So, we are closing the Russian consulate in San Francisco, and the bulk of people in the world say, "The Russians had a consulate in San Francisco?" This is, of course, a reaction to the extreme number of cuts at the embassy in Russia. The majority of those people were not waiting for the other shoe to drop when the Russians began their closings, if they even thought about it.
Next, I wonder why we ever allowed a consulate of any size in the land of Silicon Valley where most of the new innovations in IT are from. That makes me wonder who else has one in that place. The big ones are India, Russia, China and France. Two of those are the main competition in the telecom industries and two are enemies. Your political leanings might allow you to believe any one of those would fit that bill. It was about time we closed that Russian office which is a little bigger than what I remember a consulate being. It does depend on what country you are in, but they usually are a little smaller than a seven story bunker of a building. It looks Russian.
Maybe the folks in the Valley need consulates from France, Greece, Switzerland, and some others because they are global companies, but I wonder if they need such big ones. Our embassy in Russia was said to be 750 people, when our President said he thought we should thank the Russians for the staff trimming. It looks like trimming might work well for a lot of people. That needs to be looked at again, and maybe we do have the Russians to thank for it. Let's start with China.
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Not a Computer Game
China's foreign ministry said today that the United States should remember the Korean situation is not a computer game. This thoughtful insight is sure to make the State Department counterparts scramble for new ideas about how to handle the Korean situation, absent the game theory of traditional war games. Or not.
The problem for the US is that it isn't a computer game, and we seem to know that better than China. North Korea postures and speculates on a future where nuclear weapons are dropped on the coastal areas of our country. We must suppose that the Chinese take this seriously, but are doing little substantively to stop it. It serves their purpose. We know that part is not a computer game.
If you run the scenarios of missile launch and intercept enough times, it seems like a computer game. Because missiles do not take long to get to the target, you get to replay them quite a few times in a day. Each one has an outcome that is scary, and these are simple compared to the war gaming scenarios that involve several countries that are affected. We do these kinds of scenarios because they are considered to be the most likely ones that will happen. Unless China and North Korea are bluffing, we better practice what we do in response. That isn't a computer game.
Because the North has fired a missile over Japan - again - we have another country involved, pushing for a better solution to these kind of provocative actions. When you send people running for shelter in the middle of the day, that does not sit well with the population. That isn't a computer game.
There might be a few in the world who think we should be grateful to the Chinese for their insight, but on this one they are flat wrong. This isn't a computer game.
The problem for the US is that it isn't a computer game, and we seem to know that better than China. North Korea postures and speculates on a future where nuclear weapons are dropped on the coastal areas of our country. We must suppose that the Chinese take this seriously, but are doing little substantively to stop it. It serves their purpose. We know that part is not a computer game.
If you run the scenarios of missile launch and intercept enough times, it seems like a computer game. Because missiles do not take long to get to the target, you get to replay them quite a few times in a day. Each one has an outcome that is scary, and these are simple compared to the war gaming scenarios that involve several countries that are affected. We do these kinds of scenarios because they are considered to be the most likely ones that will happen. Unless China and North Korea are bluffing, we better practice what we do in response. That isn't a computer game.
Because the North has fired a missile over Japan - again - we have another country involved, pushing for a better solution to these kind of provocative actions. When you send people running for shelter in the middle of the day, that does not sit well with the population. That isn't a computer game.
There might be a few in the world who think we should be grateful to the Chinese for their insight, but on this one they are flat wrong. This isn't a computer game.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
US Ships Aircraft to Baltic Area
Reuters is saying today that the US is sending seven F-15 fighters to patrol the skies over the Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia while the Russians are running their military exercises next month. There will be 600 military troops sent to do support and other missions during that time.
Russians Wedge Belarus in Exercises
Not too many US papers carried anything on the September Russian exercises with Belarus, right on the border with Poland and Lithuania. The Russians call this "purely defensive" but it would be less than politically correct to say, "We are preparing for a strengthening of position in neighboring states, so we thought we would stage exercises and leave some of that equipment behind in case we ever need it again." The Russians have had troops in that region for a long time, in Kaliningrad, so getting them additional equipment is not that hard to do. Last year, Poland put some 46,000 troops in that area and want to have three brigades there. They really do not trust the Russian expansion in that area and have good reason to remember World War II's outcome for them. They don't want anything like expanded Russian presence in that area.
The Russians say troop strength for these exercises are less than 13,000, which NATO looks at with some skepticism. It turns out, that number is the trigger for international oversight of exercises - inserting observers - supposedly as canaries to warn of an exercise expanding into a military takeover. Unless the Russians were completely stupid, they would never let those observers know what they were really doing, or lie about the numbers - maybe both. In March, the LA Times ran an article asking the question if Belarus was the next Ukraine. They have certainly done everything they can to make it look like the Ukraine - propaganda blitzes against politicians, special trade deals that bind them to the Kremlin, et al - quoting the reasons like this: "The show began with a discussion about how Russia had failed to react quickly enough to stop Ukraine’s betrayal of Moscow during the protests of 2014. The host, Artyom Sheynin, then turned to Belarus, introducing it as a country suffering from a “similar sickness.” If that doesn't sound ominous enough, I don't know what does. Maybe NATO can pick up their game on this and be more aggesssive with the Russians. With fighting ISIS, engaging North Korea, keeping Iran in check, and spending large amounts on major damage in the US Gulf, the US is busy. The Russians know it too.
The Russians say troop strength for these exercises are less than 13,000, which NATO looks at with some skepticism. It turns out, that number is the trigger for international oversight of exercises - inserting observers - supposedly as canaries to warn of an exercise expanding into a military takeover. Unless the Russians were completely stupid, they would never let those observers know what they were really doing, or lie about the numbers - maybe both. In March, the LA Times ran an article asking the question if Belarus was the next Ukraine. They have certainly done everything they can to make it look like the Ukraine - propaganda blitzes against politicians, special trade deals that bind them to the Kremlin, et al - quoting the reasons like this: "The show began with a discussion about how Russia had failed to react quickly enough to stop Ukraine’s betrayal of Moscow during the protests of 2014. The host, Artyom Sheynin, then turned to Belarus, introducing it as a country suffering from a “similar sickness.” If that doesn't sound ominous enough, I don't know what does. Maybe NATO can pick up their game on this and be more aggesssive with the Russians. With fighting ISIS, engaging North Korea, keeping Iran in check, and spending large amounts on major damage in the US Gulf, the US is busy. The Russians know it too.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Thank You, North Korea
It is not often during a joint exercise that you get to have a real enemy missile fired where you can see it. With all the radars, satellites and varieties of aircraft in the region, you can be the Japanese, Koreans and US got a pretty good look at the missile the North fired over the northern tip of Japan. Of course, they probably get a pretty good look at anything flying out of the North these days, so that part would not be good. It is just nice to be able to see the real thing and feed that data into the exercising forces. It presents a real threat and not just all of those exercise blips that are made up and boring as can be. It probably made the exercises much better, a lot more fun, and demonstrated the real threat and not just some exercise tasking that everyone had seen before.
Friday, August 25, 2017
Focusing on OPM Hack
Reuters today has a story they link to the OPM attacks. It involves the arrest of a Chinese citizen who came to the US "for a conference" and was arrested then. Right now, there is a good deal of speculation and the charges do not directly indicate OPM was an issue. While few article name the companies the software was targeting, the Reuters article says this: "Adam Meyers, vice president at U.S. security firm CrowdStrike, said software flaws and one of the internet protocol addresses cited in the complaint matched up with attacks on a U.S. turbine manufacturer, Capstone Turbine, and a French aircraft supplier."
Thursday, August 24, 2017
China Meets to Tighten Controls on Foreign Firms
In a story this morning that it claims as exclusive, Reuters says the Chinese have met with business leaders of foreign firms, European firms according to the report, to "express concerns" about the growing interference of local officials in the management of their businesses. This story also confirms that 70% of businesses in China have Party organizations (all of them are suppposed to have them) and at issue is the revision of agreements to allow the Party to have final say in business arrangements. We all got to see one of those when CBS' Sixty Minutes visited Foxconn in China several years ago. The Chinese handlers moved the crew quickly past the office - which seemingly was closed - and said nothing about its function. This is an area the Chinese do not like the foreign press to see.
This is going to shatter the illusions of a number of businesses operating in China who thought they owned the companies they had in China, even though the "joint venture" agreements require Chinese to be in charge of some business units. This has been tightening up for the past 10 years but business leaders have ignored it because they get so much money from Chinese customers. Now, it looks like they are going to pay the piper.
Don't look for any sympathy from anyone who has studied what the Chinese have been doing. They have joint ventures through a series of laws that dictate management oversight and the control of technology (intellectual property) that clearly are a "legal" way to steal from those companies. When they can't get that IP through the front door, they steal it. Business leaders have known that for a long time yet their Boards continue to allow them to make money in China, a clearly short-sighted strategy for business.
This is going to shatter the illusions of a number of businesses operating in China who thought they owned the companies they had in China, even though the "joint venture" agreements require Chinese to be in charge of some business units. This has been tightening up for the past 10 years but business leaders have ignored it because they get so much money from Chinese customers. Now, it looks like they are going to pay the piper.
Don't look for any sympathy from anyone who has studied what the Chinese have been doing. They have joint ventures through a series of laws that dictate management oversight and the control of technology (intellectual property) that clearly are a "legal" way to steal from those companies. When they can't get that IP through the front door, they steal it. Business leaders have known that for a long time yet their Boards continue to allow them to make money in China, a clearly short-sighted strategy for business.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Hard-line Russian Ambassador
Well, we don't have to worry about what kind of person the Russians are appointing to be Ambassador to the US. He is going to be a hard-liner, which is not a great surprise given the coolness between the parties. But, the surprise was that this hardliner was being chosen when the Russians thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the President. Putin already made his feelings about Clinton known a couple of years before the elections. He believed Clinton interfered with the Russian election. His press outlets published his comments in the open for all to see. Given that circumstance, it might not be hard to believe that he would want to get even. Books by Dennis Poindexter
Monday, August 21, 2017
Ukrainian Peace Meeting Has Politics Over It
There is a great story in the Wall Street Journal today that ties some pieces together to show how Russia has managed to take over the separatist movement in Ukraine's south-east and push out the locals who were in charge. Of course they had good reason to after those same folks shot down a civilian airliner with a Russian missile, then stayed around to try to control the situation. The Russians had no way to get away from that story, in spite of trying really hard. But that is not all there is to that part of the story. I can see some other aspects of this that tie some other things to the Russians involvement.
You may remember that Paul Manafort was working for a well known politician and former President of the Ukraine, pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. So did Vladislav Surkov, the person referenced in the WSJ article. The Russians may have hired 10,000 people to work on the resurrection of the man who put soldiers into the main square in Kiev to stomp on a revolution that succeeded because of it. He was not one of the good guys, but to the Russians, he was their guy.
So The New York Times and CNN (not my best bet for unbiased coverage on this) both say Manafort's company got millions of dollars to help Yanukovych, something Manafort denies. That part is being investigated by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, so we are not going to know much about the authenticity of any of this part until that investigation is over - possibly in my lifetime, but don't count on it. CNN still believes there was collusion between the Trump White House and the Russians before the national election - even if very few other do. The Russian propaganda press has managed to keep this story alive longer than anyone thought possible, and are feeding parts of it with a story from Kiev that tries to prove Manafort got those payments. The New York Times published that last week. Manaforts's name shows up on a list of potentials recipients of money from Yanukovych's party, though something I noticed about this makes it look like a setup.
The Russians like to have people who work for them sign for money, an old intelligence trick to make sure your payee can be pressured later. Many people signed for the money, but Manafort did not. It wouldn't have been that hard to add his name to the list and then leak that list to the press. The Russians will never stop interfering with our government, but we should make it more painful for them to keep trying.
You may remember that Paul Manafort was working for a well known politician and former President of the Ukraine, pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. So did Vladislav Surkov, the person referenced in the WSJ article. The Russians may have hired 10,000 people to work on the resurrection of the man who put soldiers into the main square in Kiev to stomp on a revolution that succeeded because of it. He was not one of the good guys, but to the Russians, he was their guy.
So The New York Times and CNN (not my best bet for unbiased coverage on this) both say Manafort's company got millions of dollars to help Yanukovych, something Manafort denies. That part is being investigated by a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, so we are not going to know much about the authenticity of any of this part until that investigation is over - possibly in my lifetime, but don't count on it. CNN still believes there was collusion between the Trump White House and the Russians before the national election - even if very few other do. The Russian propaganda press has managed to keep this story alive longer than anyone thought possible, and are feeding parts of it with a story from Kiev that tries to prove Manafort got those payments. The New York Times published that last week. Manaforts's name shows up on a list of potentials recipients of money from Yanukovych's party, though something I noticed about this makes it look like a setup.
The Russians like to have people who work for them sign for money, an old intelligence trick to make sure your payee can be pressured later. Many people signed for the money, but Manafort did not. It wouldn't have been that hard to add his name to the list and then leak that list to the press. The Russians will never stop interfering with our government, but we should make it more painful for them to keep trying.
US Reacts to Moscow Embassy Cuts
The US is going to stop issuing most visas in Russia. In what Sputnik, the English language Russian news outlet, says is a reaction to the cutbacks in staff in the Russian diplomatic corps, the US will not issue any visas. That should prove interesting.
Every news report says this is "just temporary" but the Financial Times says that only Moscow will be issuing visas when that program starts up. It is going to be really hard to get a visa in Russia, which is the point.
Every news report says this is "just temporary" but the Financial Times says that only Moscow will be issuing visas when that program starts up. It is going to be really hard to get a visa in Russia, which is the point.
U.S Review of Thefts of IP
Coming up next month is a review of China's theft of intellectual property from the United States. This inquiry is likely to find that China, in spite of an agreement to stop hacking businesses to get information of this type, is still getting the information - just a different way. This is typical of the Chinese to agree to something, like sanctions against North Korea, then find other ways to violate those sanctions. They largely do what they want to do and ignore everyone else. It hasn't caught up to them yet, although the new White House has some people in it who understand the problem. The BBC article I linked above describes some of that.
This particular inquiry will probably focus on chip manufacturing, among other things. It is no secret that the Chinese have tried to buy or team with 16 different U.S chip makers and were successful in most of them. Once they own the company, keeping IP intact in the US is almost impossible. CFIUS stepped in on a few of these, so the extent and depth of China's actions have already been investigated. What this inquiry will do is what the previous inquiries on the aircraft industry did - show the consequences of partnering with Chinese businesses (required in China) and the penetration of subsequent state-controlled businesses into US markets. The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission of the Congress has been on top of this for many years (the chip business penetration by Chinese companies was done by them and appears in their 2016 report to Congress) and funded most of the important work being done in the field. Why researchers are not paying more attention to what they have done is beyond me.
This particular inquiry will probably focus on chip manufacturing, among other things. It is no secret that the Chinese have tried to buy or team with 16 different U.S chip makers and were successful in most of them. Once they own the company, keeping IP intact in the US is almost impossible. CFIUS stepped in on a few of these, so the extent and depth of China's actions have already been investigated. What this inquiry will do is what the previous inquiries on the aircraft industry did - show the consequences of partnering with Chinese businesses (required in China) and the penetration of subsequent state-controlled businesses into US markets. The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission of the Congress has been on top of this for many years (the chip business penetration by Chinese companies was done by them and appears in their 2016 report to Congress) and funded most of the important work being done in the field. Why researchers are not paying more attention to what they have done is beyond me.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
China Deepens Financial Tentacles
China is patient and waits for the right time. Most everyone knows this, given our experience with Hong Kong and the East/South China Sea, but this case is different. It involves the expansion of Alipay into the rest of world's markets, where it has no business being, especially where it involves the US. Today's Wall Street Journal article is looking at Ant Financial and WeChat as competitors in global, mobile payment systems. We should remember that Ant is a Alipay spin-off from Alibaba, and a most peculiar one at that. Yahoo! Owned them once, but when the Chinese Central Government decided it was not a good idea to allow a foreign company to own any mechanism that might control China's people through debt, they forced the sale of it - without telling Yahoo! - which at the time, owned 40% of its stock. As I said in my first book, this is like Ford selling off the Lincoln Division of GM and not telling anyone for 7 months. We can appreciate their concerns, but reciprocity seems to not be in the Chinese vocabulary. [see Are Chinese Businesses like Ours?]. The Chinese were concerned about influence enough to require the sale, even though they knew it would be trouble in financial markets - which it was. The action indicates that the Chinese see the potential to influence through financials, the same reason that had them stealing information from banks, credit unions, insurance companies and credit institutions.
Governments need to look more closely at what China is doing with its IT industries because those places are being used for spying. As the studies at the University of Toronto show, browsers from several of the large Chinese vendors are being used to collect information that Google would never think to collect - hard drive serial number, nearby WiFi connections, the unique identifiers for cell phones that they operate on - all things that are not needed by a browser to do much of anything, but help target a specific individual. Getting into the personal finances of an individual is powerful tool that can be exploited by people who might find that helpful to persuasion. After all, China does it with our national debt, so there is no reason to believe their won't use it to their advantage in these other transactions. China wants us to believe that their companies are "just like yours" which is an absolute farce. You can't blame Alibaba and WeChat for what the government has forced them into, but you can't ignore it either. Books by Dennis Poindexter
Governments need to look more closely at what China is doing with its IT industries because those places are being used for spying. As the studies at the University of Toronto show, browsers from several of the large Chinese vendors are being used to collect information that Google would never think to collect - hard drive serial number, nearby WiFi connections, the unique identifiers for cell phones that they operate on - all things that are not needed by a browser to do much of anything, but help target a specific individual. Getting into the personal finances of an individual is powerful tool that can be exploited by people who might find that helpful to persuasion. After all, China does it with our national debt, so there is no reason to believe their won't use it to their advantage in these other transactions. China wants us to believe that their companies are "just like yours" which is an absolute farce. You can't blame Alibaba and WeChat for what the government has forced them into, but you can't ignore it either. Books by Dennis Poindexter
Friday, August 18, 2017
China's Parts is Parts
There used to be a chicken commercial with the line "parts is parts" to convey the wrong idea that any part will do as long as it is "close enough". Retailers will tell you that short-sighted strategy will not work. My neighbor, who is rebuilding a car for someone, told me why.
He gets his parts through a mail order house. When you need a part for a 1974 Plymouth you usually have to find a place that specializes in that kind of thing. You can't go to Amazon and buy it. But, what he is finding is that the Chinese are pretty good at making parts for his car - some - so he started buying the cheaper ones if he didn't need an original. He stopped doing that this year.
Some of the parts he was getting are made from steel that is not treated properly and cannot be used for anything that is under pressure (clamps, brake parts, and water pumps) but he didn't know why. A couple of the parts did not fit, not being close enough to the original specifications they were copying. All he knows is that the Chinese cut corners to build their parts and those corners eventually lead to the car parts failing. The Russians used to be famous for the same thing. Build a few things that will last just long enough to get the money from a customer, then it can fall apart.
Before you buy a Chinese car or airplane try to think about what is happening to those parts that are just good enough to work for awhile, then fail for no reason, after a few months. J.D. Powers might have hard time with initial quality on this one, but some of the longer term users will find out. Cheap does not always mean value.
He gets his parts through a mail order house. When you need a part for a 1974 Plymouth you usually have to find a place that specializes in that kind of thing. You can't go to Amazon and buy it. But, what he is finding is that the Chinese are pretty good at making parts for his car - some - so he started buying the cheaper ones if he didn't need an original. He stopped doing that this year.
Some of the parts he was getting are made from steel that is not treated properly and cannot be used for anything that is under pressure (clamps, brake parts, and water pumps) but he didn't know why. A couple of the parts did not fit, not being close enough to the original specifications they were copying. All he knows is that the Chinese cut corners to build their parts and those corners eventually lead to the car parts failing. The Russians used to be famous for the same thing. Build a few things that will last just long enough to get the money from a customer, then it can fall apart.
Before you buy a Chinese car or airplane try to think about what is happening to those parts that are just good enough to work for awhile, then fail for no reason, after a few months. J.D. Powers might have hard time with initial quality on this one, but some of the longer term users will find out. Cheap does not always mean value.
Thursday, August 17, 2017
China's Control of State-Owned Business Investment
As I have frequently said, China does not have as much separation of business and government as they want us to believe. The latest example comes in the form of "investment" opportunities for Chinese providers like Alibaba, Tencent, JD.com, and Baidu. They get to invest in China's state-owned China Unicom, their second largest carrier to the tune of $12 Billion, so that it might be more competitive. In the long run, it will certainly benefit the companies that use China Unicom, but then they do not have much choice, since telecommunications is state-owned, with no outside investment allowed. This creative financing exists nowhere else but in a Communist country that controls companies the way no other country does. These are state functions mixed with the business interests of the nation. It is a far cry from companies elsewhere in the world, yet China would have us beleive their businesses are just like ours.
