Skip to comments.
China's Stealth War on the U.S.
Los Angeles Times ^
| July 20, 2005
| Max Boot
Posted on 11/05/2005 10:53:11 AM PST by montana233
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: defenderSD
Do you have any nuclear warhead plans on your hard drive?
21
posted on
11/05/2005 2:42:26 PM PST
by
dr_who_2
To: diamond6
Sorry, compupters = computers
I wonder if puppy dogs use compupters?...lol
22
posted on
11/05/2005 2:44:14 PM PST
by
defenderSD
(What do Bush, Blair, Aznar, and Berlusconi know about Saddam's regime that Democrats don't know?)
To: defenderSD
I've come to the conclusion that you have to have a very trusting nature and an appreciable amount of computer illiteracy in order to fall victim to a computer virus. I never have. Social engineering attacks take longer than stack smashing/etc, but there's no way for the computer to stop them if the person using the computer is a schmuck. If there's one thing that can bring Windows to its knees, it's an anti-virus program combined with all those other wunnerful freebie ad-ware programs that you can run in the background.
But I would think it's difficult to write a virus that specifically attacks just the US or just the US and NATO. Viruses go everywhere now and would even return and attack computers in China.
I disagree. Viruses probably are introduced from public parts of the Internet (one would hope), but it probably isn't that difficult to make a virus home in on IP addresses for government/military sites. I think it's already been tried by now and found wanting for the most part. At least as a way of knocking out US/NATO computer networks. Spying is another matter.
23
posted on
11/05/2005 2:55:33 PM PST
by
dr_who_2
To: dr_who_2
"Do you have any nuclear warhead plans on your hard drive?"No, there is nothing on my computer of any value whatsoever to Chinese intelligence agents. But they might enjoy my pictures of the US National Bikini team.
24
posted on
11/05/2005 4:37:33 PM PST
by
defenderSD
(What do Bush, Blair, Aznar, and Berlusconi know about Saddam's regime that Democrats don't know?)
To: montana233
25
posted on
11/05/2005 4:51:43 PM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(I do what the voices in lazamataz's head tell me to)
To: Travis McGee
26
posted on
11/05/2005 4:55:20 PM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(I do what the voices in lazamataz's head tell me to)
To: defenderSD
Excellent. Your techno-smut will forever ruin the morals of the flower of pimply, patriotic, desperate Chinese computer geeks. Their diabolical plans will turn out to be the means of their undoing! Purple prose, but poetic justice nonetheless.
27
posted on
11/05/2005 5:22:54 PM PST
by
dr_who_2
To: SauronOfMordor
Those yellow swine hid the chapter on "Essential Principles" in page 204. I tell you, the Book of the Five Rings has got to be more enjoyable reading than this. Geeze.
28
posted on
11/05/2005 5:27:12 PM PST
by
dr_who_2
To: montana233
The Russians have also said that they will stop the US Pacific Fleet if it were to try to interfere with a chinese invasion of Taiwan.
To: Thunder90
Just give Taiwan a couple of nukes. Seems to be the equalizer.
30
posted on
11/06/2005 5:14:02 AM PST
by
EQAndyBuzz
(Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
To: neverdem; Tolik; MEG33; Alice au Wonderland
31
posted on
11/06/2005 5:31:33 AM PST
by
King Prout
(many accuse me of being overly literal... this would not be a problem if many were not under-precise)
To: dr_who_2; Travis McGee; Jeff Head; montana233
Those yellow swine hid the chapter on "Essential Principles" in page 204. I tell you, the Book of the Five Rings has got to be more enjoyable reading than this. Geeze Some parts are illuminating (from the pdf pages 206-207)
In terms of beyond-limits warfare, there is no longer any distinction between what is or is not the battlefield. Spaces in nature including the ground, the seas, the air, and outer space are battlefields, but social spaces such as the military, politics, economics, culture, and the psyche are also battlefields. And the technological space linking these two great spaces is even more so the battlefield over which all antagonists spare no effort in contending. [3] Warfare can be military, or it can be quasi-military, or it can be non-military. It can use violence, or it can be nonviolent. It can be a confrontation between professional soldiers, or one between newly emerging forces consisting primarily of ordinary people or experts. These characteristics of beyond-limits war are the watershed between it and traditional warfare, as well as the starting line for new types of warfare.
Reading between the lines, I'm getting the impression that a Chinese offensive against the US will involve not only conventional military conflict, but also
- Terrorism through proxies
- Agents stirring up conflict among different ethnics and races
- Subverting our politicians thru bribery, blackmail, whatever
- General measures to cripple/damage our economy (alluded to on page 210, with respect to Sherman's tactics in the Civil War)
No matter whether it serves as a line of thought or as a principle guiding combat operations, asymmetry manifests itself to some extent in every aspect of warfare. Understanding and employing the principle of asymmetry correctly allows us always to find and exploit an enemy's soft spots. The main fighting elements of some poor countries, weak countries, and non-state entities have all used "mouse toying with the cat"-type asymmetrical combat methods against much more powerful adversaries. In cases such as Chechniya vs. Russia, Somalia vs. the United States, Northern Ireland guerrillas vs. Britain, and Islamic Jihad vs. the entire West, without exception we see the consistent, wise refusal to confront the armed forces of the strong country head-to-head. Instead, the weaker side has contended with its adversary by using guerrilla war (mainly urban guerrilla war) [9], terrorist war, holy war, protracted war, network war, and other forms of combat. Mostly the weaker side selects as its main axis of battle those areas or battlelines where its adversary does not expect to be hit. The center of mass of the assault is always a place which will result in a huge psychological shock to the adversary.[aside: 9/11?] This use of asymmetrical measures which create power for oneself and make the situation develop as you want it to, is often hugely effective. It often makes an adversary which uses conventional forces and conventional measures as its main combat strength look like a big elephant charging into a china shop. It is at a loss as to what to do, and unable to make use of the power it has. Apart from the effectiveness it displays when used, asymmetry in itself is a rule of action suggested by the golden rule. Of all rules, this is the only one which encourages people to break rules so as to use rules. Also it is an effective prescription for methodical and well-balanced medical treatment for a chronic illness of thought.
This document gives a lot to think about, Thanks, montana233
The more I think about it, the more I'm concluding that China and AlQueda are in bed together, with China
32
posted on
11/06/2005 7:20:41 AM PST
by
SauronOfMordor
(I do what the voices in lazamataz's head tell me to)
To: SauronOfMordor
The more I think about it, the more I'm concluding that China and AlQueda are in bed together, with China
If it isn't some grand conspiracy, it's not titillating enough. There are limits to what unconventional warfare can accomplish, and Americans aren't stupid. We survived 9/11, it didn't take us too long to figure out who was responsible, and when we found out, it didn't take us too long to hunt down the perps and kick their asses. Any particular chink in the U.S. armor to some disasterous attack is likely to be dwarfed by China's weaknesses. In terms of the propaganda war, its hard to say whether the paranoia of the people who write this Art of War gobbledygook is trumped by the paranoia of the mouth breathers who read so much into it. If you want to worry about what China can do to us, look at their nukes and their navy. On second thought, focus on their nukes. We obviously shouldn't trust the Chinese as far as we can spit, but even a short, wonderful little war with them is not the best outcome. Nor is economic warfare.
33
posted on
11/06/2005 4:25:46 PM PST
by
dr_who_2
To: montana233
34
posted on
05/26/2006 2:32:06 PM PDT
by
Paul Ross
(We cannot be for lawful ordinances and for an alien conspiracy at one and the same moment.-Cicero)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson