recentpopularlog in

jerryking : adversaries   20

Consciously decoupling the US economy
December 1 , 2019 | Financial Times | Rana Foroohar.

The US is economically decoupling from the rest of the world.....Europe is being pulled into China’s technology orbit via the 5G standards and technologies that make up part of the Belt and Road Initiative......one of the most important things the US could do right now to ensure both national security and its own position in the 21st-century digital economy would be to work with allies on transatlantic standards for emerging technologies like 5G, artificial intelligence and so on....... decoupling is no longer a fringe idea......the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is now admitting that we are in a more fragmented world — one that won’t reset to the 1990s — and advocating what amounts to a US industrial policy--- a major shift in thinking. Deglobalisation, the idea of the US and China decoupling economically, is now mainstream.....heightened awareness of the relationship between national security and technology........it is becoming a given that the US needs a more coherent national economic strategy in a world in which state capitalism is in the ascendant. The question is how to get there. And that’s where the internal contradictions in America’s laissez-faire, free-market system start to become a problem......what role should government play?........What should the private sector expect from government and what should they be willing to do in exchange (e.g. Will FAANG repatriate profits to the U.S.? Will Silicon Valley and Wall Street volunteer to retrain the millions of underemployed millennials? How can we move from 40 years of supply-side thinking that has benefited multinational companies, towards something that better supports local economies and workers? ...if America is going to compete with a state-run economy like China in the digital era — one that seems to support a winner-takes-all dynamic — we are going to need bigger, public-sector directed shifts.
5G  adversaries  CFR  China  China_rising  decoupling  deglobalization  digital_economy  industrial_policies  military-industrial_complex  multinationals  new_tech_Cold_War  One_Belt_One_Road  public_sector  Rana_Foroohar  security_&_intelligence  state_capitalism  supply_chains  tariffs  technical_standards  technology  U.S.-China_relations  winner-take-all 
11 weeks ago by jerryking
Vulnerable satellites: the emerging arms race in space
November 12, 2019 | Financial Times Michael Peel in Brussels, Christian Shepherd in Beijing and Aime Williams in Washington.
Achilles’_heel  adversaries  arms_race  China  defensive_tactics  dual-use  Norway  resilience  Russia  satellites  Security_&_Intelligence  space  space_warfare  U.S._Space_Command  vulnerabilities 
november 2019 by jerryking
US navy secretary warns of ‘fragile’ supply chain
November 4, 2019 | Financial Times | by Peter Spiegel and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York.

Richard Spencer says America is at risk of relying on China and Russia for critical warship components.....many contractors are reliant on single suppliers for certain high-tech and high-precision parts, increasing the likelihood they would have to be procured from geostrategic rivals.......moreover, China (Beijing) was trying to “weaponize capital” through its Belt and Road Initiative whereby Beijing offers developing countries “loan to own” debt that they could not pay back in order to gain leverage over critical assets.....efforts to improve the domestic supply chain have been hampered by repeated government shutdowns and haphazard federal budgeting in recent years......undermining the ability to convince domestic suppliers that there will be a steady stream of business for them if they invest in building out their manufacturing capabilities......the Secretary of the U.S. Navy has recently launched a “trusted capital” programme whereby large private equity firms are invited to bid on failing or non-existent supply needs in areas from ship maintenance to weapons manufacturing.
adversaries  China  developing_countries  fragility  industrial_policies  maritime  military-industrial_complex  One_Belt_One_Road  precision  private_equity  rivalries  Russia  security_&_intelligence  supply_chains  U.S._Navy  SPOF 
november 2019 by jerryking
Opinion | Dealing With China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
Oct. 9, 2019 | The New York Times | By Farhad Manjoo.

We thought economic growth and technology would liberate China. Instead, it corrupted us.

The People’s Republic of China is the largest, most powerful and arguably most brutal totalitarian state in the world. It denies basic human rights to all of its nearly 1.4 billion citizens. There is no freedom of speech, thought, assembly, religion, movement or any semblance of political liberty in China. Under Xi Jinping, “president for life,” the CCP has built the most technologically sophisticated repression machine the world has ever seen. In Xinjiang, in Western China, the government is using technology to mount a cultural genocide against the Muslim Uighur minority that is even more total than the one it carried out in Tibet. Human rights experts say that more than a million people are being held in detention camps in Xinjiang, two million more are in forced “re-education,” and everyone else is invasively surveilled via ubiquitous cameras, artificial intelligence and other high-tech means.

