Cyber Warfare; should you be worried?
[URL="http://usdefensewatch.com/2016/09/cyber-warfare-should-you-be-worried/"]By Joe Ragonese[/URL]
[IMG]http://usdefensewatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/china-US-cyber-warfare-1024x550.jpg[/IMG]
What is cyber warfare and why should you care? That question was one that this writer asked himself many times. I thought that it had to do with someone stealing my personal identity. You know, opening a charge account in my name or emptying out my bank account. I, probably like many reading this, paid no attention to it until recently being hit with someone emptying out my bank account. And then, like the proverbial person who closes the gate after all of the horses have escaped, did I try to learn more about it.
While there are no easy answers to identity theft, this writer learned that cyber warfare is real, affects all of us in a myriad of ways, and is definitely something to know about. The first hint about cyber warfare came about during President Obama’s first term. In 2010 someone on the Obama staff leaked about the use of the Stuxnet worm to counter criticism about his inaction against Iran’s building of a nuclear bomb. Knowledge of the worm, and its usage was classified at the highest level; however, due to Obama’s falling popularity, the program was leaked to the Washington Post.
Until the leak, the Iranians had no knowledge that they were targeted. Afterwards, they were able to clear the worm and finally made rapid progress toward developing an atomic bomb. The breach in security was made to prop up Obama’s image. The end result of such an egregious treason was that the world is now a much more dangerous place. The stories all extolled about how tough the President was on Iran’s nuclear program. Of course, investigation later proved that Stuxnet was developed and put into use jointly between Israeli and U.S. Cyberwar agents under President Bush. Obama only took credit when it suited his political image at home.
The next hint came in 2014, when it was widely reported that North Korean cyber agents had attacked Sony Corporation because its movie unit was producing a film that was critical of North Korea’s Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un. That cyber attack destroyed data, and disabled Sony’s computer system. Cyber agents were also able to hack into the email system of all of Sony Pictures employees, including actors, actresses and department heads, including its CEO. North Korea leaked several embarrassing emails, leading to CEO, Amy Pascal’s ouster over emails which were deemed racially insensitive about President Obama. In all, over 170,000 internal Sony Pictures emails were published by WilkiLeaks.
It has been reported that over 100 million Americans’ personal data has been compromised, leading President Obama to say, “These cyber threats are among the most urgent dangers to America’s economic and national security.” Last fall Ted Koppel, of television’s “Nightline” fame, wrote a book titled “Lights Out,” where he examined the consequences of future cyber attacks on our nation’s power grid(s). After interviewing a number of people from both the power companies and defense sector, he concluded, “It is not a matter of if the cyberattacks will happen, it’s a matter of when it will take place.”
George Cotter, a retired NSA top tech executive who now writes on cyber threats, wrote in April 2015, “The nation has little or no chance of withstanding a major cyberattack on the North American electrical system. When such an attack occurs, make no mistake, there will be substantial loss of life and serious crippling of National Security capabilities.” FEMA’s Craig Fugate said, “It quickly becomes a matter of keeping as many people from dying as possible.”
According to Richard Clarke, in his book, “Cyber Wars: the next threat to national security and what to do about it,” he speculates that if America attacks a rogue state, like ISIS, it could counterattack by cutting all of the power to Chicago or Los Angeles. He went on to write that the U.S. is more vulnerable than other nations because it has connected so much vital infrastructure to the Internet: including; electric power, pipelines, airlines, railroads, distribution of consumer goods and contractor support of the military.
If the power grid or grids were to be shut down, we would immediately be in a crisis situation. We would have no electricity. Refrigeration would stop, making all of our perishable food items, in our houses and in the grocery stores, spoil. Trains would stop running, causing food shortages within a few days. The trucking industry is much smaller than it was only eight years ago, due to Obama regulations putting so many out of business, and they could not take up the slack. In many places, like Los Angeles and Chicago, water would stop flowing through our pipes. Banks would close, as would gas stations, drug stores, supermarkets and every service that we now take for granted.
Could Germany’s call for its citizens to be prepared by stockpiling food and water, followed by the Czech Republic and Swiss governments not only calling for the stockpiling of food and water, but asking its citizens to arm themselves, be because they already know how vulnerable they are? Could it be that they know something is about to happen? The sub- division that this writer lives in recently distributed a flyer about this very subject and called on residents to stockpile at least 55 to 185 gallons of water, as well as enough non-perishable food items to last up to three weeks. What do they know?
The homeowners’ association concluded by explaining that in ancient Egypt, Joseph (no not me) stored food for seven years and when famine finally came, many lives were saved; including that of his own family. It may be wise to judge what will happen in the future by what has happened in the past. While we become complacent with how things are, today we live in a very connected world that is very dangerous and totally unpredictable.
