Jump to content



Photo

China says US-based hackers attack its military websites


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 gameboy1977

gameboy1977

    Neowinian

  • 930 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 05
  • Location: USA
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Windows Phone 8

Posted 28 February 2013 - 14:18

http://news.yahoo.co...-110044448.html


#2 Richteralan

Richteralan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,359 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 03
  • Location: Madison, Wisconsin
  • OS: Windows 7 Pro
  • Phone: Nexus 4 E960

Posted 28 February 2013 - 15:21

"I don't care, as long as I can still munch on my chips and watch football."

#3 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,348 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:07

Turnabout is fair play. They've been hitting our institutions. & compaies for 20 years.

#4 +Obi-Wan Kenobi

Obi-Wan Kenobi

    "You were the chosen one!"

  • 2,738 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 02
  • Location: West-Central Texas

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:09

Turnabout is fair play. They've been hitting our institutions. & compaies for 20 years.

Yes sir, what goes around, comes around. I agree 100%. (Y)

#5 JaredFrost

JaredFrost

    Neowinian

  • 1,342 posts
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:21

I'd be more surprised if we weren't trying to hack each other, it's fun and games, then we send other peoples children off to die.

#6 Azies

Azies

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 10

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:25

If the attacks continue, place sanctions against them, if that doesn't work, explode an ICBM over Beijing.

#7 ramesees

ramesees

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 01
  • OS: Windows Server 2008 R2

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:25

Turnabout is fair play. They've been hitting our institutions. & compaies for 20 years.

Yes sir, what goes around, comes around. I agree 100%. (Y)


Does the same feeling hold sway if a foreign nation drops a bomb on the US or carries out some other "terrorist" attack ?

#8 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,706 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:45

Does the same feeling hold sway if a foreign nation drops a bomb on the US or carries out some other "terrorist" attack ?


Why wouldn't it?

Part of the problem (at least for the more dovish Neowinians) is that they realize that - when it has a mind to, the United States military has proven itself to be extremely competent in the application of military force - as has Israel. Those that would adversely counter the United States (or Israel) have to account for that - which is proving to be a LOT harder than countering the British Empire in its heyday. Therefore, in order to counter either (or both, since they ARE allies) you have to move the field of battle to one where their advantage is not as great.

However, real-world conflict is not like a video/computer game (RUSE, for example), where one side is forced to battle under a handicapping system; the handicap must either be imposed by one side upon the other or from outside the field of conflict. The real risk the doves are running is being drawn INTO the conflict themselves.

Expecting the PRC to NOT launch cyber-probes against the United States is silly - we compete in way too many areas. However, when you get caught doing so, there IS a price to be paid for it.

#9 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,918 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:47

I'd wager almost all of the world's governments get involved in some forms of cyber warfare. No shock at all really.

#10 ramesees

ramesees

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 01
  • OS: Windows Server 2008 R2

Posted 28 February 2013 - 21:51

Why wouldn't it?

Part of the problem (at least for the more dovish Neowinians) is that they realize that - when it has a mind to, the United States military has proven itself to be extremely competent in the application of military force - as has Israel. Those that would adversely counter the United States (or Israel) have to account for that - which is proving to be a LOT harder than countering the British Empire in its heyday. Therefore, in order to counter either (or both, since they ARE allies) you have to move the field of battle to one where their advantage is not as great.

However, real-world conflict is not like a video/computer game (RUSE, for example), where one side is forced to battle under a handicapping system; the handicap must either be imposed by one side upon the other or from outside the field of conflict. The real risk the doves are running is being drawn INTO the conflict themselves.

Expecting the PRC to NOT launch cyber-probes against the United States is silly - we compete in way too many areas. However, when you get caught doing so, there IS a price to be paid for it.


Oh no I get that, its more the "turnabout is fair play" line that people use.

For example, USA attack a country for reason X.
That country then attacks the US.

As long as at this point those in the US can say "turnabout is fair play" and not "OMG kill the terrorists for attacking us" etc.... but at least realise there is a price to pay then that's fine.

#11 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • 8,706 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 28 February 2013 - 22:58

Oh no I get that, its more the "turnabout is fair play" line that people use.

For example, USA attack a country for reason X.
That country then attacks the US.

As long as at this point those in the US can say "turnabout is fair play" and not "OMG kill the terrorists for attacking us" etc.... but at least realise there is a price to pay then that's fine.


We realize it just fine - after all., every war that we have been involved in comes BACK to that (surprisingly, that ALSO includes Iraq and Afghanistan); however, our adversaries and critics largely don't. think that way.

There's still a lot of "dukes and earls" thinking (dates back to feudalism), where the citizenry are regarded by the government as (property) to be used - not a resource to be treasured and protected.

Typically, when the United States gets involved, it's not with the PEOPLE of the region. but the "duke" or "earl" that gave the order FOR the attack.. (That is why even al Quaida has gone multi-headed - the splinters that leave the United States or its allies alone have not been getting drone strikes. Our involvement in Iraq was not a general war against the Iraqi people - it was specifically against Saddam himself and his backers.) Those that rely on nationalistic or imperialistic fervor to foment military or other action are quite aware, thank you, that the United States doesn't historically BUY the "attack me and you attack my people" argument typically used by the Assads, Saddams, and leaders of that ilk - we haven't bought that as a military since the Civil War. However, lots of Europe still seems to buy it.

#12 ramesees

ramesees

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 01
  • OS: Windows Server 2008 R2

Posted 28 February 2013 - 23:20

We realize it just fine - after all., every war that we have been involved in comes BACK to that (surprisingly, that ALSO includes Iraq and Afghanistan); however, our adversaries and critics largely don't. think that way.

There's still a lot of "dukes and earls" thinking (dates back to feudalism), where the citizenry are regarded by the government as (property) to be used - not a resource to be treasured and protected.

Typically, when the United States gets involved, it's not with the PEOPLE of the region. but the "duke" or "earl" that gave the order FOR the attack.. (That is why even al Quaida has gone multi-headed - the splinters that leave the United States or its allies alone have not been getting drone strikes. Our involvement in Iraq was not a general war against the Iraqi people - it was specifically against Saddam himself and his backers.) Those that rely on nationalistic or imperialistic fervor to foment military or other action are quite aware, thank you, that the United States doesn't historically BUY the "attack me and you attack my people" argument typically used by the Assads, Saddams, and leaders of that ilk - we haven't bought that as a military since the Civil War. However, lots of Europe still seems to buy it.


I'm guessing that's how the US government sees its own citizens then:

http://www.dailymail...ing-attack.html

As it has no trouble sending drones off to kill them even on American soil.
Of course for now they are "Al Qaeda" "terrorists" - how long before that word gets used for its true purpose and becomes to mean anyone anti-government or who questions government policy ?

Which "duke" will the US be targeting then, as it will be "people" that are getting blown to bits from the sky ?

#13 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 01 March 2013 - 01:29

Of course they would say that.