaded, and that the subjects are now part of the US without voting rights.
Well, I suppose the subjects are part of the US, specifically they're incorporated into its soil, and the US doesn't let dead people vote (except maybe in Chicago ;-). Most of the North
Re: (Score:2)
Wars are expensive.
The USA may have quite a lot of weapons, but then again, Russia and China have enough as well. Any of these countries has enough weaponry to fuck up the world ten times over.
No. Most of these weapons will likely never get used. They are useful as a means of intimidation, but not much more; once someone, somewhere, uses that kind of weaponry, all hell will break loose. That would be of no use to anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wars are expensive.
...
No. Most of these weapons will likely never get used.
We're potentially entering a depression the likes of which we have only seen once before... Seems the key to getting over the hump in that one was the military-industrial complex.
No when faced with massive economic collapse the US would never use China as a means of ramping up military hardware production. By say... dangerously feigning interest in a war (or the potential for one) just to justify increased defense spending... Seems like a likely scenario and a razor thin line to try and walk. Especially
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, the US has ramped up their military expenses for the war in Iraq, which is one of the reasons for your current economic crisis. More of the same doesn't sound like a good way out of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one of the reasons for higher oil prices is the situation in Iraq.
The huge budget deficit hasn't helped the banking situation either, as you depend on Chinese, Iranian and Venezuelan investors lending money to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you just described WW III, only US being former declining power instead of Germany and wanting to retaliate. We all know how it ended. You already have concentration camp project, putting there ppl by race (mostly yet).
Go ahead, America, land of the free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Unverified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detention_camp [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Are you European? We have offered you (Europeans) these detainees - but you've refused. Perhaps you're more content to sit and heckle from the peanut gallery. No country wants these people sitting in their territory, to mix among the native prison population. If whatever country you're from is so concerned about their rights, you should take them into your prison system.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess right. I'm European, not even from English-speaking country though.
Didn't hear anything about offers and refusal. Can you provide me with links?
Also how is this over the top comparing Guantanamo Bay to the Nazi concentration camps? Guantanamo isn't the only one. Abu-graib? I'm sure there are a dozen we didn't hear of.
And of course Guantanamo Bay IS the concentration camp by definition. It's used to unlawfully concentrate people. It's not civil prison, it's not war prison.
Did you read this:
On July 2, 2
Re: (Score:2)
Check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay_detention_camp [wikipedia.org]
Nazis didn't really understand they're Nazis. They were good citizens etc.
Re: (Score:2)
lwsimon, you don't have balls to reply with your real id?
Ignore the problem all you like, don't be surprised when ww3 hits your country though. This time USA being an axis. The time is pretty close.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The article's linked testimony refers to China's plans to disrupt Taiwan, Japan, and the U.S. through cyber-ops. While this may sound like a frightening scenario, in reality they would never do this unless China's entire senior leadership went insane. Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S. represent a major percentage of investors and customers and an attack on any of these three or even just on Taiwan would precipitate a huge backlash against China.
An attempt to subjugate Taiwan through military force or psychologi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
um, maybe you need to brush up on your geography. the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami [wikipedia.org] didn't even touch China.
Re: (Score:2)
China will not destroy the US economy... yet.
They will only choose to do so when thir short-term losses from the US market are offset by the cheap labor force they will gain from tanking your economy. China is slowly losing the status of the country where it is dirt-cheap to manufacture stuff, and as the prices and their own manufacturing needs rise, they might want to tank an industrialized economy and turn the tables on you.
Re:Why would China do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
GP's point was that the US is a HUGE importer of Chinese consumer goods, and that if the US economy went under, the Chinese economy would take a massive hit, too. Of course this is arguable, I don't have numbers on exports & imports from china, but I suspect the US isn't quite as important as many would like to believe. Still, there's no point trying to get the US economy to tank when there's profit to be had from it.
True , the US is only a part of it , but if the American economy suffers , there's no doubt the European market will suffer to .
So China wouldn't just lose sales from the US : there would be a global depression. And that will definitely hurt China too.
I got it! (Score:2)
Mine Shaft!
DG
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You realize that the trade imbalance is in OUR favor?
The T-bills are only promises to pay them. BTW, what happens if the USA defaults on a foreign enemy in presence of wartime?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Office isn't a software typewriter, it's a Turing-complete development environment which happens to be able to edit documents. There have been a number of nasty exploits in it. One, for example, was the way in which OLE documents were handled allowing for arbitrary code execution. Another nasty one was the handling of WMF images - basically serialised lists of GDI functions, including functions with function-pointer arguments, again allowing arbitrary code execution. If you've got the source c