Archive for the ‘China’ Category

THE AMERICAN ARSENAL IS VULNERABLE TO CYBERATTACKS

Wednesday, October 17th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

THE AMERICAN ARSENAL IS VULNERABLE TO CYBERATTACKS

U.S. firepower could be crippled by software flaws. The Pentagon has been slow to respond.

October 16, 2018

by Brian E. Finch  Mr. Finch is a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, where he is a leader of the firm’s cybersecurity team. His clients include cybersecurity vendors that may support the U.S. Defense Department under Comply to Connect.

 

Modern American military history is replete with examples of poorly designed weapons. Submarine torpedoes failed to explode after hitting Japanese ships. M16 rifles only could be counted on to jam in the middle of a firefight in Vietnam. Pentagon planners have since spent countless hours and billions of dollars to create acquisition programs that wring the bugs out of U.S. arms before they reach the hands of soldiers and sailors.

Despite the hard work, the U.S. still fields weapons systems with dramatic weaknesses. A new Government Accountability Office auditthis month indicates that huge swaths of American firepower could be rendered inert by software flaws. There are solutions to the cyber weaknesses plaguing our arsenal, but bureaucratic inertia at the Defense Department is hampering their implementation. Faster action is needed to clear the logjam and harden America’s weapons before it’s too late.

The GAO could not have been clearer about the threat: “A successful attack on one of the systems the weapon depends on can potentially limit the weapon’s effectiveness, prevent it from achieving its mission, or even cause physical damage and loss of life.” American ships, airplanes, combat vehicles, satellites and other systems have design flaws that leave them vulnerable to debilitating cyberattacks. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is growing more reliant on automation and artificial intelligence.

Share

VIDEO – WHO IS KARL MARX ? – PRAGER U

Tuesday, September 25th, 2018

 

VIDEO – PRAGER U – WHO IS KARL MARX?

Who Is Karl Marx?

311,480 Views
Sep 24, 2018

When writing The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx thought he was providing a road to utopia, but everywhere his ideas were tried, they resulted in catastrophe and mass murder. In this video, Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, illuminates the life of the mild-mannered 19th Century German whose ideas led to the rise of some of the most brutal dictators in world history.

Share

THE U.N. AND HUMAN RIGHTS – NATURAL LAW AND POSITIVE LAW

Monday, September 10th, 2018

 

What Went Wrong With Human Rights

The conflation of ‘natural law’ with ‘positive law’ handed communism a philosophical victory after the end of the Cold War.

by James Taranto  Mr. Taranto is the Journal’s editorial features editor.
  August 18, 2018

When the U.S. withdrew in June from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Ambassador Nikki Haley described the council as “a protector of human-rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.” Aaron Rhodes agrees but thinks Ms. Haley was too gentle.

“The Human Rights Council has become a cover for dictatorships,” he says. “They assume the high moral ground of standing for ‘dialogue’ and ‘cooperation,’ a tactic for smothering the truth about denying freedom. Raising human-rights concerns is dismissed as divisive and confrontational, and a threat to ‘stability.’ Most of the debate there is technocratic blah-blah about global social policy—not about human rights at all.”

To U.N. watchers it’s a familiar critique, but Mr. Rhodes, 69, applies it far more broadly. In his recent book, “The Debasement of Human Rights: How Politics Sabotage the Ideal of Freedom,” he argues that virtually the entire human-rights enterprise has been corrupted by a philosophical error enshrined in the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights—and that this explains the travesty of the Human Rights Council.

That error is the conflation of “natural law” with “positive law.” Mr. Rhodes explains the difference: “Natural law is a kind of constraint on positive law.” Think of America’s Bill of Rights, whose opening clause is “Congress shall make no law.” The idea is “that laws have to answer to a higher law,” he says. “This is a vision of law that is very deeply embedded in Western civilization,” finding premodern expression in the ideas of the Greek Stoics and the Roman statesman Cicero, as well as in biblical canon law. Natural law is universal—or at least claims to be.

“Positive law,” Mr. Rhodes continues, “is the law of states and governments.” A statute like the Social Security Act of 1935 creates “positive rights”—government-conferred benefits to which citizens have a legal entitlement. Positive law is particular to a nation or other polity: “I live in Germany,” says Mr. Rhodes, a native of upstate New York whom I met during his U.S. book tour. “I enjoy a lot of economic and social rights there, but they reflect the political values of that community.” The Germans are “keen on being a moral society, where the state helps people. They’re statist. This is their mentality, but I don’t think it’s the same mentality here.”

(more…)

Share

FRIENDLY ADVICE FOR CHINA’S LEADERS

Saturday, August 25th, 2018

 

Very informative background information on how the U.S. has helped China to become the economic powerhouse  that it is today and that the time has come to end the favorable trade terms that China enjoys.  Nancy
    
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Some Friendly Advice for China’s Leaders

You can’t expect to keep receiving favorable trade and investment terms unless you reciprocate.

