Chinese Military Hacked Into Pentagon 405
iFrated informs us of a successful penetration of US Defense Department computers by the Chinese military last June. From the article: "The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the office of Robert Gates, defense secretary, but declined to say who it believed was behind the attack. Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the [Chinese] People's Liberation Army. One senior US official said the Pentagon had pinpointed the exact origins of the attack. Another person familiar with the event said there was a 'very high level of confidence... trending towards total certainty' that the PLA was responsible." The PLA is also accused of breaking into German government computers, including a network in the office of the Chancellor.
Windows to blame? (Score:5, Interesting)
What did they hack into? (Score:1, Interesting)
If it was just the NIPRNet, then if the Office of the Secretary of Defense was following the correct computer security rules only unclassified information was compromised.
Re:Sanctions (Score:1, Interesting)
Hold on, dude! There are enough problems with Iraq, and drums are sounding for Iran (and Korea?)... Just in case George W. gets strange ideas, have you people checked the General Strike called for 9/11/07 [everything2.com]? It might be more even more needed now!
Re:Carte Blanche (Score:1, Interesting)
Cut the crap (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not arrogance, but prudence, that we knocked down Soviet satellite after satellite during the 70s and 80s, hidden from the hordes of Swanson chomping Phil Donohue pacifists at the time. Ronny, we need you now.
Free our brightest in prison, put them on the payroll, and watch their Great Firewall sizzle like a candle and two wet fingers. To quote the Gipper, "détente is what a farmer has with his turkey before Thanksgiving." I guess in the end, it really boils down to how much you're willing to spend on your next pair of Nikes.
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been the case since the first man beat up his neighbor and forced him to become his slave. This rich will ALWAYS be richer, but the poor increase their standard of living. Today being "poor" in the West means having a small tv, and a second hand car, a used fridge and electricity, and a menial job. 200 years ago it meant starvation, and it still does in some places. Your point is?
Nothing's up (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me again when that happens. In the meantime - congrats, they probably found out who went to lunch with whom last Friday, or read the Navy newsletter.
Re:It cuts both ways (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of who is in power China it has had a "foreign policy" that for 2000yrs has shown little (if any) interest in expanding China's borders.
US generals have all read and still use Sun Tzu's "art of war", I suggest you read the bit entitled "on the use of spies" before you pick a fight with the guys who turned strategic "games" into an artform.
Re:Does anybody actually believe (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing that makes me sicker than the Chinese government is that the US supports them by trading with them.
Re:Does anybody actually believe (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, if the US never traded with autocracies, there would never have been a US in the first place.
Re:Sanctions (Score:3, Interesting)
You must not be paying attention. First, the army isn't over stretched. They might be stretched further then they want to be, or more likely more then you want them to be but they aren't in any place that cannot handle. Second, The reasons we are in the position we are in is because we aren't fighting to win a war like traditional wars have been won.
Instead of going in and defeating the countries to the point they want to give up and give in, we are attempting to retain a resemblance of their nationality and instill a governmental system we approve of. This is completely different from a traditional war where you go in and destroy anything capable of fighting back then enslave the people while gradually letting them have their rights back. And to that note, America hasn't been very successful in the past when fighting wars like we are now. It seems that if you don't beat the will of the people, you have a lot harder time at it.
I don't know why you even put this on the block. I said we are having the problem we are because of what we are trying to do. That would be instilling democracy. You already pointed out that we aren't doing that very well. But you see, as long as democracy isn't there, we will be and then when they are closer to democracy, we start moving out. Then about the time they are a democracy, we are gone. Well, at least from a controlling position. We might stick around for defensive reasons at their request. And as of right now, we are there at their request. Bush had said repeatedly that is either countries acting/controling government asks us to leave we would. It would be an insane move on their behalf right now but it would be an option.
History has proved that too many times people will give up democracy in support of some dictatorship. Everyone doesn't want democracy, maybe most everyone but it would be foolish to say every one. There are non democracies that don't abuse the citizens and there are non democracies that don't enslave the people. And to the point that people think something is right or wrong is subject to the relativeness of their experiences.
If you had no idea what a democracy was, you wouldn't miss it. And if you never experienced it, you wouldn't miss it. It is like having a craving for a food. You can't crave a food if you have never saw it or tasted it before. You can crave something sweet, something chocolaty but if you never tasted a chocolate bar, you couldn't crave it. Now take chocolate and place democracy in there, it is completely interchangeable.
And to the point i was making with the statement I made. If we don't stay and attempt to set a democracy up, a dictator will rise from the chaos and we will be in the same boat we are in or were before the wars. I wasn't making any point to someone not wanting a democracy. It was to the likely chain of event absent our presence.
Re:Sanctions (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorism follows fast in the footsteps of trade embargos and economic sanctions: a fast and reliable way to incite hatred in anyone is to restrict their growth. The one reason some countries are so angry at America is precisely because of it's embargos: the assumption that it has the right to police and punish them economically or otherwise.
The popular press will tell you terrorism is an expression of "a hatred of freedom". It couldn't be farther from the truth: terrorism is so often just a desperate and sadistic act designed as a message: "We want our freedom back - leave us the fuck alone."
The Bush administration has created enough trouble for Americans and people elsewhere - I doubt the angst many countries feel toward America could be greater right now. More embargos would be foolish - and nothing short of dangerous for the American people.
Re:Sanctions (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sanctions (Score:3, Interesting)
Simply put, their GDP is based on population size, that population has to be supported via that self-same number. Our per capita productivity and wealth far outstrips their numbers by such a margin as to be laughable. Therefore, we can afford to spend far more of our capital on warfare than they can without resorting to cannibalizing our infrastructure or quality of life to do so.
Over time this gap will shrink. What will be interesting to see is how quickly the tables will turn against China's economy as their productivity far outstrips their ability to import foodstuffs and raw materials.
That will be an interesting geo-political situation.