There was a documentary many months ago about the legacy of tiananmen square protest where they interviewed several people including university students in China.
I think there were 4 students, they were given the famouse picture of the man infront of the tank, they thought it must have been a photoshoped picture and thought it was a joke. One of them whispered that it was a picture of the protest and the others looked baffled, they've never heard of it.
I find it impossible to compete with a country that controls information like that.
potential Cold War with China item
Yes it is. But foreign exchange students, and even their highly censored internet still lets information get out so time and technology will tell.echoco wrote:There was a documentary many months ago about the legacy of tiananmen square protest where they interviewed several people including university students in China.
I think there were 4 students, they were given the famouse picture of the man infront of the tank, they thought it must have been a photoshoped picture and thought it was a joke. One of them whispered that it was a picture of the protest and the others looked baffled, they've never heard of it.
I find it impossible to compete with a country that controls information like that.
-
Charles Lewis
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 937
- Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:58 am
- Location: Des Moines, IA
- Contact:
Interesting. Makes sense, though. Given that Taiwan is at the end of a very long logistical chain, a quick, overwhelming attack to drive back local American forces might give the PLA enough time to deal with the Taiwanese before we could rally any sort of effective response.
Of course, that's on a good day.
Right now, we'd be pretty much confined to moving some carriers in the neighborhood to carry the load until more Air Force assets could be relocated to the area. On the plus side, naval and air assets are the one thing not currently overextended.
Of course, that's on a good day.
Right now, we'd be pretty much confined to moving some carriers in the neighborhood to carry the load until more Air Force assets could be relocated to the area. On the plus side, naval and air assets are the one thing not currently overextended.
'Fear God and dread nought'
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Coat of Arms motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone
Yeah. It all comes down to airpower in modern warfare. Chine has hundreds of ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan to negate the Taiwanese AF as the article noted. Our Air Force is focusing more on the Pacific and Asia these days. My brother's ANG KC-135 unit deploys to Guam on an annual basis now (as opposed to Spain, Turkey, Crete in past overseas deployments during his 20 year career). Notice that Guam is still outside China's "ring of fire" for now anyhow. Also Anchorage, Alaska is home of the first active F-22 fighter squadron for quick deployment anywhere in the Pacific region.Charles Lewis wrote:Interesting. Makes sense, though. Given that Taiwan is at the end of a very long logistical chain, a quick, overwhelming attack to drive back local American forces might give the PLA enough time to deal with the Taiwanese before we could rally any sort of effective response.
Of course, that's on a good day.
Right now, we'd be pretty much confined to moving some carriers in the neighborhood to carry the load until more Air Force assets could be relocated to the area. On the plus side, naval and air assets are the one thing not currently overextended.
Again I see "abnormally sensitive to casualties" quoted in the article this seems to be our foes (real and potential) thin shred of hope, and post 9-11 with our GWOT this no longer holds true: we've taken in excess to 3,000 deaths and 30,000 wounded and those boys and girls aren't coming home until the job's done. Which means some of them won't be coming home as we'll end up leaving garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't think the US public are any less sensitive, might even be more sensitive. If China attacked first, their strategy of hitting hard and causing lots of casualty in little time might back fire. But a drawn out war, probably be more affected by casulty. Reminds me of Pearl Harbour attack, the basic plan and the hope that public opinion would force the US out.MarkG88 wrote:
Again I see "abnormally sensitive to casualties" quoted in the article this seems to be our foes (real and potential) thin shred of hope, and post 9-11 with our GWOT this no longer holds true: we've taken in excess to 3,000 deaths and 30,000 wounded and those boys and girls aren't coming home until the job's done. Which means some of them won't be coming home as we'll end up leaving garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
GWOT also put a strain on the different branches, I'd guess it'll dilute defense even more, on the other hand they could probably divert a unit due for Iraq/Afganistan to the Pacific quickly.
The article does surprised me in not mentioning the aircraft carriers, maybe they feel that they can deal with them easilly/efectively? Not sure if it was from here that I read an article about a Chinese sub that sneaked its way to within 5 miles? of a carrier.
echoco wrote:I don't think the US public are any less sensitive, might even be more sensitive. If China attacked first, their strategy of hitting hard and causing lots of casualty in little time might back fire. But a drawn out war, probably be more affected by casulty. Reminds me of Pearl Harbour attack, the basic plan and the hope that public opinion would force the US out.MarkG88 wrote:
Again I see "abnormally sensitive to casualties" quoted in the article this seems to be our foes (real and potential) thin shred of hope, and post 9-11 with our GWOT this no longer holds true: we've taken in excess to 3,000 deaths and 30,000 wounded and those boys and girls aren't coming home until the job's done. Which means some of them won't be coming home as we'll end up leaving garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.
GWOT also put a strain on the different branches, I'd guess it'll dilute defense even more, on the other hand they could probably divert a unit due for Iraq/Afganistan to the Pacific quickly.
The article does surprised me in not mentioning the aircraft carriers, maybe they feel that they can deal with them easilly/efectively? Not sure if it was from here that I read an article about a Chinese sub that sneaked its way to within 5 miles? of a carrier.
Well speaking as a former very small time newspaper man, consider the source (in regards to why carriers aren't mentioned)
This is an Air Force Times article quoting a RAND report (Air Force think tank), carriers are Navy so they don't get us more $ for "our" (AF) budget. I'm not bashing AF here, just the budgetary PR BS system that gets played out in media and Congress.In fact, I'm from an AF family (dad was CMSGT AFR, Korean war vet, oldest brother (deceased) was lt. col. C-130 pilot AFR and AFA graduate, 2nd oldest bro was major (got out in Clinton era) in HQ staff for fighter squadrons also AFA graduate, 3rd bro is TSGT ANG jet mech, 4th bro was direct AFA appointee but dropped out do to sport's injury).
And yes a Chinese sub snuck inside defensive perimeter of Navy Carrier Group sometime I'm not sure when exactly either.
-Mark
Yes sir, also have three sisters (I'm the youngest of eight). Oldest sister's two husbands were both AF NCOs when she met/married them just to keep things consistent.echoco wrote:wow no kidding about being from a Air Force family. Safe to say your family been there since the begining of the USAF. And thats alot of brothers.
Cyber War update
Here's a lengthy article from strategypage.com on the cyber war that's going on but is, as they note, "unreportable" for mainstream media.
The Greatest Story Never Told
February 12, 2008: Good news and bad news on the Cyber War front. The number of exploitable defects in software declined five percent last year. But the number of serious exploits went up 28 percent. There is a growing market for exploitable defects, with some security firms offering cash rewards. In the past, hackers had their own underground market for these exploits. But so much commerce is moving to the web, and Internet security is becoming such a large business, that finding those exploits first (and disabling or exploiting them) is attracting more money. The gangsters still want to have their hackers get to these exploits first, but now they have to compete.
But the biggest news on the Cyber War front is that it rarely makes the headlines. It’s not that Cyber War isn’t important, it’s just that all this geek stuff is hard to explain and just does not sound that scary. In the competitive news business, Cyber War is not good news. But to the intel and security people, the U.S. has been under heavy assault for several years now. The losses of information have been huge, and it’s not certain just how much has been stolen. All this will be big news in a decade or so when more details emerge about the extent of the losses. But for now, it’s just one of those stories no one could wrap their heads around.
In addition to the usual software flaws (that serve as exploits), there is also a growing number “malware” type software. This stuff is best known as “adware” programs that users, often unknowingly, download onto their PCs. That results in more ads, or ads based on a careful examination of what the user does, say, when using their browser. There are hundreds of thousands of these little nasties out there, and Cyber War operators have found this stuff to have military and espionage use.
In the middle of all this you have military users of exploits. These are the shadowy organizations, particularly in China and the United States, where exploits are stockpiled (and soon replaced as the exploit is rendered ineffective via a software patch) for use in wartime. China, and probably the United States, are already using their exploits arsenals for espionage, and counter-espionage. Many criminal gangs also do contract work, usually for espionage operations. Some corporations have been caught doing this as well. Only small players have been caught so far. Any large corporation going this way would put a premium on not getting caught. Chinese firms are particularly energetic in stealing technology, and producing their own versions. They are often quite blatant about it, especially if it’s military technology (which means government protection from retribution.) The Russians are trying to force the Chinese government to crack down on this, without much success so far. The United States, and many other Western nations, are also going after China for the use of Internet based espionage. Again, so far, the Chinese are refusing to admit to it, much less slack off. Western Cyber War experts are urging some retaliation in kind. That could get interesting.
The Greatest Story Never Told
February 12, 2008: Good news and bad news on the Cyber War front. The number of exploitable defects in software declined five percent last year. But the number of serious exploits went up 28 percent. There is a growing market for exploitable defects, with some security firms offering cash rewards. In the past, hackers had their own underground market for these exploits. But so much commerce is moving to the web, and Internet security is becoming such a large business, that finding those exploits first (and disabling or exploiting them) is attracting more money. The gangsters still want to have their hackers get to these exploits first, but now they have to compete.
But the biggest news on the Cyber War front is that it rarely makes the headlines. It’s not that Cyber War isn’t important, it’s just that all this geek stuff is hard to explain and just does not sound that scary. In the competitive news business, Cyber War is not good news. But to the intel and security people, the U.S. has been under heavy assault for several years now. The losses of information have been huge, and it’s not certain just how much has been stolen. All this will be big news in a decade or so when more details emerge about the extent of the losses. But for now, it’s just one of those stories no one could wrap their heads around.
In addition to the usual software flaws (that serve as exploits), there is also a growing number “malware” type software. This stuff is best known as “adware” programs that users, often unknowingly, download onto their PCs. That results in more ads, or ads based on a careful examination of what the user does, say, when using their browser. There are hundreds of thousands of these little nasties out there, and Cyber War operators have found this stuff to have military and espionage use.
In the middle of all this you have military users of exploits. These are the shadowy organizations, particularly in China and the United States, where exploits are stockpiled (and soon replaced as the exploit is rendered ineffective via a software patch) for use in wartime. China, and probably the United States, are already using their exploits arsenals for espionage, and counter-espionage. Many criminal gangs also do contract work, usually for espionage operations. Some corporations have been caught doing this as well. Only small players have been caught so far. Any large corporation going this way would put a premium on not getting caught. Chinese firms are particularly energetic in stealing technology, and producing their own versions. They are often quite blatant about it, especially if it’s military technology (which means government protection from retribution.) The Russians are trying to force the Chinese government to crack down on this, without much success so far. The United States, and many other Western nations, are also going after China for the use of Internet based espionage. Again, so far, the Chinese are refusing to admit to it, much less slack off. Western Cyber War experts are urging some retaliation in kind. That could get interesting.
Read in the paper today an (ex?) employee of Boeing was arrested by the FBI for selling secret info to China, including C17, and some space program stuff I can't remeber some name ending with IV.
It said that he had been approached by the Chinese back in 1979/89 I think. Ahhh my memories are not what they used to be.
It said that he had been approached by the Chinese back in 1979/89 I think. Ahhh my memories are not what they used to be.
Because China really does concern me (and strategypage.com does such a good job covering stuff like this).......
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/a ... 80307.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/a ... 80311.aspx
-Mark
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/a ... 80307.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/a ... 80311.aspx
-Mark