None of this is a secret. Under Xi, China has grown markedly more Orwellian;......Why do we give China a pass? In a word: capitalism. Because for 40 years, the West’s relationship with China has been governed by a strategic error the dimensions of which are only now coming into horrific view.......A parade of American presidents on the left and the right argued that by cultivating China as a market — hastening its economic growth and technological sophistication while bringing our own companies a billion new workers and customers — we would inevitably loosen the regime’s hold on its people....the West’s entire political theory about China has been spectacularly wrong. China has engineered ferocious economic growth in the past half century, lifting hundreds of millions of its citizens out of miserable poverty. But China’s growth did not come at any cost to the regime’s political chokehold....It is also now routinely corrupting the rest of us outside of China......the N.B.A.’s hasty and embarrassing apology this week after Daryl Morey, the Houston Rockets’ general manager, tweeted — and quickly deleted — a message in support of Hong Kong’s protesters......The N.B.A. is far from the first American institution to accede to China’s limits on liberty. Hollywood, large tech companies and a variety of consumer brands — from Delta to Zara — have been more than willing to play ball. The submission is spreading: .....This sort of corporate capitulation is hardly surprising. For Western companies, China is simply too big and too rich a market to ignore, let alone to pressure or to police. .....it will only get worse from here, and we are fools to play this game. There is a school of thought that says America should not think of China as an enemy. With its far larger population, China’s economy will inevitably come to eclipse ours, but that is hardly a mortal threat. In climate change, the world faces a huge collective-action problem that will require global cooperation. According to this view, treating China like an adversary will only frustrate our own long-term goals......this perspective leaves out the threat that greater economic and technological integration with China poses to everyone outside of China. It ignores the ever-steeper capitulation that China requires of its partners. And it overlooks the most important new factor in the Chinese regime’s longevity: the seductive efficiency that technology offers to effect a breathtaking new level of control over its population......Through online surveillance, facial recognition, artificial intelligence and the propagandistic gold mine of social media, China has mobilized a set of tools that allow it to invisibly, routinely repress its citizens and shape political opinion by manipulating their feelings and grievances on just about any controversy.....Chinese-style tech-abetted surveillance authoritarianism could become a template for how much of the world works.
adversaries  artificial_intelligence  authoritarianism  brands  capitalism  capitulation  China  China_rising  Chinese_Communist_Party  climate_change  collective_action  cultural_genocide  decoupling  despots  errors  facial_recognition  Farhad_Manjoo  freedom  Hollywood  Hong_Kong  human_rights  influence  NBA  op-ed  Orwell  propaganda  repression  self-corruption  surveillance  surveillance_state  technology  threats  Tibet  totalitarianism  tyranny  Uyghurs  unintended_consequences  values  Xi_Jinping 
october 2019 by jerryking
Andrew Marshall, Pentagon’s Threat Expert, Dies at 97 - The New York Times
By Julian E. Barnes
March 26, 2019

Andrew Marshall, a Pentagon strategist who helped shape U.S. military thinking on the Soviet Union, China and other global competitors for more than four decades, has died. He was 97. Mr. Marshall, as director of the Office of Net Assessment, was the secretive futurist of the Pentagon, a long-range thinker who prodded and inspired secretaries of defense and high-level policymakers.......Marshall was revered in the DoD as a mysterious Yoda-like figure who embodied an exceptionally long institutional memory.......... Marshall's view of China as a potential strategic adversary, an idea now at the heart of national defense strategy....Through his many hires and Pentagon grants..... Mr. Marshall trained a coterie of experts and strategists in Washington and beyond.....he cultivated thinking that looked beyond the nation’s immediate problems and sought to press military leaders to approach long-term challenges differently......His gift was the framing of the question, the discovery of the critical question..... always picking the least studied and most strategically significant subjects....Marshall’s career as a strategic thinker began in 1949 at the RAND Corporation, where his theory of competitive strategies took root. Borrowing from business school theories of how corporations compete against each other, Mr. Marshall argued that nations are also in strategic competition with one another. “His favorite example was if you can pit your strengths against someone else’s weakness and get them to respond in a way that makes them weaker and weaker, you can put them out of business without ever fighting,”....He had early insight into the economic troubles the Soviet Union was having, and helped develop strategies to exacerbate those problems and help bring about the demise of the Soviet Union....In 2009, Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary at the time, asked Mr. Marshall to write a classified strategy on China with Gen. Jim Mattis, the future defense secretary.
adversaries  assessments_&_evaluations  China  China_rising  classified  economists  éminence_grise  future  futurists  inspiration  institutional_memory  long-range  long-term  obituaries  Pentagon  policymakers  problem_framing  RAND  rising_powers  Robert_Gates  SecDef  security_&_intelligence  strategic_thinking  threats  trailblazers  uChicago 
march 2019 by jerryking
Can Trump Handle a Foreign Crisis?
Feb. 7, 2019 | WSJ | By Peggy Noonan.