 

The trade dispute between the U.S. and China threatens to destabilize arguably the world’s most important bilateral relationship. A better understanding of the countries’ shared history may encourage wiser negotiations.

There is a great deal of pride in China for the country’s remarkable success. Compared with our population of roughly 300 million, China has a population of 1.4 billion. It should be no surprise that China is now the world’s second-largest economy. Since its economic opening in the 1970s, many Chinese citizens have been educated in the U.S. and then returned to China to become leaders in government and industry. The China of today is fully capable of competing with foreigners in its domestic markets on a level playing field, as its firms have proven overseas.

The contributions the U.S. has made to China are worth noting. Starting in 1900, the Open Door policy, advanced by the U.S., spared China from European colonization. Prior to World War II, the U.S. imposed an embargo on Japan and deployed military assets to the Pacific in defense of that policy. Before the U.S. entered the war, the Flying Tigers, an American volunteer group, were recruited from the U.S. military and mobilized to assist China’s defense against Japan. The U.S. provided extensive additional support throughout the war to the Chinese and ultimately spilled considerable blood on their behalf. At war’s end, the U.S. ensured that China was included as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

After the Chinese Revolution in 1949, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic, sending the Chinese into international isolation for two decades. Then in 1972, President Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger re-established bilateral ties by signing the Shanghai Communiqué during the president’s historic visit to China. It was in the national interest of both countries to foster a more constructive relationship. Both viewed the Soviet Union as a strategic threat.

China was populous and rich in natural resources, but its economy was minuscule and in shambles from a decade of internal conflict. After Mao’s death, Deng Xiaoping sought stronger ties with the U.S. He understood that China’s future political stability would hinge on its economic success.

When bilateral trade resumed, the U.S. extended favorable trade terms to foster China’s economic growth. Tariffs on Chinese imports into the U.S. were low—on average a third of those on U.S. exports to China. Bilateral trade grew from zero to several billion dollars within a few years. In 1979 President Carter re-established formal diplomatic relations, and China was given most favored nation trading status. In 1981 the Reagan administration created a separate trade category for China to exempt it from restrictions on trade with every other communist country.

(more…)

Share

POMPEO ON WHAT TRUMP WANTS

Wednesday, June 27th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Pompeo on What Trump Wants

An interview with Trump’s top diplomat on America First and ‘the need for a reset.’

The secretary of state in Washington, June 22.
The secretary of state in Washington, June 22. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGE

Washington

Is the Trump administration out to wreck the liberal world order? No, insisted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in an interview at his office in Foggy Bottom last week: The administration’s aim is to align that world order with 21st-century realities.

Many of the economic and diplomatic structures Mr. Trump stands accused of undermining, Mr. Pompeo argues, were developed in the aftermath of World War II. Back then, he tells me, they “made sense for America.” But in the post-Cold War era, amid a resurgence of geopolitical competition, “I think President Trump has properly identified a need for a reset.”

Mr. Trump is suspicious of global institutions and alliances, many of which he believes are no longer paying dividends for the U.S. “When I watch President Trump give guidance to our team,” Mr. Pompeo says, “his question is always, ‘How does that structure impact America?’ ” The president isn’t interested in how a given rule “may have impacted America in the ’60s or the ’80s, or even the early 2000s,” but rather how it will enhance American power “in 2018 and beyond.”

Mr. Trump’s critics have charged that his “America First” strategy reflects a retreat from global leadership. “I see it fundamentally differently,” Mr. Pompeo says. He believes Mr. Trump “recognizes the importance of American leadership” but also of “American sovereignty.” That means Mr. Trump is “prepared to be disruptive” when the U.S. finds itself constrained by “arrangements that put America, and American workers, at a disadvantage.” Mr. Pompeo sees his task as trying to reform rules “that no longer are fair and equitable” while maintaining “the important historical relationships with Europe and the countries in Asia that are truly our partners.”

(more…)

Share

HOW CHINA INFILTRATED U.S. CLASSROOMS

Tuesday, June 26th, 2018

 

HOW CHINA INFILTRATED U.S. CLASSROOMS
By Ethan Epstein   January 16. 2018

Last year, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte made an announcement to great fanfare: The university would soon open a branch of the Confucius Institute, the Chinese government-funded educational institutions that teach Chinese language, culture and history. The Confucius Institute would “help students be better equipped to succeed in an increasingly globalized world,” says Nancy Gutierrez, UNC Charlotte’s dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and “broaden the University’s outreach and support for language instruction and cultural opportunities in the Charlotte community,” according to a press release.

