Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
gameboy1977

China says US-based hackers attack its military websites

13 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.co.uk/news/article-2273643/White-House-calls-drone-strikes-Americans-U-S-soil-legal-ethical-wise--evidence-pending-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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they would say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.