backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 212 comment(s) - last by mino.. on Sep 11 at 12:55 PM
Chinese military possibly pulls off the most successful hack yet against U.S. defense

According to American officials, the Chinese military launched in June the most successful attack on the U.S. defense department. Representatives at the Pentagon confirmed that it had to shut down part of its computer system in response to an attack, though declined to comment on who it believed to be behind the attack. Sources say that the attack came from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in China.

“The PLA has demonstrated the ability to conduct attacks that disable our system... and the ability in a conflict situation to re-enter and disrupt on a very large scale,” said a former official to the Financial Times. The official also said that the PLA was able to penetratedefence and think-tanknetworks.

Both the Chinese military and the U.S. defense bodies are believed to take part in active probing of one another. Hackers from China supposedly spent weeks testing the Pentagon before launching the attack. In response to the intrusion, the Pentagon took offline vulnerable parts of its network.

Although the Pentagon will not discuss in detail the effects of the attack, sources familiar with the matter said that the information accessed by the hackers were “unclassified,” and thus, likely not to contain sensitive government data.

The Pentagon said that the attack on its system has urged greater attention to the matter of security. “These are multiple wake-up calls stirring us to levels of more aggressive vigilance,” said Pentagon top Asia official Richard Lawless.

The compromise of the U.S. defense system has forced officials to reconsider the type of information that is transmitted via email or with BlackBerry mobiles.

The phenomenon of cyberwar is not one that is new to the U.S. government. A number of government websites have been the target of attacks by both foreign governments and independent hackers. The U.S. and China, in particular, are no stranger to spying on one another. In April 2001, a US spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet, sparking the first major cyberwar between the two countries.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
6th military branch?
By 1337n00blar on 9/4/2007 9:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else think that the US should make a 6th military branch devoted to cyberwarfare? It's only going to get more important, not less so.




RE: 6th military branch?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 9:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
The U.S. sort of did already, last year:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4800


RE: 6th military branch?
By Oxygenthief on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: 6th military branch?
By rcc on 9/4/2007 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just a clarification. The Marines fall under the Department of the Navy, I know, they don't like it, but they do. The Coast Guard is under the Department of Transportation, except in case of war where they conduct operations under the Department of the Navy.

Unless things have changed a lot in the last few years. : )

The problem in starting a separate branch for "cyberwar" is that by its very nature it would have to work internally to all the other branches. And as we have seen so many times in the past, inter-branch rivalries make that difficult at best.


RE: 6th military branch?
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we do unfortunately, but i am kinda hoping it will work out for us like it did for the air force (previously the air corps) We get a cool new name (United States Marine Force?) and allot more funding. :D
If that doesn't work out i still think we should be recognized as a separate branch off of paper, by the people.


RE: 6th military branch?
By rcc on 9/4/2007 4:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's ok, most of the people don't realize that the Corps isn't a separate entity anyway. Just the people involved, and the semi-oldtimers like me.

: )


RE: 6th military branch?
By Albotron on 9/6/2007 2:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
The Coast Guard was moved under the Depatartment of Homeland Security upon the department's formation.

You can check that at http://www.uscg.mil/

Right at the top of the page.


RE: 6th military branch?
By Oxygenthief on 9/4/2007 10:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
It won't happen in our lifetime. Though I am sure the 5 current branches will have MAJCOMs devoted to thwarting Cyberterrorism like the Air Force currently does, it would simply be too difficult to manage at a Branch level.

Imagine needing to get tech support for your Air Force owned computer, you couldn't just call tech support on base, you would have to contact the NEW Cyber Terror Branch and have them help.

Its not a question of need in this case, its a question of ownership. The Army deals in ground pounders, the Airforce in Jets, Navy and Coast guard with ships, and the Marines for amphibious assault. All of which use computers to do their jobs. What would the new 6th branch own? What assets would they control? Would the 5 current branches ever relinquish control of their computer systems to an external entity? Could it ever truly integrate and support each of the other Branches?