France Preparing For “Civil War” Against Muslims
[URL="http://www.prisonplanet.com/prominent-author-france-preparing-for-civil-war-against-muslims.html"]Secret plan to “clean up” the country[/URL]
[IMG]http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/150916france1.jpg[/IMG]
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
September 15, 2016
French authorities are preparing for “civil war” against Muslims in order to “clean up” the country, according to prominent author Éric Zemmour, who claims a high placed government source told him of the plan.
Franco-Algerian Zemmour gave an interview with French radio station RTL during which he revealed details of a program called “Operation Ronces,” developed in coordination with the Israeli Army based on their experiences in Gaza.
The French government has been secretly preparing for a “civil war” against Muslims as a way to “clean up” the country in response to numerous riots and terror attacks in recent years, claims Zemmour, who characterizes the plan as a “new reconquista on their own soil”.
According to Speisa, Zemmour says “his source is high in the French command”.
Zemmour, who was a reporter for Le Figaro and appears as a guest on French current affairs shows, is a controversial figure and a strong opponent of immigration.
Zemmour’s warning is echoed by Patrick Calvar, who is the head of the Directorate General of Internal Security (DGSI). Calvar told members of a French parliamentary commission earlier this summer that France was “on the brink of civil war”.
As we reported back in July, following the Nice truck attack, Jonathan Miller, who is an elected council member in the French village of Caux, said that the attack had “shaken France to the brink of a terrifying escalation” and that citizens were responding by joining gun clubs.
As we also highlighted last year, French security forces are also preparing for mass civil unrest and radicalized immigrants taking over entire neighborhoods, according to intelligence sources.
Last week, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said that new terror attacks in France were inevitable and that 15,000 Islamists who are already living in the country were in the process of being radicalized.
How Donald Trump Could Wipe $420 Billion Off China's Exports
[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-14/how-donald-trump-could-wipe-420-billion-off-china-s-exports"]Victory for Donald Trump in the U.S. [/URL]presidential election could be a game changer for China's economy.
The candidate's promise to slap punitive tariffs on Chinese imports would be highly contractionary, deflationary and wipe hundreds of billions off the value of the world's second-biggest economy, according to new research by Kevin Lai, the Hong Kong-based chief economist for Asia (excluding Japan) at Daiwa Capital Markets.
Lai estimates that Trump's suggestion for a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods to narrow the trade deficit with America would spark an 87 percent decline in China's exports to the U.S. -- a decline of $420 billion. That would, over time and factoring in multiplier effects, mean a 4.82 percent blow to China's gross domestic product, or about a half trillion dollars' worth. It doesn't even take into account an estimated $426 billion in foreign direct investment repatriation if companies started to withdraw.
"A loss of GDP or a slowdown in GDP growth of this scale would be staggering," Lai wrote in a note entitled "What would a Trump presidency mean for China." "Eventually, Trump and his administration may actually compromise with a watered-down version of tariffs."
Still, even watered-down tariffs to 15 percent would result in a loss of GDP for China of 1.8 percent, again excluding the impact of foreign companies pulling out.
The tariff's would likely be placed on a wide range of goods from machinery and tools to toys and home appliances, according to Lai.
"These tariffs would certainly be detrimental for China, as they would for multinational companies operating in China. These companies would probably have to make plans to relocate to other countries. China would find itself losing to many other developing economies that were not being targeted by Trump."
There are other worries, too. Lai argued that China's balance of payments is a source of concern because of ongoing outflows and that the current account surplus looks vulnerable. Tariffs would bring more pressure and a risk of FDI repatriation that would widen the capital account deficit. Together, this dynamic would put downward pressure on the yuan.
According to statements on his website, Trump has promised to label China a currency manipulator and to "reclaim millions of American jobs and revive American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labour and environmental standards." The Republican Party nominee has argued that the yuan is as much as 40 percent undervalued deliberately to give exporters an advantage at the expense of American manufacturers.
[IMG]https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/itqG3sxg0GWI/v0/-1x-1.png[/IMG]
Lai said China's quasi-fixed-exchange-rate regime and regular intervention by the People's Bank of China did help limit the yuan's gains over the past 20 years. At the same time, ultra loose monetary policy in the U.S. supplied China with limitless dollars at a low cost and that China has recycled its surplus savings into funding the U.S. budget.
"Hence, it is really a chicken-and-egg question," Lai said.
[IMG]https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iZg5TJdvmvqM/v0/-1x-1.png[/IMG]
Add it all up and a victory for Trump could add severe pressure on China's economy in a period when it's already slowing.
"Obviously, the stakes are very high," Lai said.
How China Is Using Russia's Cold War Military Strategy to Challenge US Military Might
[URL="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-using-russias-cold-war-military-strategy-challenge-17687"]Christopher Cowan[/URL]
September 13, 2016
‘Anti-access/area denial’ (commonly known as A2/AD) has become a hot topic in recent years. Many have detailed the threats that A2/AD weapons systems pose to the US military, especially its aircraft carriers. But those threats aren’t new; A2AD campaigns have been waged since the Greco-Persian War. They aren’t even new threats to American aircraft carriers, which faced a similar threat from the Soviet Navy during the Cold War.
The Soviet Navy had two main objectives during the Cold War. One was to protect the Soviet Union’s ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to guarantee their survival as credible nuclear strike platforms. The other was to protect the Soviet homeland from strikes from NATO aircraft carriers and submarines.
A glance at a map reveals the challenge faced by the Soviet Navy in achieving these objectives. While the Soviet Union spanned the Eurasian landmass, its access to the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans was limited. Both the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea—each home to a Soviet fleet—had single entrances, creating chokepoints easily monitored by NATO forces. In the north, Soviet Northern Fleet vessels had to sortie through the Barents Sea and Norwegian Sea—areas of intense NATO naval activity—and then pass through the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom gap before they could reach the Atlantic Ocean. The Soviet Pacific Fleet had easier access to the ocean from its bases in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, but vessels based in Vladivostok had to transit Japanese waters to quickly reach the Pacific Ocean.
This was both a blessing and a curse for the Soviets. NATO naval vessels had to travel long distances to the Soviet Union’s littoral region to threaten the Soviet homeland or its SSBN bastions. Those positions were well within range of Soviet Naval Aviation aircraft. On the other hand, the same distances also made it difficult for the Soviet Navy to project power with its surface vessels. Soviet naval doctrine in the early part of the Cold War called for the Soviet Navy to challenge NATO vessels for control of the open ocean. However, various developments forced the Soviet Navy to fall back to an A2/AD strategy.
To protect the homeland and to secure its SSBN capability in the event of conflict, the Soviet Navy planned to deny NATO access to its littoral region and SSBN sanctuaries by creating a defensive perimeter up to 3,000 kilometres away from its shores. Defending the perimeter would’ve involved attacking NATO bases on the Soviet periphery, interdicting NATO submarines attempting to access Soviet SSBN sanctuaries, and attacking NATO surface vessels and carrier battle groups (CBGs) before they could access the Soviet littoral.
NATO naval and air bases encircled the Soviet Union, giving NATO naval forces jumping off points to the Soviet littoral. Striking those bases with cruise missiles launched from long range strike aircraft or submarines, as well as attacks by Special Forces, was seen as a good first step in limiting NATO naval access.
The NATO submarine threat required a different set of countermeasures. The Soviet Navy deployed maritime patrol aircraft and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) task forces—comprised of ASW surface vessels and aircraft carrying vessels with strong ASW capabilities—to patrol the SSBN bastions while Soviet attack submarines defended their approaches. The bastions were also lined with underwater sensors and heavily mined to further limit NATO submarines access.
Tracking CBGs at sea during the Cold War was difficult. To do that, the Soviet Navy created an extensive ocean surveillance system comprised of radar ocean reconnaissance satellites, electronic intelligence ocean reconnaissance satellites, surveillance surface vessels, and maritime patrol aircraft. These platforms were used to create a ‘kill chain’ that fed targeting data to Soviet strike aircraft and submarines, which could then attack NATO vessels with long range anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and torpedos.
How China Is Using Russia's Cold War Military Strategy to Challenge US Military Might
Christopher Cowan
September 13, 2016
[IMG]http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/tu-160_12956971034_0.jpg?itok=6e4vTsVN[/IMG]
If that all sounds familiar, it’s because China is currently attempting to do something very similar with its military modernization program. It appears to be creating a bastion for its growing fleet of SSBNs by building artificial islands, developing advanced sea mines, deploying underwater sensors, and investing heavily in improved ASW capabilities. It’s also developing a variety of long range anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) and ASCMs to threaten US forces in the Pacific and limit US access to its littoral region.
The concept’s the same, though new technologies have changed aspects of the execution. Developments in missile technology and maritime reconnaissance systems have made China’s ASBMs and ASCMs more accurate than their Soviet counterparts. And cyberspace and space-based assets, which were in their infancy during the Cold War, now play an increasingly critical role in modern day conflict.
Whether China’s A2/AD strategy will work is something we’ll only find out in the event of conflict. We still don’t know how effective the Soviets’ A2/AD strategy would’ve been because it was never tested in wartime. That’s not to say it wasn’t tested at all, as various American submarine commanders will tell you over a drink. Let’s hope that close encounters discussed at a Navy bar remain the only way these strategies are tested.