He’ll face one eventually, and there’s good reason to worry the administration will be unprepared.

Someday this White House will face a sudden, immediate and severe foreign-policy crisis..... past and present officials of this administration are concerned on how the White House would handle a crisis......History resides in both the unexpected and the long-predicted. Russia moves against a U.S. ally, testing Washington’s commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty; a coordinated cyber action by our adversaries takes down the American grid; China, experiencing political unrest within a background of a slowing economy, decides this is a good time to move on Taiwan; someone bombs Iran’s missile sites; Venezuela explodes in violence during a military crackdown; there’s an accidental launch somewhere..... historian Margaret MacMillan said ....“I think we should never underestimate the sheer role of accident.”....Everything depends on personnel, process and planning. The president and his top advisers have to work closely, with trust and confidence, quickly comprehending the shape of the challenge and its implications. There must be people around him with wisdom, judgment, experience. They must know their jobs and be able to execute them under pressure. Clear lines of communication are key between both individuals and agencies.....keep their eyes on the million moving pieces, military and diplomatic, that comprise a strategy.......During the Berlin airlift, thought at the time to be the height of the Cold War, Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who’d been Army chief of staff during World War II, was asked how worried he was. “I’ve seen worse,” he replied. He had. ......“No administration is ready for its first crisis,” says Richard Haass, who was a member of George H.W. Bush’s NSC and is author of “A World in Disarray.” “What you learn is that the machinery isn’t adequate, or people aren’t ready.” First crises trigger reforms of procedures so that second ones are better handled. ......There is no way, really, to simulate a crisis, because you don’t know what’s coming, and key people are busy doing their regular jobs. And all administrations, up until the point they’re tested, tend to be overconfident. What can they do to be readier? Think, study, talk and plan.....For a modern example of good process, personnel and management, there is the Cuban missile crisis. .....the stakes couldn’t have been higher.......It might be good to have regular situation-room meetings on what-ifs, and how to handle what-ifs, and to have deep contingency planning with intelligence, military and civilian leaders discussing scenarios. “Put yourself in a position,” says Mr. Haass, “where you’re less unread when a crisis does occur.”.......Margaret MacMillan again: People not only get used to peace and think it’s “the normal state of affairs,” they get used to the idea that any crisis can be weathered, because they have been in the past. But that’s no guarantee of anything, is it?
adversaries  chance  contingency_planning  crisis  Donald_Trump  U.S.foreign_policy  JFK  Margaret_MacMillan  overconfidence  Richard_Haass  security_&_intelligence  unexpected  White_House  unprepared  accidents  Cuban_Missile_Crisis  luck  Peggy_Noonan  preparation  readiness  George_Marshall  normality  unforeseen 
february 2019 by jerryking
Globalised business is a US security issue | Financial Times
Rana Foroohar YESTERDAY

there is a much broader group of people in both the public and the private sector who would like to reverse the economic integration of China and the US for strategic reasons..... a two-day event sponsored late last month by the National Defense University, which brings together military and civilian leaders to discuss the big challenges of the day. Dozens of experts, government officials, and business leaders gathered to talk about the decline in the post-second world war order, the rise of China, and how the US could strengthen its manufacturing and defence industries. The goal would be to create resilient supply chains that could withstand not just a trade war, but an actual war......“If you accept as your starting point that we are in a great power struggle [with China and Russia], then you have to think about securing the innovation base, making viable the industrial base, and scaling it all,”....Included on the event’s reading list was Freedom’s Forge, which outlines the role that US business — notably carmakers — played in gearing up the US for war in the early 1940s. At that time, because of the depth and breadth of the auto industry’s manufacturing and logistical might, the sector was viewed as being just as important to national security as steel and aluminium.