My guess is no, and will remain so for another 50 to 100 years until computer automation takes a few leaps forward. Once technicians are no longer needed to maintain our networks then assets in the form of personnel are no longer necessary which means integration would be easier as would support. Even then, I doubt it would be classified as a 6th branch. The DoD would probably just have an organization that issued orders to the Cyber commands of each Branch when necessary and managed by exception in most other cases.


RE: 6th military branch?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 10:23:53 AM , Rating: 2
> "My guess is no, and will remain so for another 50 to 100 years"

While you raise valid points, no one can predict what computer automation will look like in 50 years time, much less 100. Even the Air Force itself has barely been existence for 50 years. Trying to predict how the armed forces will use computers in the year 2100 is a task beyond any of us.


RE: 6th military branch?
By BlackBanna on 9/4/2007 1:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
You wont have a Cyber branch of the military established until you have a conflict similar to what WWII did for air power or the Barbary Wars did for the navy.

Right now, any cyber warfare would be conducted through the combined air ops center. When the Air Force established Cyber Space Command, they rewrote their doctrine so the Cyber Space was included in their definition of Air and Space. That is about all their is to do on. I believe anything else would fall under the intelligence communities /Home Land security.

Oxygenthief; largely your IT example happens today. The military is divided up by capabilities. When some one calls for CAS they might get army, navy, or air force units to respond. The FOB where a unit is deployed might be operated by the navy and so the navy is responsible for providing power/water/shelter to units there. Today, it could be an allied force that aid an American Unit.


RE: 6th military branch?
By ivanv4 on 9/4/2007 11:31:07 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it's possible, that way they could act more freely and have more direct chain of command, but by the time it became a branch it would be because of the need of Hacking as an offensive weapons that could reach real damage to the enemy.

In other thoughts. does a cyberattack would be considered terrorism? where does the line disappear?


RE: 6th military branch?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 11:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think any rational person would conclude this attack was meant to instill terror. Its simple espionage, nothing more.


RE: 6th military branch?
By HrilL on 9/4/2007 12:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would matter on what they are doing. If they hacked in to take down infrastructures then that would be considered an act of terrorism.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Or a military grade surgical strike?


RE: 6th military branch?
By InsaneGain on 9/6/2007 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Terrorism doesn't mean causing damage or casualties. It is basically a form of coercion, which is the act of using force or threats to obtain compliant behavior from a previously uncooperative organization. Causing damage in order to hinder or eliminate the function of an objective is just a military attack.


RE: 6th military branch?
By mino on 9/11/2007 12:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, according to your definition the biggest terrorist organization is the US government.

Not that on international scene I object that observation.

But this same definition makes ANY government terrorist in regard to its citizens.

Funny, how the logic works, isn't it?


It wasn't the Chinese at all.....
By Amiga500 on 9/4/2007 6:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
It was the Decepticons.

Sure they were even caught on camera doing it!!! :-D




By lufoxe on 9/4/2007 9:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
the funny part is it sounds exactly like that at first


RE: It wasn't the Chinese at all.....
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 9:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
Your title can really be true.
I could use the Tor network to hack their system. If my endpoint were to be in China the Government could not say anything else.
They would be saying the Chinese spies have hacked them.
Thats because they cant supervise or request investigation of internet traffic in China...


RE: It wasn't the Chinese at all.....
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I predict the Tor house of cards will fall apart within a few years.

Security reasons? No. Random hackers that want to prove they can do it? No.

Simply because it harbors child porn, and the government knows that it does. I've rarely seen anything more viciously pursued than law enforcement after child porn. I last heard about it a year or two ago; I don't know if they'll crack the whole thing apart or simply pursue those hosting the material, but they'll figure it out if it takes all decade.


By geddarkstorm on 9/5/2007 3:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
The only way to take on Tor is taking on the exit nodes, or by banning the IP for the directory servers by a state wide firewall. China hasn't even done that yet, amazingly.

It is really sad that people perceive Tor as some pass to such dark things. The truth of the matter is, it's much safer just to steal someone else's identity to use Tor; and someone who is so unscrupulous to post child porn would probably not have any issues doing that too. I'm a scientist, so I don't care about any porn crap; but I use Tor at home for good reason: I grew tired of having to fight hackers, spyware, and other such crud periodically and directly. Tor makes one invisible and just adds another layer of protection outside of a NAT and Firewall (both of which I have). It's amazing the sort of stuff floating around in normal places on the net.
Also, the network is booming rapidly still, which only makes it faster and so forth. We'll see how governments try to handle it in the future, but it isn't a shady thing at all.