Books by Dennis Poindexter
Books by Dennis Poindexter
Chinese, Russians, & Radiation Hardened Chips
The Justice Department yesterday announced the guilty plea of a man in Texas who was helping to buy radiation hardened chips for use in military and commercial space systems. Of course, Justice was announcing the confession of this guy, so it will be awhile before they start announcing who the co-conspirators were (and there were some) and how big this operation really was. If you want to know more about these kinds of chips and the environment they have to operate in, check out this briefing on it from Aerospace. If you have a day or two, you might get through the whole briefing. It was more than I could read, but it does point out one useful thing - chips that are good in space, are also good in automobiles which also have heat and vibration difficulties. It also says, however much they try to dominate the chip market, the Chinese cannot even steal all the technology the US has in this area - let alone invent it. They still have to resort to outright theft to get it.
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Apple's New China Dilemma
Apple cannot catch a break anywhere in China. I used to wonder why they continue to beat their heads up against the wall, thinking it was only money that drove them to put up with the nonsense China throws at them in the name of "national security". The latest one is a group of 28 app developers who complain that Apple is treating them badly, i.e. They are removing apps from the Apple Store without detailed explanations of why, and charging too much for in-app purchases. They also don't respond with reasons in Chinese.
This looks like the typical Chinese approach to businesses that have settled in China and actually make money. Eventually, China drives them into building the industry to compete with their own products, like Intel has done, or they drive them out, as they did with Google. This is how they get to be world economic leaders. Anyplace else in the world, they would be in court for this kind of behavior. But instead, the Chinese build cell phones for everyone. About the only company that doesn't build most of its cell phones there is Samsung. We need to understand more about what that means. Certainly, we can see the national security implications of having all the cell phones not only made in China, but by Chinese companies. They have the potential to collect intelligence from any of those devices, and probably do.
Yes, Apple competes unfairly with Chinese vendors because they still won't bend a knee to the central government. Nobody gets away with that for long. Now that Chinese companies are taking over the cellphone market, they can drive Apple out.
This looks like the typical Chinese approach to businesses that have settled in China and actually make money. Eventually, China drives them into building the industry to compete with their own products, like Intel has done, or they drive them out, as they did with Google. This is how they get to be world economic leaders. Anyplace else in the world, they would be in court for this kind of behavior. But instead, the Chinese build cell phones for everyone. About the only company that doesn't build most of its cell phones there is Samsung. We need to understand more about what that means. Certainly, we can see the national security implications of having all the cell phones not only made in China, but by Chinese companies. They have the potential to collect intelligence from any of those devices, and probably do.
Yes, Apple competes unfairly with Chinese vendors because they still won't bend a knee to the central government. Nobody gets away with that for long. Now that Chinese companies are taking over the cellphone market, they can drive Apple out.
Chinese Military Invites US talk
In the Wall Street Journal today was an article about the US military and China setting up a deconfliction communications channel which might help to prevent inadvertent engagements between US and Chinese ships and planes should it come to war with North Korea. That should tell us something about the seriousness of these kinds of discussions. They don't get that far unless the engagement was close enough to consider deconfliction.
What I was more interested in was the last paragraph of this article which mentioned, almost in passing, what the issues we expected the Chinese to bring up in these talks. There is nothing new there, but it serves as a reminder to note them: (1) US ships in the South China Sea, (2) reconnaissance flights off the coast of China, (3) US Policy and Arms Sales to Taiwan, and (4) the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system to South Korea. That was an interesting list because it includes things that the US is not going to stop doing, such as reconnaissance flights, ballistic missile defense, and Taiwan support.
The Chinese have always used the Russian philosophy that "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable". They have tried to trade a lessening of joint exercises with South Korea for a reduced diet of missile testing by the North. That shows us that they have the influence to stop the missile testing but they don't use it until they get something for it. They don't like those joint exercises with South Korea because they are trying to lock up the South China Sea to control it the way they did with Hong Kong. All four of these things keep them from that objective, and one thing about the Chinese, they stay after an objective until they win. They will have to wait awhile longer.
What I was more interested in was the last paragraph of this article which mentioned, almost in passing, what the issues we expected the Chinese to bring up in these talks. There is nothing new there, but it serves as a reminder to note them: (1) US ships in the South China Sea, (2) reconnaissance flights off the coast of China, (3) US Policy and Arms Sales to Taiwan, and (4) the deployment of the THAAD missile defense system to South Korea. That was an interesting list because it includes things that the US is not going to stop doing, such as reconnaissance flights, ballistic missile defense, and Taiwan support.
The Chinese have always used the Russian philosophy that "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable". They have tried to trade a lessening of joint exercises with South Korea for a reduced diet of missile testing by the North. That shows us that they have the influence to stop the missile testing but they don't use it until they get something for it. They don't like those joint exercises with South Korea because they are trying to lock up the South China Sea to control it the way they did with Hong Kong. All four of these things keep them from that objective, and one thing about the Chinese, they stay after an objective until they win. They will have to wait awhile longer.
Security at OPM
I was a little surprised to see a GAO report on cyber in OPM reflect findings that add to the questions about much has improved after the Chinese stole all the personnel records for security clearances.
After losing 24 million personnel security records, you would think OPM would have gotten to fixing the types of problems that were noted. They had two years to do it, and are only now getting around to issuing the kinds of contracts that are needed to support their IT infrastructure. Then, we see that OPM still has an "acting director" which means no new person has been approved for the office. George Nesterczuk, the nominee, ran afoul of the "resist" movement in Congress and withdrew after months of waiting. The national security implications of this kind of nomination seem to not matter to some of the Congress, led by Mark Warner from Virginia.
Maybe Congress thinks things are under control at OPM, but these mistakes have cost the country hundreds of millions of man hours and dollars because of the delays in getting new clearances or in upgrading or updating others. We are going to see these effects for a decade, but footdragging for political reasons may push it out even longer.
After losing 24 million personnel security records, you would think OPM would have gotten to fixing the types of problems that were noted. They had two years to do it, and are only now getting around to issuing the kinds of contracts that are needed to support their IT infrastructure. Then, we see that OPM still has an "acting director" which means no new person has been approved for the office. George Nesterczuk, the nominee, ran afoul of the "resist" movement in Congress and withdrew after months of waiting. The national security implications of this kind of nomination seem to not matter to some of the Congress, led by Mark Warner from Virginia.
Maybe Congress thinks things are under control at OPM, but these mistakes have cost the country hundreds of millions of man hours and dollars because of the delays in getting new clearances or in upgrading or updating others. We are going to see these effects for a decade, but footdragging for political reasons may push it out even longer.
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
NK Rocket Engines
The press lemmings have a way of repeating any story that comes through the wire services but adds a few things to its own version. The story today is the rocket engines that North Korea used on its latest tests were not developed by North Korea (an important point that is worth noting) but may have come from Russian designs, supplied by the Ukraine. CNN says the North may have purchased them on the black market. The Ukraine says the Russians did it too cover up their support for NK. I'm sure the intelligence services of the world are smart enough to know where the engines came from, so this would not be news to them. Some of the folks in that business can tell where a rocket design came from. What they cannot necessarily say, is how it got to where it is today. The arms businesses is not that simple.
As I said in a post yesterday, Gordon Chang said the missiles the North Koreans used came from China. That is not necessarily inconsistent with them coming from the Russians who have sold off large stocks of arms to make money. In my second edition of the Chinese Information War, which comes out later this year, I talk about buying a missile from a place that you would never think would sell. As it turns out, that was not even uncommon. Every day, people sell military arms - specifically sophisticated arms, for money. Yes, we have agreements to limit missile technology, but they don't work very well as both Iran and North Korea prove. Diplomats must not know very much about this because they always seem surprised when Iran tests a new missile or develops a bomb. But, arms dealers would not be surprised. Anyone who saw the movie Lord of War saw a fictionalized version of how that works.
I do agree with one story that said the Russians would like for us to believe those missiles came from the Ukraine because they don't want the Ukrainians to get anti-tank missiles from the US. This makes far more sense If we believe the Ukraine can't control the technologies it has, nobody should be giving them anti-tank weapons which might fall into terrorist's hands. That is the logic that allows the Russians to lie about almost anything if it serves their purpose. The problem with that, of course, is it is difficult to tell when the Russians are telling the truth. We, as do the Russian populace, do not believe Russian news sources, when they do occasionally tell the truth. We just don't know when.
It has consistently been Chinese companies, some still controlled by military and former military, who do what they want to regardless of sanctions. It may be a difficult time to go after them, but it looks like some attempts are being made. It is a gigantic game of whack-a-mole, abetted by the central government. Even the UN knows that part is true. In politics, like arms sales, we should believe that the ones getting benefit from the missiles is likely the one who gave them the engines, whether they built them or not. What we learned from this is that the North Koreans are not as smart as we thought they were.
As I said in a post yesterday, Gordon Chang said the missiles the North Koreans used came from China. That is not necessarily inconsistent with them coming from the Russians who have sold off large stocks of arms to make money. In my second edition of the Chinese Information War, which comes out later this year, I talk about buying a missile from a place that you would never think would sell. As it turns out, that was not even uncommon. Every day, people sell military arms - specifically sophisticated arms, for money. Yes, we have agreements to limit missile technology, but they don't work very well as both Iran and North Korea prove. Diplomats must not know very much about this because they always seem surprised when Iran tests a new missile or develops a bomb. But, arms dealers would not be surprised. Anyone who saw the movie Lord of War saw a fictionalized version of how that works.
I do agree with one story that said the Russians would like for us to believe those missiles came from the Ukraine because they don't want the Ukrainians to get anti-tank missiles from the US. This makes far more sense If we believe the Ukraine can't control the technologies it has, nobody should be giving them anti-tank weapons which might fall into terrorist's hands. That is the logic that allows the Russians to lie about almost anything if it serves their purpose. The problem with that, of course, is it is difficult to tell when the Russians are telling the truth. We, as do the Russian populace, do not believe Russian news sources, when they do occasionally tell the truth. We just don't know when.
It has consistently been Chinese companies, some still controlled by military and former military, who do what they want to regardless of sanctions. It may be a difficult time to go after them, but it looks like some attempts are being made. It is a gigantic game of whack-a-mole, abetted by the central government. Even the UN knows that part is true. In politics, like arms sales, we should believe that the ones getting benefit from the missiles is likely the one who gave them the engines, whether they built them or not. What we learned from this is that the North Koreans are not as smart as we thought they were.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
NK making Made In China Clothes
If this is any indication, Reuters is saying the shops on North Korea's border are making clothes with Made in China labels. That's one way to beat sanctions - China's way. When China was having trouble selling steel because of US sanctions, it farmed the steel out to other countries, like Vietnam, to refinish by applying treatments that China could have done easier. Then, it was Vietnamese steel. So, they are still doing business with NK, and marking the goods Made in China. What is this, besides plain and simple whitewash of sanctions. China did more business before coal sanctions against NK in order to get the whole year's quota before beginning the UN sanctions. Are we kidding ourselves here? China is not going to stop supporting the North because they like what the North does for them. They get to watch the world react and prepare defenses without exposing themselves as the aggressor. We are tired of this game.
Playing Defense
In cases like HBO, any company is playing from behind. Defense, which is what I did for the better part of 40 years, never wins. We are increasingly facing government-sponsored attacks by well-financed operations, that have unlimited time and focused attention. This is like the Russian-US wars of the 70's and 80's, except that they are not stealing information, as much as embarrassing institutions that compete economically with them. Eventually, the offense wins, and in this kind of case, the offense wins every time.
What question this brings to mind is What do we do about this? We can do what the banks did and get their industry together to start securing its infrastructure, doing oversight, and putting sanctions on those who don't cooperate. That takes about 5-7 years to do, and while we do it, the enemies get better at what they are doing. Banks are taking acceptable losses, at least to hear them talk, but I always say, "Acceptable to whom?" Acceptable to the Fed? Acceptable to the Board?
We need a deterrence to stop this kind of behavior and there is only one good one, attack. I was asked a question related to this when I testified at the US-China Economic and Security Review Committsion, because the person who asked it thought I would say we need to strike back. I said what was true - we are not ready for that. Since then, the Director of National Intelligence and Director of the National Security Agency have both said we are not ready to engage in this kind of war. This basically means we have allowed ourselves to get to the point where we are fighting a losing battle every day, but can't put enough emphasis on our offensive capabilities to get them ready to fight this kind of war. Any of you that have ever played war games, know how that always comes out. There is a need, as Sony and HBO will tell you, but there is not a will to shift resources away from the military toys and put them into cyber. Unitl we do, we are going to be fighting the losing game of defense.
What question this brings to mind is What do we do about this? We can do what the banks did and get their industry together to start securing its infrastructure, doing oversight, and putting sanctions on those who don't cooperate. That takes about 5-7 years to do, and while we do it, the enemies get better at what they are doing. Banks are taking acceptable losses, at least to hear them talk, but I always say, "Acceptable to whom?" Acceptable to the Fed? Acceptable to the Board?
We need a deterrence to stop this kind of behavior and there is only one good one, attack. I was asked a question related to this when I testified at the US-China Economic and Security Review Committsion, because the person who asked it thought I would say we need to strike back. I said what was true - we are not ready for that. Since then, the Director of National Intelligence and Director of the National Security Agency have both said we are not ready to engage in this kind of war. This basically means we have allowed ourselves to get to the point where we are fighting a losing battle every day, but can't put enough emphasis on our offensive capabilities to get them ready to fight this kind of war. Any of you that have ever played war games, know how that always comes out. There is a need, as Sony and HBO will tell you, but there is not a will to shift resources away from the military toys and put them into cyber. Unitl we do, we are going to be fighting the losing game of defense.
Friday, August 11, 2017
China Tries to Dictate US Policy
China said yesterday that it would "be neutral if North Korea provoked an attack" by shooting missiles off at Guam, but it added that regime change was not going to be an options for the US because they "would prevent it". That dictates a strategy that says what China will allow. They like the status quo in the North and keep the regime afloat no matter what sanctions they vote for the in the UN. They are trying to eliminate options for the US and keep the North on its current track with the US. China gets to watch the US and its allies make decisions and fight internally over what to do with this Hermit leader. They observe military exercises, and the movement of defensive missile systems and aircraft, the designs of which they have already stolen. They get to observe us, but we don't get to do the same with them. They know who will support these responses and who will not. They create dissection in the US and Japan by stoking their friends and criticizing their enemies. Regime change is not going off the table because China says it will prevent it, so this may yet be a battle with China. China created this situation and now plays like it will "be neutral". The situation exists because China was not neutral at all.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
The Nuclear Option
One of my favorite people in Congress used to be S.I. Hayakawa, who died in 1992, after a career in academia and the Senate. One of the things he did was carry things to their logical conclusion. When Congress, or the White House, hears what it proposes coming back to them with unintended consequences, it makes for interesting discussion. I wish for his approach today in dealing with North Korea.
We have tried sanctions for 40 years and must wonder how they could possibly work just this once. As I said in my previous post, not likely. But in the vein of looking at all the options, we might think of the military one that makes equal sense when confronted with a nuclear threat by someone saying he wants to strike the US. Hit him first.
This is called First Strike, a logical option when the damage an adversary can do is considerably greater than the alternatives that are needed to eliminate that adversary. It is the logic of the movie Dr. Strangeglove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The Russians in that movie were pretty helpless against a real first strike. In the Nuclear business, close is not great, but victory can be had and the problem solved forever. The North Koreans don't mind the casualties, and won't have many missiles to retaliate with after a first strike. It could work out well for everyone. No regime change. No more missile threats. No invasion of the South. The Chinese have already said they would not tolerate radiation drifting over their territory, and we thought they were talking about North Korean radiation. Maybe not.
We have tried sanctions for 40 years and must wonder how they could possibly work just this once. As I said in my previous post, not likely. But in the vein of looking at all the options, we might think of the military one that makes equal sense when confronted with a nuclear threat by someone saying he wants to strike the US. Hit him first.
This is called First Strike, a logical option when the damage an adversary can do is considerably greater than the alternatives that are needed to eliminate that adversary. It is the logic of the movie Dr. Strangeglove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The Russians in that movie were pretty helpless against a real first strike. In the Nuclear business, close is not great, but victory can be had and the problem solved forever. The North Koreans don't mind the casualties, and won't have many missiles to retaliate with after a first strike. It could work out well for everyone. No regime change. No more missile threats. No invasion of the South. The Chinese have already said they would not tolerate radiation drifting over their territory, and we thought they were talking about North Korean radiation. Maybe not.
China Helps North Korean Missile Program
Gordon Chang was on Fox Business today and mentioned that China supplied the missiles that the North used in its last launches. I hadn't heard that before and wonder about the truth of it. That is a good deal different than helping them with technology to build their own. If true, one has to wonder how successful any country will be with sanctions.
North Korean Sanctions Faulted
Every once in awhile, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board hits a subject hard and makes it shake back and forth from the force of it. The title of the one today says it all: The Latest North Korean Sanctions Show. Let me quote just the opening paragraph
"The Trump Administration and the United Nations Security Council are heralding Saturday’s Resolution 2371, which imposes new sanctions on North Korea. But as Pyongyang sprints to the ICBM finish line, the insistence that this resolution will succeed when others failed is—let’s be kind here—hard to believe."
I have to say they are right on target, because after so many UN resolutions, North Korea is still heading towards an advanced capability to deliver nuclear weapons on a missile, and Iran is doing the same thing. It is a show that we are all tired of watching. China is the root cause of the failures of any of these sanctions, and they could care less about UN resolutions or sanctions of any kind - even ones they agree to. That is why the US has threatened to sanction Chinese businesses (some state owned, some not) because they are allowed to violate those sanctions by their government - probably a government that encourages them to do it.
We all know this, but until now have done very little about it. We have a whole bunch of little countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), who are afraid to criticize China for much of anything, least of all sanctions violations or the militarization of the South China Sea. China plays the economic warfare game every time one of them raises any kind of concern. We don't help ASEAN very much in countering this bullying.
So, we were on the right track by going after Chinese businesses that support whatever the Communist Government wants them to do. It is the same as going after the government for doing it. The Chinese want to push us as far as we will go, then slow down, but never retreat. They want these nuclear armed countries threatening the US, so it has nothing to do with them. They get the benefits, without the risk. It shouldn't take 30 years to figure this out.
"The Trump Administration and the United Nations Security Council are heralding Saturday’s Resolution 2371, which imposes new sanctions on North Korea. But as Pyongyang sprints to the ICBM finish line, the insistence that this resolution will succeed when others failed is—let’s be kind here—hard to believe."
I have to say they are right on target, because after so many UN resolutions, North Korea is still heading towards an advanced capability to deliver nuclear weapons on a missile, and Iran is doing the same thing. It is a show that we are all tired of watching. China is the root cause of the failures of any of these sanctions, and they could care less about UN resolutions or sanctions of any kind - even ones they agree to. That is why the US has threatened to sanction Chinese businesses (some state owned, some not) because they are allowed to violate those sanctions by their government - probably a government that encourages them to do it.
We all know this, but until now have done very little about it. We have a whole bunch of little countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), who are afraid to criticize China for much of anything, least of all sanctions violations or the militarization of the South China Sea. China plays the economic warfare game every time one of them raises any kind of concern. We don't help ASEAN very much in countering this bullying.
So, we were on the right track by going after Chinese businesses that support whatever the Communist Government wants them to do. It is the same as going after the government for doing it. The Chinese want to push us as far as we will go, then slow down, but never retreat. They want these nuclear armed countries threatening the US, so it has nothing to do with them. They get the benefits, without the risk. It shouldn't take 30 years to figure this out.
Monday, August 7, 2017
North Korea and HBO
In case any of you were wondering, there is little doubt that North Korea was behind the theft of data from HBO. Mandiant was called in and the FBI has begun searching for what they should already know. The North has made threats like this before and went after Sony with China's help. Both are trying to show what war with them will be like in the future. Businesses will lose in many different ways, and they won't be able to blame China directly, even though they have their sticky fingers in this job. The North is vowing a response to the sanctions and will try to make it a hurtful one. There is almost nothing we can do to them to prevent their actions, as long as China continues to support their adventures.
Two can play at this game. One day, China is going to find out that this is not a thing they can continue to do with impurity. That day is coming sooner than later and they know it.
New Fiction book
Two can play at this game. One day, China is going to find out that this is not a thing they can continue to do with impurity. That day is coming sooner than later and they know it.
New Fiction book
China Won't Back Down - Added
But India did back down, or so say the Chinese, after India withdrew its troops from the isolated area described below. The plain and simple of it might be that both are about to start bilateral discussions and India does not want this to be part of them. Considering the remoteness of the area, it is unlikely to cause much trouble for either of them, or for Bhutan for that matter. With very little but principle to fight for, India thought better of it. It can wait.
I did a little research this morning to find out about the size of the Armies and populations of both countries and they are remarkably close, though China's military is about twice as big. India's population may actually overtake that of China in 2024. These are two very big countries with nothing to gain by having a fight so close to their borders. They might remember that with China in an expanionist mood, the drawing of lines should happen sooner than later. They are not going to stop until somebody puts an obstacle in the way, and they will be looking for ways around it shortly thereafter.