That is not to say the US security community is pro-tariffs or trade war .... But there is a growing group of thoughtful people who believe that American national security interests will require a forcible untangling of the investment and supply chain links between the US and China. They point to high-tech areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous vehicles, virtual reality, financial technology and biotech as important not only to the military but also for private sector growth.....While America’s military is still figuring out how make sure its supply chains are not controlled by strategic adversaries, the Chinese have played a much more sophisticated long game. The difference can be summed up in two words: industrial policy. China has one. The US doesn’t. The US has always steered away from a formal policy because critics see it as the government “picking winners”. But the Chinese don’t so much pick winners as use a co-ordinated approach to harnessing the technologies they need. They do it not only through investments and acquisitions but also through forced joint ventures, industrial espionage, and cybertheft [jk: predatory practices].....many multinationals were shortening their supply chains even before the current trade conflicts.

It is a trend that will probably speed up. Multinational companies, much more than domestically focused ones, will suffer collateral damage from tariffs. They will also be a major target of Chinese backlash. Anecdotally, this is already leading some groups to shift production from China to other countries, like Vietnam. If the military-industrial complex in the US has its way, those supply chains might move even closer to home.
adversaries  anecdotal  automotive_industry  books  China  China_rising  collateral_damage  co-ordinated_approaches  cybertheft  economic_integration  industrial_espionage  industrial_policies  military-industrial_complex  multinationals  predatory_practices  Rana_Foroohar  WWII  security_&_intelligence  supply_chains  trade_wars  U.S.  U.S.-China_relations 
july 2018 by jerryking
Security Breach and Spilled Secrets Have Shaken the N.S.A. to Its Core
NOV. 12, 2017 | The New York Times | By SCOTT SHANE, NICOLE PERLROTH and DAVID E. SANGER.

“These leaks have been incredibly damaging to our intelligence and cyber capabilities,” said Leon E. Panetta, the former defense secretary and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. “The fundamental purpose of intelligence is to be able to effectively penetrate our adversaries in order to gather vital intelligence. By its very nature, that only works if secrecy is maintained and our codes are protected.”
adversaries  data_breaches  hacking  vulnerabilities  counterintelligence  counterespionage  moles  malware  ransomware  Fedex  Mondelez  Edward_Snowden  security_&_intelligence  Russia  Leon_Panetta  NSA  cyber_security  cyber_warfare  cyberweapons  tools  David_Sanger  SecDef  CIA 
november 2017 by jerryking
Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons - The New York Times
By NICOLE PERLROTH and DAVID E. SANGER JUNE 28, 2017

The Petya ransomware attack....was built on cyberweapons (i.e. hacking tools that exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft software) stolen from the NSA in 2016 by Shadow Brokers and made public in April 2017. Now those weapons are being deployed against various U.S. partners include the United Kingdom and Ukraine.....there is growing concern that United States intelligence agencies have rushed to create digital weapons that they cannot keep safe from adversaries or disable once they fall into the wrong hands..... the government “employs a disciplined, high-level interagency decision-making process for disclosure of known vulnerabilities” in software, “unlike any other country in the world.”....Officials fret that the potential damage from the Shadow Brokers leaks could go much further, and the agency’s own weaponry could be used to destroy critical infrastructure in allied nations or in the United States.