On the hacker side of things, Tor is horrible for hacking. It is much slower than straight out internet, and all someone has to do to stop the attack is look up the Tor network directory (which anyone has access to) and ban the IPs of all exit nodes. Some sites already do this, it is simple as pie. It's far far more effective to infect millions of windows computers and attack using bots than trying anything high latency and well known as Tor. Again, if Tor was used, the government would have known immediately and probably said something about it.


For now...
By Targon on 9/4/2007 6:33:33 AM , Rating: 2
For now, things like this seem to be shrugged off, but how much longer will the USA not respond to this sort of thing? George W. is focused on the middle east, but picture what the response might be if he were focused on China?




RE: For now...
By mars777 on 9/4/2007 9:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
The response could be WW3.
And the survivors will be getting out of their vaults 50 years from now, searching for the Garden of Eden Creation Kit, wielding Vindicators and wearing Power Armors while abusing Psycho, Jet and Buffout to handle the day. (God how i miss that game! Bethesda make a good FO3 i beg you!!)

And thinking: why did we attack the Chinese?


RE: For now...
By lompocus on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: For now...
By mars777 on 9/5/2007 12:34:05 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't really matter if the whole world goes nuked :)


RE: For now...
By animedude on 9/5/2007 4:52:20 AM , Rating: 2
You are a funny guy.


Judgement Day
By codehack2 on 9/4/2007 9:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
God help us all if they get into SKY-NET.




RE: Judgement Day
By JackBeQuick on 9/4/2007 9:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6437

We should be OK for now -- until the 9th Doctor comes along and aliens crash into Big Ben. Then I think the British lose SkyNet.


RE: Judgement Day
By Pythias on 9/7/2007 5:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm rather more concerned with the interstellar freeway thats coming through...


Admiral Adama Says
By Ringold on 9/4/2007 2:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Don't say I didn't warn you all.




RE: Admiral Adama Says
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's a trap!


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/4/2007 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wait that was Admiral Ackbar :)


Ha ha!
By Proteusza on 9/7/2007 11:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing as one lucky British kid hacked most of the US defense network, I'm surprised they were able to keep the Chinese out. The British guy probably woke them up to security issues they had never thought of, they should thank him rather than extradite and prosecute him.




RE: Ha ha!
By rcc on 9/7/2007 11:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, and burglars for pointing out the flaws in your home's security; and I suppose child molesters for pointing out that you really ought to watch your kids 24/7.

Interesting perspective there, but I think I'll pass.


They should Convene
By TimberJon on 9/4/2007 12:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
And create the Ares Conventions of war. They don't exist yet, but maybe they will later.




Empires rise and fall
By mankopi on 9/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Empires rise and fall
By Min Jia on 9/5/2007 9:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
You speak the truth! China FTW!


Good
By budapest on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By ivanv4 on 9/4/2007 6:10:11 AM , Rating: 4
Better a CyberWar that a full real War.


RE: Good
By budapest on 9/4/2007 6:12:05 AM , Rating: 4
maybe now that is true, but perhaps in the future when we become more computer/network dependent, it will cause far greater harm then.


RE: Good
By Samus on 9/4/2007 4:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
It could be a Battlestar Galactica in the making...or to a lesser extent, Die Hard 4.

Yes, I'm going to refer to it as Die Hard 4. Because the real name is really dumb.


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By TomZ on 9/4/2007 10:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, quite a conspiracy theory you've got going on there. You got any proof of your accusations?

Are you suggesting the lead thing is all a hoax? Millions of toys recalled needlessly for political reasons? All the pets that died from melamine in wheat gluten? All made up or staged by the CIA? Please, get real!


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/5/2007 1:31:50 AM , Rating: 1
Wow that WTC theory you just spouted is bullshit, you don't have to get the metal to the melting point to make it fail. at a temperature far less than the melting point it would start losing its structural integrety, and all the combined forces around it would break it. I believe Masher had the numbers in a post a long while back, if you could bring them back and show a source or link to the evidence, that would be much appreciated.
Oh and by the way, where do you get your news? somebody trying to sell a book? the internet outlets that the majority are still owned by those corporation that are oh so evil? or from some Chinese government paid propagandist?


RE: Good
By SlyNine on 9/5/2007 4:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
Most people afraid or that disagree with the US's actions normally spout crap like this.

As normal their is truth too their lies that make it sound all the more believable.

They think that their way is the only way and will buy in to bull crap like that and then try to sell it too you.

Its funny most people would buy in to the terrorist propaganda over people that spend billions of dollars on aid threw out the world.

If thats overly preachy sorry but this is how I feel.Its not that the US government is perfect but at least they are taking active steps to protect its people.


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/5/2007 8:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
What a crazy person. This is always very confusing to me. The whole conspiracy thing. From the WTC to the Kennedy assassinations to the moon landings. Average people saw the events in New York on September 11 but you can't convince the conspiracy enthusiasts (CE) that it was just some determined fanatics on some hijacked planes. The Kennedy assassinations are the same story. Sure there is more conspiracy room to run with them but still you can not convince these bright thinking people that there isn't some vast network of people running around in the background pulling strings. Makes for nice theater but that isn't real life. Just trying to keep simple conspiracies secret is an impossible task.

People just can not keep their mouths shut forever. Unless you kill them and even then it isn’t for certain.

And the range of conspiracies enthusiasts’ interest is often odd. A good example is a guy I work with. Crop circle nut, obviously to him they are alien constructs or the work of some other higher power. Laughs at the Kennedy assassinations CEs.

I have run across several CEs that swear the moon landings were all faked. There were six landings on the moon with thousands of people involved in the program! Not one credible person has every ratted out the conspiracy program that NASA apparently fomented. Does this not seem to stretch the limits of credibility? This is NASA folks. They have a hard time not having a geek fest news conference. These are not the guys that could or would put together what would be the greatest hoax of all time and manage to keep it viable to fifty years. But you can’t prove this to the CE.

So is this CE behavior a psychological construct that allows the CE to explain events or phenomena that is inherently uncomfortable for the person involved. That they have to have a grander theory for the event to be able to internalize the information in someway that allows them to deal with the reality of their own lives?


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2007 10:25:41 AM , Rating: 3
In other news, Elvis and two of Hitler's clones are alive and living on the dark side of the Moon.


RE: Good
By East17 on 9/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By rcc on 9/5/2007 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
You ever notice how these nutballs alway post in bold or caps and insist that you can't trust anyone but them?


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 10:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ever since then , the Chinese products depicted as being poisonous..."

You're right, we have Federal agents running around killing dogs, so we can blame the Chinese dogfood. We thought we being pretty sneaky about it; how did you manage to guess?


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 9/5/2007 4:22:47 AM , Rating: 1
Well, to be fair, Bush & Co have got many young Americans killed across the world just so they can get rich(er).

You guys/gals really need to take a close look at the interactions between the administration and the big industries.

The same shit is happening over here with BAe systems (etc) and I'm not liking it.


RE: Good
By Amiga500 on 9/5/2007 4:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
If you (or anyone else) disagrees with me, ask yourself this -

Who in the administration is ending up poorer as a result of the war in Iraq?


RE: Good
By greenchasch on 9/5/2007 9:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
Who in the administration is ending up richer? If you say Bush and Cheney, you're 100% wrong.

You're welcome to claim they're helping unnamed friends get richer if you want, but they're certainly not benefitting personally.


RE: Good
By alusul on 9/8/2007 1:45:25 AM , Rating: 2
You really think the public is aware of all financial compensations they receive? your 100% wrong comment is FUD, but this is FUD too so its even now :)


RE: Good
By lompocus on 9/4/2007 11:02:53 PM , Rating: 1
Oh yes, and the United States is the answer to all the hatred in the world.

Are you fucking out of your mind? It is called an 'arms war' but in cyber stuff. However, not only are we lightyears ahead of them (I could say, but it'd get me killed lol, so yea, take my word for it), everyone tries to hack into our network.