But the Confucius Institutes’ goals are a little less wholesome and edifying than they sound—and this is by the Chinese government’s own account. A 2011 speech by a standing member of the Politburo in Beijing laid out the case: “The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding our culture abroad,” Li Changchun said. “It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”

Li, it now seems, was right to exult. More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN – PRAGER U

Monday, June 11th, 2018

 

VIDEO    PRAGER U   DANGEROUS PEOPLE ARE TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN

www.prageru.com/videos/dangerous-people-are-teaching-your-kids

 

Share

AMERICA CAN’T AFFORD TO CEDE THE SEAS

Wednesday, May 16th, 2018

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

America Can’t Afford to Cede the Seas

Does the U.S. want to continue as a great power? China’s navy is set to surpass our fleet by 2030.

The escalating territorial disputes in the Pacific between China and America’s allies create an ever-more-urgent need for U.S. sea power. But even as China rapidly expands and modernizes its navy, the Trump administration has not proposed enough funds to maintain America’s maritime advantage. Beginning with the coming 2019 federal budget, the president and Congress must commit to funding a full, modern fleet—or risk ceding essential U.S. and allied interests.

American sea power has secured the Pacific since the end of World War II, assuring safe and open trade, while defusing conflict throughout the region. Maintaining a powerful navy for these ends is hardly an American innovation: No great state or empire has ever retained its status without pre-eminent sea power. The histories of Athens, Venice, Spain, Holland and England show that losing control of the oceans leads ineluctably to losing great-power status.

The rapid growth and improvement of China’s naval forces is the major challenge to American sea dominance today, and likely for the foreseeable future. Retired Capt. James Fanell, former director of intelligence for the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated in 2015 that China’s combat fleet will reach 415 ships in 2030. Beijing is particularly focused on adding submarines, amphibious vessels and small surface combatants. The buildup demonstrates China’s clear intention to dominate in coastal regions and amphibious operations—domains in which the U.S. has pre-eminence today.

As Adm. Phil Davidson, nominated to lead the U.S. Pacific Command, told the Senate in April: China “is no longer a rising power but an arrived great power and peer competitor.” He added that “China has undergone a rapid military modernization over the last three decades and is approaching parity in a number of critical areas; there is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China.”

The White House has proposed expanding the U.S. Navy to 355 ships, but its plan is too slow and underfunded. The full fleet would not be complete until 2050 at the earliest. Although President Trump proposes to dedicate $20 billion for new ship construction in 2019, and about the same in constant dollars in each of the next five years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the project requires an additional $6.6 billion a year over the next 30 years. Without increased funding, the fleet will be smaller in three decades than it is today, and China’s navy could surpass it by 2030.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – THREE WAYS CHINESE ACCESS U.S. TECHNOLOGY

Thursday, April 5th, 2018

 

VIDEO – 

Three Ways China Gets Its Hands on U.S. Tech

4/3/2018 3:05PM     

President Trump says China is forcing U.S. companies to transfer their technology secrets to China. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday tells you how. Illustration: Adele Morgan

Share

DON’T TRUST THE CHINESE TO MAKE MICROCHIPS FOR THE MILITARY

Sunday, October 29th, 2017

 

 

Plain old common sense tells us that the U.S. should not depend on our adversaries to supply our military with essential military  components needed to protect this country.     Just because the Chinese can make these components cheaper than they are made in the U.S., does not mean we should be so short sighted as to make the functioning of  our military weapons dependent  on Chinese made components.  Nancy

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Don’t Trust the Chinese to Make Microchips for the Military

Congress should require defense manufacturers to buy vital electronics from American producers.

Friday, October 27, 2017
by Dan Nidess   Mr. Nidess, a former Marine, is a writer in San Francisco
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  

In 2011 microchips headed for U.S. Navy helicopters were found to carry defects that would have prevented them from firing missiles. Given that the chips came from China, there was a strong suspicion that the defect was the result of deliberate tampering. Sabotaging an adversary’s military equipment has a long and colorful history, and it would fit squarely in China’s strategy of asymmetrically undermining America’s conventional military superiority.

 

After an investigation the Navy concluded the defect was an unintentional flaw. This only raised additional concerns about the quality of critical electronics produced in China. Counterfeit Chinese chips have become a rampant problem affecting America’s military, the intelligence community and the Missile Defense Agency. Long and obscure supply chains make it almost impossible to verify the reliability and source for weapons-grade microchips.

The Defense Department is experimenting with different ways to detect fakes entering the supply chain and has pursued legal actionagainst traffickers. Such efforts, while welcome, are insufficient. Even if the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency succeeds at reducing counterfeits, the U.S. will still be vulnerable to defects deliberately embedded by legitimate Chinese suppliers. The possibility that China will simply cut off access to the integrated circuits on which the military relies remains a risk as well.

 

The recent disclosure that Moscow co-opted the popular Russian cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab to aid its espionage efforts has highlighted the danger of relying on companies from adversary countries for the security of sensitive government systems. While the federal bureaucracy and Congress now are acting decisively to end American dependence on Russian-made software products, America’s national-security infrastructure has an even deeper vulnerability to address.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories