Hacking incidents and the rise of the new Chinese bogeyman

So... here's the thing. "Cyberwarfare" is primarily data theft/information control but can also involve real danger like control of electrical grids, water supplies, and centrifuges for highly radioactive materials, to mention a few. Sure, information warfare has been going on a long time, and, sure, each major country does it.<p>But, when the world economy is teetering/has teetered and it's not clear how things will pan out, that is when wars start.<p>Now add to that that introduction of new disruptive technology is soon after used in war, and you have a problem that can't be whitewashed with a post like this.<p>Think about aviation. When I hear aviation, I think of the Wright Brothers- but what's next? Commercial flight? No, I think of bi-planes, the Red Baron, the use of aviation in the military, and war. The time period between the flight by the Wright Brothers in December 17, 1903 to the start of World War I on July 28, 1914 was 11 years. 11 years! Aviation didn't spawn world war, but you have to know that it contributed its part.<p>Think about the race for the bomb. And, what did we do when we finally had the technology? We dropped two of them.<p>It's sad to say, but the use of internet technology by the military is inevitable. The U.S. isn't trying to start a fight by identifying that China has state-sponsored attacks on American businesses. The fact is that even though we still somewhat live in a Cold war era (it never really ended) and to large extent, <i>no one</i> wants to see another bomb go off, the fact is, this shit is real. There is a power struggle on Earth and we've been a part of it since we were born. The internet binds us all together and helps us communicate our thoughts, fears, etc. and I want no part of a world war. But this "new war" has been in-progress for some time now and people have learned its ways and are using them. These little events like publically identifying centrifuges going down or that China is truly state-sponsoring attacks might not be Normandy or Gettysberg, but saying these are non-events is no better than hiding your head under the covers.

This commentator is playing fast and loose with the facts. Statements like "...To date, the largest documented offensive cyber operations in the world were conducted by the USA..." revolve around what you mean by the word "documented", as neither side has admitted anything. This article is full of that kind of thing. Prevarication "everybody has a cyber espionage unit" and more.<p>More troubling is the substitution of the narrative for the analysis. Look, I'm a firm believer that something like the military-industrial complex has been long-running in the states, but don't get your causality mixed up.<p>Put differently, even paranoid people have enemies. Even states engaged in fear-mongering have things to fear. The two are not mutually exclusive, and simply because it might be hip to start using the phrase "military digital complex" doesn't mean that there aren't real threats. We begin to substitute slogans for analysis. That's bad.<p>I have been expecting more apologia for the Chinese on HN, but probably because of the technical nature of those who post here, they haven't got a lot of traction. Good. From what I can see, the Chinese are most likely engaged in serious and ongoing state-sponsored attacks against many western targets. I understand that the details of these attacks are going to leak out slowly over the next several years, and that's fine with me.<p>I really wish the spirit of what this author saying was true -- that this is all just ginned up. I really do.<p>But it's not.

There are two schools of thought in regards to China -- that of a resurgent dragon, the other of a "benign China." Even after the Mandiant report, the latter aren't convinced. They won't change their minds until they are targeted (almost a certainty) -- I'm fine with that.