Economic boom?

Oh yes, they are doing so great aren't they? I so wanna live in this place ->
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/12/china_sm...


RE: Good
By knowyourenemy on 9/5/2007 1:19:25 AM , Rating: 2
An entertaining read, but truth needs more than a concerned voice to become fact.

As you said, do the research yourself.


RE: Good
By lompocus on 9/5/2007 1:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
rofl, i ddin't know there was an article on it. I had seen a popsci article and that was the same pic in the article which I found to best represent the quality of life in China.

Besides, once they do hit the plateu in china, where does one of their largest industries, the construction of mega cities of 20 or more million, go to?

What does a truth need to become fact? Only statistics can show fact, though as we've seen statistics can prove other statistics wrong (china quality to economy boom ratio, if one exists lol).


RE: Good
By leidegre on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 7:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "the world doesn't need war, nor will it sustain a world war 3. It's serves no purpous and in my opinion could and never will happen. "

What purpose did WWI and II serve? They happened regardless, didn't they?


RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 9:25:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The first two world wars happened to defend Europe from hostile takeover. Definitely a purpose.


Uhm, no... Perhaps this explains American involvement in Europe in World War 2, but World War I was a much more complex conflict than that.

"World Wars" is a misnomer. Each participant went to war for a specific reason, not a shared purpose. Japan attacked the US on 12/7/41 to give it unfettered access to oil in Indonesia/Malaysia so that it had the resources it needed for the main fight in China. There was very little coordination between Japan and Germany and even less shared purpose.

The USSR attacked Germany only after the latter attacked it - not because it supported France and the Benelux nations. In fact the Soviets only attacked Japan in the last weeks of the war when it was clear the Japanese were on the ropes and the Soviets wanted the same influence there that it had in the German occupation.

quote:
Also, I'm gonna keep with my previous statment that the world doesn't need war, nor will it sustain a world war 3. It's serves no purpous and in my opinion could and never will happen.


Nations don't band together and say "Let's have a war!" Conflicts begin slowly, a diplomatic incident here, an opportunity presenting itself there.

In the case of China, is it possible to imagine it blockading Taiwan for ideological reasons? If Taiwan is blockaded how will the United States respond? It's an ally we've promised to defend, so are we going to change our policy suddenly and leave it to it's own devices? If we make it clear that we will protect, how will Russia respond?

That's how wars start - a series of steps until eventually history throws the term "world war" on it.


RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/4/2007 1:08:52 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that Japan was totally out of left field. The fighting in Europe, however, was to prevent Germany from taking over, period. Be it England, France, or Russia, they were all facing invasion by the Germans. The U.S. involvement was to help out its buddies in Europe and to get revenge on Japan for Pearl Harbor.

I'm not as educated on WWI so I won't go into that, but did the U.S. ever even officially join that war? I know U.S. soldiers fought in it, but did the country actually declare war? Anyway, WWI also involved one country trying to take over parts of Europe.

My point that there was definitely a purpose to those wars stands.


RE: Good
By rdeegvainl on 9/4/2007 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
WWI kinda kicked off in the balkins with the assasination of archduke Francis Ferdinand, (like lighting the fuse to a gunpowder keg) then through a system of treaties and alliances other nations got pulled in and it spread pretty fast. The area still very volatile.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 3:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
People back then were actually celebrating during the first week of the WWI. Assasination of the Archduke was just a spark that caused WWI. It is bound to happen sooner or later. Too many tensions between countries and people were ready to fight.


RE: Good
By rcc on 9/4/2007 2:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's been awhile, but as I recall, the UBoat sinking of the Lusitania with many American citizens aboard actually triggered the official entry of the US into WWI.


RE: Good
By edge929 on 9/4/2007 4:14:29 PM , Rating: 1
You would be correct. This is one of many reasons.

From Wikipedia: "Other factors contributing to the U.S. entry into the war include German sabotage of both Black Tom in Jersey City, NJ, and the Kingsland Explosion in what is now Lyndhurst, NJ."