We have seen several times lately that China ignores the rest of the world and does what it wants. Usually, the US has a reason to push back, but it doesn't always involve the US. In the Wall Street Journal is a story that sounds like it should be set somewhere in the South China Sea, but instead is in a rather inhospitable place in the middle of nowhere. China and India are laying indirect claims to the same territory, and neither one is going to back down. What makes it so interesting is that neither one has much to gain from this kind of fight.
Go straight North off the western border of Bangladesh and you come to a point where China, India and Bhutan come together. That small strip of land is claimed by China and Bhutan, India and Bhutan are BFFs and have a bilateral trade agreement that is pretty good for Bhutan. Bhutan's largest export is something called Ferroalloys ( iron, steel, and mixtures of iron and other metals). The biggest importer of ferroalloys is China. So, it'd could just be a simple case of China claiming the territory for what it has, and not for where it is. India does not claim the territory, which it thinks belongs to Bhutan. India and Bhutan are good friends.
Little skirmishes have been happening all over that area for many years, but in 1987 there was a little saber rattling by both sides when the respective armies decided to dig in to territories on a the Line of Control between India and China, without really fighting. That is kind of what we have today too. Neither one is backing down, but this is a different regime than either country had in those days, and there might be better reason to see clashes now than then. Both are at a terrain disadvantage, but India has good reason to continue to press. They do not agree with the One Belt One Road initiative, and have their own trade routes in that area that they don't want interference in maintaining. Politically, China has stuck it's finger in the eye of India on a couple of issues lately and India did not like it very much. It sounds like India is less likely to let bygones be bygones and gloss over China's intrusions into its neighbor's territory. In a way, it is a little like the US and China in the South China Sea. Neither one of them wants a shooting war, but neither one is going to change their position. China has run into more of that since it started to become expansionist. More countries see it for what it is - and say "no further".
New Fiction Book
I did a little research this morning to find out about the size of the Armies and populations of both countries and they are remarkably close, though China's military is about twice as big. India's population may actually overtake that of China in 2024. These are two very big countries with nothing to gain by having a fight so close to their borders. They might remember that with China in an expanionist mood, the drawing of lines should happen sooner than later. They are not going to stop until somebody puts an obstacle in the way, and they will be looking for ways around it shortly thereafter.
We have seen several times lately that China ignores the rest of the world and does what it wants. Usually, the US has a reason to push back, but it doesn't always involve the US. In the Wall Street Journal is a story that sounds like it should be set somewhere in the South China Sea, but instead is in a rather inhospitable place in the middle of nowhere. China and India are laying indirect claims to the same territory, and neither one is going to back down. What makes it so interesting is that neither one has much to gain from this kind of fight.
Go straight North off the western border of Bangladesh and you come to a point where China, India and Bhutan come together. That small strip of land is claimed by China and Bhutan, India and Bhutan are BFFs and have a bilateral trade agreement that is pretty good for Bhutan. Bhutan's largest export is something called Ferroalloys ( iron, steel, and mixtures of iron and other metals). The biggest importer of ferroalloys is China. So, it'd could just be a simple case of China claiming the territory for what it has, and not for where it is. India does not claim the territory, which it thinks belongs to Bhutan. India and Bhutan are good friends.
Little skirmishes have been happening all over that area for many years, but in 1987 there was a little saber rattling by both sides when the respective armies decided to dig in to territories on a the Line of Control between India and China, without really fighting. That is kind of what we have today too. Neither one is backing down, but this is a different regime than either country had in those days, and there might be better reason to see clashes now than then. Both are at a terrain disadvantage, but India has good reason to continue to press. They do not agree with the One Belt One Road initiative, and have their own trade routes in that area that they don't want interference in maintaining. Politically, China has stuck it's finger in the eye of India on a couple of issues lately and India did not like it very much. It sounds like India is less likely to let bygones be bygones and gloss over China's intrusions into its neighbor's territory. In a way, it is a little like the US and China in the South China Sea. Neither one of them wants a shooting war, but neither one is going to change their position. China has run into more of that since it started to become expansionist. More countries see it for what it is - and say "no further".
New Fiction Book
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Missile Launch
There are a lot of ballistic missiles being shown off this week, starting with the Chinese displaying 16 of the mobile DF 31AG which is mounted on an all-terrain vehicle that will allow it to go almost anywhere. It has a range of 6200 miles and has multiple warheads. Apparently, they were doing some testing over the weekend and letting everyone know what the targets were going to be - missile silos and F-22 fighters. Good luck with that. There is a nice picture of a test the Chinese did in July in The Aviationist. A commercial airline pilot just happened to be in the right place at the right time and took a good shot.
North Korea would have been missing something if it had not launched another missile over towards Japan but on a very high arc not seen very often. It reportedly came down a few miles short of a commercial airliner passing by. Another thing for the flying public to worry about.
The US fired off a THAAD interceptor and also launched a Minuteman III, which it does regularly to prove those missiles in the ground still work, but it went 4200 miles landing near Kwajalein where we used to do all of our defensive missile testing. They don't really have to fly that far to prove the point that they are working, but why not? Since we are having so much fun, it seems appropriate.
People outside the defense community are probably yawning through all of this, but this is not just a fun time for everyone to enjoy. Everybody is trying to prove something and most of the things they are doing have something to do with lethality and survivability - something North Korea has seemed to miss. Being able to heft a warhead 6000 miles is a neat trick and not as easy as it sounds. Doing it from a missile silo or a mobile launcher is a lot trickier and much harder. Yes, the North might be able to launch a warhead that far, but it is sitting on a very exposed platform just minutes before it is launched. If they think we would let them load it up and just sit there watching, they might think about that a little.
North Korea would have been missing something if it had not launched another missile over towards Japan but on a very high arc not seen very often. It reportedly came down a few miles short of a commercial airliner passing by. Another thing for the flying public to worry about.
The US fired off a THAAD interceptor and also launched a Minuteman III, which it does regularly to prove those missiles in the ground still work, but it went 4200 miles landing near Kwajalein where we used to do all of our defensive missile testing. They don't really have to fly that far to prove the point that they are working, but why not? Since we are having so much fun, it seems appropriate.
People outside the defense community are probably yawning through all of this, but this is not just a fun time for everyone to enjoy. Everybody is trying to prove something and most of the things they are doing have something to do with lethality and survivability - something North Korea has seemed to miss. Being able to heft a warhead 6000 miles is a neat trick and not as easy as it sounds. Doing it from a missile silo or a mobile launcher is a lot trickier and much harder. Yes, the North might be able to launch a warhead that far, but it is sitting on a very exposed platform just minutes before it is launched. If they think we would let them load it up and just sit there watching, they might think about that a little.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Code-Signing Certificates Revisited
I went back to look at what Symantec had published on code signing cert. A couple of things: (1) not many other security groups seem to be interested in how hacker groups and state actors use code signing as a way to mask the illegal use of their software and (2) the attack groups seem to use code signing to hide the introduction of legitimate code and their own malware. So, they steal code signing certs to verify that legitimate code is verifiable by the host. That makes sense, if you think about it. Since so many systems require signed software, they have to get a valid signature from somewhere.