This first appeared in ASPI’s The Strategist here.
Duterte's tilt toward China upsets U.S. strategy in Asia
[URL="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-philippines-china-54011a2e-7b27-11e6-8064-c1ddc8a724bb-20160915-story.html"]Just when some of China's neighbors[/URL] were seeking to curtail its expansionism, along came Rodrigo Duterte.
In less than three months on the job, the 71 year-old Philippine leader has used expletives in talking about U.S. President Barack Obama and vowed to end cooperation with the U.S. military in both fighting terrorism and patrolling the disputed South China Sea. He's moved to boost economic and defense ties with China and Russia.
While Duterte is unpredictable -- one day calling China "generous" and the next threatening a "bloody" war if Beijing attacked -- his behavior has undermined U.S. efforts to rally nations from Japan to Vietnam to Australia to stand up to China's military assertiveness.
In doing so, he risks shifting from the 1951 Philippine-U.S. defense treaty, which has been a bedrock of American influence in the region. While Duterte has said he'll respect the alliance he's repeatedly stressed the need for an "independent foreign policy" and questioned America's willingness to intervene if China were to seize territory in the South China Sea.
"This could be the game changer for the South China Sea situation in general and Sino-U.S. regional competition specifically," said Zhang Baohui, director of the Center for Asian Pacific Studies at Lingnan University in Hong Kong. "Duterte's foreign policy may dramatically shift the geostrategic picture of the region, leaving China in an advantageous position versus the United States."
One of the biggest benefits for China is the potential for a deal over the South China Sea. Just weeks after Duterte took office in late June, an international arbitration panel ruled that China's claims to most of the waterway had no legal basis -- a win for the Philippines in a case brought by Duterte's predecessor.
While Duterte has said he'll respect the ruling, he's signaled he's open to talks with China, the country's biggest trading partner, and he did not push for the ruling to be mentioned in the communique last week from a summit of Southeast Asian leaders in Laos. Before taking office, he said he'd consider setting aside territorial disagreements to get a Chinese-built railway.
In July, Duterte sent former President Fidel Ramos to Hong Kong to explore common ground with China. Ramos later called for a bigger role for the Philippines under China's plan to link ports and other trading hubs throughout Asia to Europe.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said on Wednesday that China is aware of reports on Duterte's comments regarding military cooperation, but had no specifics. She said that China "will work with the Philippines to promote and renew normal exchanges and cooperation in different fields."
"Let's not be naive about this, there's no other country that will benefit from our differences with the U.S. and our other allies but China," said Lauro Baja, a former Foreign Affairs undersecretary who served as the Philippine permanent representative to the United Nations under ex-President Gloria Arroyo. "Whether we like it or not, we're sending the wrong message to the U.S., China and our other allies with these actions and pronouncements."
China claims sovereignty over all features that lie within a nine-dash line drawn on a 1940s map enclosing more than 80 percent of the South China Sea. It says that gives it the right to interdict military ships close to its territory -- a position the U.S. opposes.
Fu Ying, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee of China's top lawmaking body, this month framed U.S.-China tensions in the South China Sea as a fight over the freedom of navigation for naval warships and other non-commercial vessels within the 200 nautical-mile exclusive economic zones of coastal states.
"The Chinese want the South China Sea to become a Chinese strait, with control of the maritime space and the air space above it," said Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in Canberra. "That is the long-term game, and flipping Duterte over to Beijing's side is part of the play."
China's land reclamation and military buildup in the waters has in recent years pushed some neighbors closer to the U.S. The Obama administration has boosted military cooperation with nations such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Singapore, and Japan.
Still, at the summit last week in Laos, a spat with Obama over Duterte's war on drugs and the thousands of deaths it has caused overshadowed any criticism of China.
"That's a very bad scenario," said Hideki Makihara, a senior lawmaker in Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party, referring to a potential Philippine strategic alignment with China. In that case, "at least we need Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries surrounding the South China Sea in our group," he said in an interview this week in Tokyo.
For now, U.S. officials are emphasizing the benefits of defense ties with the Philippines.
"We've got a wide range of shared concerns and shared interests, and the United States and the Philippines have been able to work effectively together in a variety of areas to advance our mutual interests," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Sept. 12.
A shift toward China may be difficult for Duterte to sustain. If China refuses to make any tangible concessions on the South China Sea, particularly over fishing resources at the disputed Scarborough Shoal, Duterte may face a domestic backlash, according to Richard Javad Heydarian, an assistant political science professor at De La Salle University in Manila.
"This is precisely why security relations with the United States will remain indispensable for the Philippines," he wrote in an article last week for the Washington-based Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. Still, the U.S. can no longer expect the same level of strategic deference and diplomatic support. "This is the new normal in Philippine-U.S. relations."