Unrestricted submarine warfare was the final nail in the coffin:

"After submarines sank seven American merchant ships and the publication of the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson called for war on Germany, which the U.S. Congress declared on 6 April 1917."


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 3:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
The real truth was that America was losing out on war contracts. All these contracts went to Commonwealth countries. Capitalism got the US out of its isolationism and joined WWI.


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/5/2007 12:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean? Before the US entered WWI, it traded with both sides, including Germany. The US only entered the war when Germany continued to sink American ships/ships with Americans on them. It wasn't capitalism


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/4/2007 5:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Lusitania was sunk in 1915 and the US entered the war in 1917. A few more ships with American passangers were sunk in between. There was also the Zimmerman Note, in which Germany promised Mexico some land in the south-west if Mexico were to join the war on Germany's side. That was a major factor in the US entry into the Great War/World War I.


RE: Good
By joeld on 9/5/2007 12:40:44 AM , Rating: 2
don't have enough posts to rate, so I'll just say great!


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/4/2007 1:11:17 PM , Rating: 3
I understood your point mash, just wanted to attack the details ;)

Personally, I don't think we can have another World War, at least in the classic sense. Countries aren't as defined anymore. The global economy needs us all to play nice or everyone gets hurt. China would never (openly) attack us because it would destroy their rising economic greatness.


RE: Good
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2007 1:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "The global economy needs us all to play nice or everyone gets hurt"

Immediately prior to WW2, The US and China were Japan's two largest trading partners. Yet Japan attacked both.

In the same period, the economies of Germany and France were even more entwined. Yet that didn't stop Germany from invading France...a decision that ultimately wound up resulting in its own economic ruin.

Nations don't always act in their own best interests.


RE: Good
By lompocus on 9/4/07, Rating: -1
RE: Good
By Spivonious on 9/10/2007 3:36:34 PM , Rating: 1
Actually there are zero links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. We entered Iraq because Bush wanted to ride the "kill the terrorists" wave and get some oil in the process.

Important note: I am not a Democrat. I am registered Republican. I'm all for less spending and less Federal involvement in State matters.


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/4/2007 6:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
The First World War had nothing to do with a hostile takeover. When the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on June 28, 1914, most European countries were outraged. I read somewhere that if the AHE (Austro-Hungarian Empire) had declared war on Serbia very soon after, that most likely no other countries would have interfered. However, the Empire wanted the Germany Empire to help them, and it was quite a while before war was actually declared. By this time, the other countries had gotten over the shock of the assassination, so there was a lot of declarations of war, causing World War I.


RE: Good
By animedude on 9/5/2007 3:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
No, the First World War was about hostile takeover. AHE wanted to control the Balkans while Russia also wanted the Balkan too. So the Russian backed the Serbian because if AHE took over the area, the Russian would lose its trade and could not conquer the area. The German backed the AHE due to their alliance with AHE and also wanted a reason to attack Russia if war does occur between AHE and Russia.

Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was just a spark that AHE wanted so it could run its troops into the Serbia and then the Balkans. No one cared about the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was just used as the catalyst.

Russia thought that the German would not really send troops to help AHE so they attacked AHE. Of course they were utterly wrong, the German helped AHE. Then we have the entente alliance between Russia, France and GB that came in.


RE: Good
By imperator3733 on 9/5/2007 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, lets say that both AHE and Russia wanting Serbia was one of the reasons that WWI happened. It definetly wasn't the only one, and my opinion is that if AHE had declared war right away, WWI might not have happened, or at least would have been a much smaller war. The delay in AHE declaring war probably made it larger than it would have been otherwise.

About you saying that no one cared about Franz Ferdinand, I don't think anyone cared about the actual person, it was more just the assassination of royalty, which was shocking.


RE: Good
By Oregonian2 on 9/4/2007 1:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't serve "a purpose" because they who were the aggressors in those actions didn't succeed in their goals. Although there certainly were side effects due to the "wounds" incurred.

Had the aggressors succeeded, they would have "served a purpose" (in the case of WWII, all of Europe and perhaps Russia as well would be a single country and all speaking German).


RE: Good
By SlyNine on 9/5/2007 4:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
Least we forget Germany always had its sights set on America


RE: Good
By leidegre on 9/8/2007 2:26:56 AM , Rating: 1
Yes they did, but it's in the past, and we certainly learned that war is devestating for everybody. Anyone which resorts to violance (or be it war) has lost the cause, simply becuase it doesn't solve anything. It's a easy way out, but you should know better.

You should be intelligent enough to be able to use your rage or anger in a constructive manner, and if you cant handle it, get off the fucking planet.


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/4/2007 7:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
As long as there are nations which are run by dictators where the people hear only what the leaders say, there is the opportunity for war to arise between these nations and others. However, as the world increasingly converts to democracy, the likelihood of war decreases. No two truly democratic nations (and I emphasize "truly") have ever declared war on each other. Look it up.


RE: Good
By Darkskypoet on 9/9/2007 9:14:32 AM , Rating: 2
Truly Democratic States... In What sense? As in of a type of democracy that we approve of? Or where people seem to have control enough to not enter a

war... Whereas the criteria of truly democratic becomes then for this purpose countries with an electoral system where entrance to run on this race is

not controlled by any system except for the market. AND Also has not engaged in prolonged conflict with another such entity.

Simply that of those nations attempting the first part; those that have done so, in many cases have had its "democracy" status disputed and / or simply

gets more examined, and discredited by those truly believing the democratic peace theory.

In a time when war effects only certain classes of people within an advanced capitalist democracy. Case in point is the United States. With no draft, the

number of people directly fighting, or mobilized to fight is significantly reduced. The personal impact of what is going on, the loss, and the sacrafice

of the many local areas where this is felt most strongly, are borne by communities dedicated to the cause, (military communities, etc) and thus would not

really complain very much. ( in the sense of derailing military action, etc that would be felt as a betrayal almost of the construct they inhabit.

Many other citizens may be positively effectd as the war goes on in the sense of the boom, and full emplpoyment usully experienced. This then, along with

positive news coverage, and a sense of protecting / defending the states "National values", more support for ceasing a war fails to emerge.

Those at other positions in the democracy's heirarchy, except for a few at first, do not feel the effects of the war. In many cases the effects (short

term) of a a war like this lead to an economic boost to the citizens requiring one, and some of the more wealthy profit from it immensely.

Small wars of a nature where one attacks a struggling, or just beginning democracy; tend to be fought by larger ex-colony holding democracies that have

avested interest or gain in those areas.

Battles, both directly, and indirectly (funding of anti government movements, etc.) have been very common in the 20th century, especially after the

majority of the 'colonies' gained their independence.

So either we choose not to consider these other poorer, newer, and in some cases supremely difficult to govern states as democratic (if in fact they are,

or were before intervention) or we do not acknowledge that any real democracy ever committed any acts such as this against another democracy.

The key to the democratic peace theory is that only those considered democracies, and thus unattackable unless thoroughly demonized, by the powers that

be count in this idea. The firm belief of this idea has one pre biased about the validity of the participants democracy. Or their engagement in such

acts.

In many democracies, the only choices we really have inmany elections, is which special interest groups do we want to rule the legislative agenda. Rather

the catholic vs protestant, it is more religious vs secular rule.

If war is thoroughly hazardous to a large part of the population, a democracy does not tend to engage in wars unless agressed upon.

When warfare required national mobilization, wars were more costly and required more sacrafices from the public at large. With the changes in weapon

tech, and new doctrines of maximal (near casualty-less) air power with as few ground troops as possible inplace, many low intensity / disruptive

operations, etc. canbe carries out without to great of an impact. The Iraq War is a testament to this.

With appropriate nationalistic positioning, the democracy can be brought into a war by a very determine special interest without the real informed

consent of the people.

This has happened. This is happening, and it will continue to happen. The wuestion becomes then, or the answer assumed: were all those others on the

participating (recieving end if applicable) not considered democracies?

Our democracies on the NATO side of things are not innocent of these smaller actions and wars. We have blood on our hands, as surely as the soviets did

for actions in other 'non-democracies / less firmly entrenched governments of states'.