“Whether it’s North Korea, Russia, China, Iran or ISIS, almost all of the flash points out there now involve a cyber element,” Leon E. Panetta, the former defense secretary and Central Intelligence Agency chief.....viruses can suddenly mutate into other areas you didn’t intend, more and more,” Mr. Panetta said. “That’s the threat we’re going to face in the near future.”..... ransomware that recently gained the most attention in the Ukraine attack is believed to have been a smoke screen for a deeper assault aimed at destroying victims’ computers entirely. .....Mr. Panetta was among the officials warning years ago of a “cyber Pearl Harbor” that could bring down the American power grid. But he and others never imagined that those same enemies might use the N.S.A.’s own cyberweapons.....rogue actors actors, like North Korea and segments of the Islamic State, who have access to N.S.A. tools who don’t care about economic and other ties between nation states,”.....So long as flaws in computer code exist to create openings for digital weapons and spy tools, security experts say, the N.S.A. is not likely to stop hoarding software vulnerabilities any time soon.
adversaries  CIA  computer_viruses  cyberattacks  cyberthreats  cyberweapons  David_Sanger  exploits  hackers  Leon_Panetta  malware  NSA  North_Korea  Pentagon  power_grid  ransomware  rogue_actors  security_&_intelligence  SecDef  vulnerabilities 
june 2017 by jerryking
U.S. Cyber Command Chief on What Threats to Fear the Most - WSJ
June 19, 2016 | WSJ |

But the types of threats that we worry most about today that are new are adversaries taking full control of our networks, losing control of our networks, having a hacker appear to be a trusted user......MS. BLUMENSTEIN: Extraordinary investments are required now for cybersecurity. But looked at another way, there’s an extraordinary cost to getting it wrong.

I was talking to one of the CFOs out there who said, “Can you ask, what is the estimated loss?” Is there a total number? Or do you just know specific incidences?

On the military side, you can imagine the difficulty that would cause a commander, if he didn’t trust his own network or his data.
adversaries  cyber_security  cyber_warfare  threats  North_Korea  ISIS  network_risk  capabilities  Russia  China  Sony  data  Pentagon  U.S._Cyber_Command  cyberattacks 
june 2016 by jerryking
Software as Weaponry in a Computer-Connected World - The New York Times
JUNE 7, 2016 | NYT | By NICOLE PERLROTH.

On average, there are 15 to 50 defects per 1,000 lines of code in delivered software, according to Steve McConnell, the author of “Code Complete.” Today, most of the applications we rely on — Google Chrome, Microsoft, Firefox and Android — contain millions of lines of code. And the complexity of technology is increasing, and with it the potential for defects.

The motivation to find exploitable defects in widely used code has never been higher. Governments big and small are stockpiling vulnerabilities and exploits in hardware, software, applications, algorithms and even security defenses like firewalls and antivirus software.

They are using these holes to monitor their perceived enemies, and many governments are storing them for a rainy day, when they might just have to drop a payload that disrupts or degrades an adversary’s transportation, energy or financial system.

They are willing to pay anyone who can find and exploit these weaknesses top dollar to hand them over, and never speak a word to the companies whose programmers inadvertently wrote them into software in the first place.
adversaries  software  hackers  books  coding  vulnerabilities  exploits  software_bugs  bounties  black_markets  arms_race  cyber_warfare  cyber_security  Stuxnet  espionage  Iran  security_&_intelligence  malware  cyberweapons  weaponry  stockpiles  financial_system 
june 2016 by jerryking
In High Seas, China Moves Unilaterally - NYTimes.com
By JANE PERLEZ and KEITH BRADSHERMAY 9, 2014

Vietnam has proved to be a tougher adversary, sending out its own ships to meet the Chinese flotilla and, according to Chinese government reports, using them to ram Chinese ships as many as 171 times in four days.

A prominent Vietnamese political analyst, Nguyen Quang A, summarized the standoff this way: “Invasion is in their blood, and resistance is in our blood.”

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Advertisement


The timing of the move was perceived by some in the region as a test not only of the ability of Southeast Asian nations to stand up to their far more powerful northern neighbor, but also of President Obama’s resolve less than a month after he promised to support American allies in Asia as they deal with a stronger China.