But what China is doing is slightly different than that, at one level. The Chinese do not just hack and collect information. They are building their own domains with their own software (no doubt stolen in those "security reviews" they are doing) and inviting users in. Everything in a domain is not stolen, but some of it is. Some of it has been modified to do collection and penetration for intelligence purposes. Some of it is censored by the same software used in China on its own citizens. Once a user is inside one of those domains, they become infected with all kinds of tools that can trace what networks they use, where they go on them, and what they are reading or writing about. While they criticize the US for doing the same kinds of things, they quietly go about their business. There needs to be more reserach into how big some of these networks have become and how we recognize them for what they are. Toronto University has a good start on it by examining what Chinese browsers are collecting, but that doesn't go far enough to take in the whole of it.
China wants to control the Internet, from China out. In their minds, they are controlling what is good for Chinese citizens and they can justify anything that is done for that reason. If intelligence collection is done for the same reason, so be it. That will be good for them too. They can manage content of other people's networks by filtering the sources of data from the inside out. They can control what you see about China, and what China sees from you.
China doesn't claim to be a democracy. Its citizens have no privacy and have no free speech. That worked well enough that they think the rest of the world could benefit from their experience, and find the joy of a China-controlled Internet. That is arrogance of the highest order.
But what China is doing is slightly different than that, at one level. The Chinese do not just hack and collect information. They are building their own domains with their own software (no doubt stolen in those "security reviews" they are doing) and inviting users in. Everything in a domain is not stolen, but some of it is. Some of it has been modified to do collection and penetration for intelligence purposes. Some of it is censored by the same software used in China on its own citizens. Once a user is inside one of those domains, they become infected with all kinds of tools that can trace what networks they use, where they go on them, and what they are reading or writing about. While they criticize the US for doing the same kinds of things, they quietly go about their business. There needs to be more reserach into how big some of these networks have become and how we recognize them for what they are. Toronto University has a good start on it by examining what Chinese browsers are collecting, but that doesn't go far enough to take in the whole of it.
China wants to control the Internet, from China out. In their minds, they are controlling what is good for Chinese citizens and they can justify anything that is done for that reason. If intelligence collection is done for the same reason, so be it. That will be good for them too. They can manage content of other people's networks by filtering the sources of data from the inside out. They can control what you see about China, and what China sees from you.
China doesn't claim to be a democracy. Its citizens have no privacy and have no free speech. That worked well enough that they think the rest of the world could benefit from their experience, and find the joy of a China-controlled Internet. That is arrogance of the highest order.
THAAD Passes the Test
When the U.S. Successfully tested another THAAD anti-missile system against a ballistic target, it was telling China something it needs to hear. You can ignore North Korea and play the blame game all you want, but if the North continues to threaten the United States, like it has for the past 15 years, the defensive missiles can make that threat seem less credible. That was a good step to take.
As we saw yesterday in the U.N. China has decided the US was remiss in not bringing up a complaint about the latest missile firing by the North. In fact, even worse, the US has gone off on its own to impose sanctions which are not backed by the UN. China says it is offended by this lack of adherence to protocols of the UN, which it only follows when the subject of "One China" comes up, or it wants to tamp down the heat from North Korea doing something again. They have played this game so long, even they think it is the only game in town.
The US has ignored the UN using the repeated reasoning that the UN hasn't done anything lately, and China routinely violates the sanctions it imposes. So, everyone gets warm and fuzzy by passing a UN resolution, then they ignore the provisions and do what they want. This is a game the US got tired of playing, as we all heard Nikki Haley say last week.
But, THAAD is a different thing than a UN sanction. It is s real-world interceptor that looks like it works pretty well. It would be nice to test it on one of those missiles fired off by the North. Japan could do that, since they have THAAD, and probably more countries as time goes on. China tries to discourage the world buying THAAD, using the paper-thin argument that it might peer into China to look at its military. In case they forgot to look, that radar is a ground based radar pointing up at the sky where it is needed. Even China doesn't believe what it says about THAAD's radar. But it does know it works, and is a great equalizer to the insane asylums in North Korea's leadership.
China claims this is a problem for the US and the North to work out. They have been getting away with that for a long time, when it is really a problem China created to get reactions from the US and others on how they are going to deal with nuclear threats. If the North does fire off a nuclear loaded rocket, China knows what will happen. They are going to have a bunch of North Koreans getting in line to jump the border to seek asylum, or get away from the destruction. You saw Xi running around in fatigues last week pretending to be the guy running the military and getting ready to repel an attack - from somewhere. We are pretty tired of that game too.
Let's try to remember the Korean War. Do we think the UN is not going to fight on the side of the South? Is China going to push down all the way to the southern tip of the the South, then retreat back to the North and sue for peace? I don't think so. China, though its control of the South China Sea, is going to make it very hard for anyone to set foot on South Korean soil. They will own the South in no time and they won't be retreating. The North won't be a problem after that.
As we saw yesterday in the U.N. China has decided the US was remiss in not bringing up a complaint about the latest missile firing by the North. In fact, even worse, the US has gone off on its own to impose sanctions which are not backed by the UN. China says it is offended by this lack of adherence to protocols of the UN, which it only follows when the subject of "One China" comes up, or it wants to tamp down the heat from North Korea doing something again. They have played this game so long, even they think it is the only game in town.
The US has ignored the UN using the repeated reasoning that the UN hasn't done anything lately, and China routinely violates the sanctions it imposes. So, everyone gets warm and fuzzy by passing a UN resolution, then they ignore the provisions and do what they want. This is a game the US got tired of playing, as we all heard Nikki Haley say last week.
But, THAAD is a different thing than a UN sanction. It is s real-world interceptor that looks like it works pretty well. It would be nice to test it on one of those missiles fired off by the North. Japan could do that, since they have THAAD, and probably more countries as time goes on. China tries to discourage the world buying THAAD, using the paper-thin argument that it might peer into China to look at its military. In case they forgot to look, that radar is a ground based radar pointing up at the sky where it is needed. Even China doesn't believe what it says about THAAD's radar. But it does know it works, and is a great equalizer to the insane asylums in North Korea's leadership.
China claims this is a problem for the US and the North to work out. They have been getting away with that for a long time, when it is really a problem China created to get reactions from the US and others on how they are going to deal with nuclear threats. If the North does fire off a nuclear loaded rocket, China knows what will happen. They are going to have a bunch of North Koreans getting in line to jump the border to seek asylum, or get away from the destruction. You saw Xi running around in fatigues last week pretending to be the guy running the military and getting ready to repel an attack - from somewhere. We are pretty tired of that game too.
Let's try to remember the Korean War. Do we think the UN is not going to fight on the side of the South? Is China going to push down all the way to the southern tip of the the South, then retreat back to the North and sue for peace? I don't think so. China, though its control of the South China Sea, is going to make it very hard for anyone to set foot on South Korean soil. They will own the South in no time and they won't be retreating. The North won't be a problem after that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)