Both sides moved to pull states into it's orbit. Turning despot and democratic gov't out of power, or medling so as to curry influence and support for

its cause. Even those that were newly created democracies were wrecked in favour of influence.

For the longest time, the 'democracies' considered so by interpretations of this theory were all allies. Because of this, they tended not to wage war

upon each other. That begat the massive trade network (especially post-ww2) that allowed American Goods to be shipped to war ravaged everywhere. I

believe the only 'developed' economy to grow (and massively) during ww2, was that of the U.S.

As someone else pointed out, you don't fight wars with your trade partners either. (not in this global economy)

Essentially; by the time the level of threat that made its appearance between both sides of the 'Iron Curtain' diminished, we had traded ourselves into

very much a new more interconnected homoginity that further prevents us from fighting those in our club (the fear of that otehr only now rekindled).

For those democracies or others outside of our club, (and far from the media, or simply absent from it) that resisted our attempts to exert influence

were subverted, invaded, orstarved without recourse.

The Democratic peace theory is informed by the idea that those that are like us don't go to war with us, and those that are not, are more likely too.

Something more applicable would be along the lines of, those who have control of their destiny tend not to en masse engage in selfdestructive acts. When

this occurs chances are that those entities are either misinformed about some aspect of the action, or have other overridding emotions influencing the

decision.

Thus if people know they are going to be negetively affected, they will more often then not (if given the choice) refuse to participate. This is true of

most humans.

The democracies covered by the theory, are not peaceful. They simply play more or less by the rules of the club, and have all agreed not to beat each

other up physically in public because there is nothing to gain from it. Strategically important states, not in the club and not able to mount a

significant military response do not enjoy this comeradery. Quite the opposite, they tend to be over run without consequence. Noteable exceptions,

afghanistan, vietnam, iraq, and (north) korea. All of which we picked a side in, and moved in forcefully to exert its and our influence.

China, in many cases is bucking the trend, as they have not yet had to become a 'democracy' to join most of the western clubhouses. China is in the midst

of its industrial revolution and is growing at an insane pace. Because of the 'markets' predominance, and the advancement of materialistic values vs

ideologic ones; we are inviting China to the table without reforms to 'get in on the ground floor'. Fighting with China in any public way would devastate

many western economies at this point, and even more so in the future. Thus, they too will find their way into this club... at first as an outisder, and

then with more and more clout. All of this without meeting the stated requirements of the democracy club.

Do we then create the 'Stable by any means, mostly market economy peace theory'? Or realize that maybe its the way we treat our friends added to a

plethora of other things that enable some of us to live in 'peace'.


RE: Good
By Misty Dingos on 9/4/2007 7:52:37 AM , Rating: 2
The prelude for a real war with China will be a cyber war. Welcome to the world of global war. It is a war on every front. If China can disable or disrupt internet communications in the US military during the crucial first phases of an invasion, of say Taiwan, then they gain an enormous tactical advantage. Disruption of food, materials, fuel imports to the US and our allies. Attacks on satellite communications would no doubt be next.

Perhaps some of you will take this as a wake up call but I doubt it. China is not your friend. And before a bunch of you start saying that China is just moving into an equal position to that of the US. A statement I find ludicrous by the way. China has a billion people and few real allies. The only reason they are increasing their influence around the world is to gain support if they engage in military adventurism.


RE: Good
By tanjahreeen on 9/4/2007 9:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
Of course China is not your friend. Who has been its friend in hard times? I mean when the dynasties collapsed everybody rushed in to claim peices of china, NOT to help it start a new government. Take Japan, Japan had commited vicious war crimes against china in WW2 and still hasnt formally apoligized.


RE: Good
By jskirwin on 9/4/2007 9:36:17 AM , Rating: 5
I count about 40 apologies made by Japan to China.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_s...">Source</a>

The Chinese use this as an excuse to extort money and power from Japan, not because Japan hasn't apologized.

What I would like to see is the Chinese government formally apologize for the Tiananmen Square massacre, and for the millions of Chinese killed during the Cultural Revolution and the collectivization of agriculture. What the Japanese did was brutal, but that was 70 years ago.

Mao killed more Chinese than any Japanese emperor, general or soldier.


RE: Good
By