China’s action was almost certainly a long-term plan — the deployment of a deep water drilling rig takes months of preparation.
adversaries  China  China_rising  CNOC  maritime  oil_industry  Vietnam  SOEs  South_China_Sea 
may 2014 by jerryking
Ottawa set to ban Chinese firm from telecommunications bid - The Globe and Mail
STEVEN CHASE

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Wednesday, Oct. 10 2012

One presentation, which discusses the damage foreign adversaries can inflict on computer systems, mentions the "Farewell dossier" incident. That was a Cold War episode in which the Central Intelligence Agency was reported to have deliberately transferred faulty technology to the Soviets – including a computer virus that triggered a major pipeline explosion.
computer_viruses  cyber_security  Huawei  adversaries  malware  software_bugs  vulnerabilities 
october 2012 by jerryking
Barack Obama: Taking the Cyberattack Threat Seriously - WSJ.com
July 19, 2012 | WSJ| Barack Obama

In a future conflict, an adversary unable to match our military supremacy on the battlefield might seek to exploit our computer vulnerabilities here at home.
adversaries  cyber_security  cyber_warfare  Obama  simulations  vulnerabilities  asymmetrical  cyberattacks 
july 2012 by jerryking
Lost in Space | Hoover Institution
January 25, 2007 | WSJ | by Bruce Berkowitz.

First, it is not especially difficult to make a “killer satellite.” If a country can build a satellite, it can easily build one that can approach another satellite and destroy it. Modern guidance technology is widely available and more accurate than ever. Conversely, it is impossible to ban killer satellites without banning all satellites. Even if a country did not build a dedicated killer and train its operators, the skills for nonmilitary space rendezvous, docking, and refueling are the same.

Second, because these technologies and skills are interchangeable, it is impossible to verify a ban on killer satellites. Unverifiable treaties are worse than no treaties at all because they offer the illusion of control where none exists.

Third, the Chinese test is not a major step in “militarizing space.” Space is already heavily militarized. Most major military powers use satellite-based systems for communications, navigation, and imagery. It’s all available from commercial vendors. The United States may operate more satellites than any other country, but it is not uniquely dependent on them.

Fourth, even if one were to somehow ban killer satellites, there are many other ways to deny an adversary the use of space—for example, by bombing an enemy’s ground stations or jamming the radio links used to command satellites. So, even if a ban on killer satellites were possible, it would not solve the vulnerability problem.
adversaries  China  satellites  space  space_warfare  vulnerabilities 
october 2011 by jerryking
TheAtlantic.com :: Magazine :: How We Would Fight China
June 2005 | Atlantic | By Robert D. Kaplan. The Middle East is
just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific
will define the 21st century. And China will be a more formidable
adversary than Russia ever was. How should the United States prepare to
respond to challenges in the Pacific? (1) Understand is that the
alliance system of the latter half of the twentieth century is dead.(2)
the functional substitute for a NATO of the Pacific is PACOM.(3)
Ironically, NATO, could be revived by the Cold War in the Pacific.
Bismarck brought peace and prosperity to Central Europe by recognizing
that when power relationships are correctly calibrated, wars tend to be
avoided..."Getting into a war with China is easy," says Michael Vickers,
the dilemma is, How do you end a war with China?"
adversaries  balance_of_power  Bismarck  calibration  China  China_rising  howto  PACOM  rising_powers  Robert_Kaplan  U.S._Navy 
march 2010 by jerryking
Letters to the Editor - Magazine - The Atlantic
Sept. 2005 | Atlantic | Assorted letters w.r.t Robert Kaplan's
cover story "How We Would Fight China" (June). "I believe that China's
intentions are much more defensive than offensive. But the U.S. mil.
must plan according to the capabilities of rising powers with which we
do not have alliances—because intentions and motives can shift
overnight. Although China's intentions may be good, PACOM would not be
doing its job for the taxpayers unless it planned for that to change."
"Of course, diplomacy will provide the ultimate solution in the Pacific,
but in order to avoid tragedy the military must think tragically.
Getting that right increases the credibility of our diplomacy. " "The fundamental driver of Chinese for. policy is not rapacious expansionism or Bismarckian realpolitik...China's for. policy is.. an extension of its domestic politics, specifically the ambition of the Communist Party to retain its pre-eminence despite the ongoing and wholesale transformation of Chinese society."
adversaries  Bismarck  capabilities  China  China_rising  expansionism  intentions  letters_to_the_editor  maritime  motives  PACOM  rapaciousness  rising_powers  realpolitik  Robert_Kaplan  South_China_Sea  thinking_tragically  U.S._Navy 
march 2010 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read