Trans-Pacific Cable Plans Mired In US-China Geopolitical Rivalry 162
An anonymous reader writes "Attempts to build a new telecommunications cable between the US, New Zealand and Australia have become a nexus for the growing rivalry between the U.S. and China in the Pacific. The U.S. is reportedly creating a technology ring fence to match its military one and contain China's ambitions in the Pacific. The U.S. military could even help pay for any planned new cable to link its bases in American Samoa with its expanding military presence in Australia's Northern Territory. It has been made 'very clear' U.S. authorities would not allow significant Chinese investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of Chinese gear in its construction. 'It was made very clear. These are cables connecting whole countries. These are very political things,' one insider said."
Don't mess with America (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the parent was being sarcastic, man.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, well, we don't execute thousands of people every year like some other nations do.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because we are having quite some difficultly acquiring the drugs necessary to execute people "humanely", otherwise we would be working on challenging China for executions/100,000...
IOW, we WANT to kill more people, we just have to find new ways to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to ask what is wrong with using a guillotine ? It's very fast (probably painless) and very efficient, but then I remembered it's French and US citizen don't even like their fries.
Re: (Score:1)
Some people don't like the ick factor of all the blood, and then there is the wailing of "what if the mechanism jams or doesn't go through". Same with hanging/shooting.
Maybe an Iron Maiden, with some kind of mechanism to close it fast, and it's sealed so the visual of the pool of blood out the bottom doesn't make the papers.
Re: (Score:2)
I wanted to ask what is wrong with using a guillotine ? It's very fast (probably painless) and very efficient, but then I remembered it's French and US citizen don't even like their fries.
There was a thread on this in Slashdot not too long ago and it came up that the noggin and its enclosed brain may not lose consciousness for up to a minute or so after a clean decapitation.... I'd think there would be a significant amount of emotional and physical suffering experienced during that final 60 seconds. I tried to find the thread but no luck....
However Google delivered a number of references to the observations of Dr Gabriel Beaurieux-1905 (which at least one person in that lost thread refere
Re: (Score:2)
Then that would be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call drone attacks then?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to be proud about.
Given that there're more than 3000 individuals in the death row in USA, that you aren't executing thousands of people a year it's more a sign of your inability than anything else.
But, hey, don't be so disappointed, USA is 5th in executions/year... You don't get a medal, but you still get an olympic diplomma.
Re: (Score:3)
We Americans are also #1 in sarcasm.
Re: (Score:1)
We Americans are also #1 in sarcasm.
Oh indeed, the United Kingdom does not exist. [/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh indeed, the United Kingdom does not exist.
Not in any meaningful sense, anyway.
Re:Don't mess with America (Score:4, Insightful)
America: Also #1 in forgetting other countries exist.
NSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they need to lay NSA tapped cables.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Trust me the Americans are the enemy of the free world.
And China isn't?
Re:NSA (Score:4, Insightful)
I miss the Cold War, when there were competing systems instead of a race to the bottom.
Compared to the USA? Not even close. (Score:2)
How many overseas military bases and carrier groups does China have compared to the 700+ of the United States.
In the last 12 years, the U.S. has started two illegal wars of choice that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, millions of refugees, destabilized entire regions, conducted a worldwide kidnapping & torture program, and marks 50 innocent people for death for every alleged terrorist it bombs. And used chemical weapons on civilians in Iraq, the sort of th
Re:NSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes one wonder if China's backdoors might conflict with the NSA installed backdoors.
Re: (Score:2)
so far, this ^ is the only comment worth reading :)
Re: (Score:3)
Cutters aren't the problem the US is worried about.
Taps are.
Re: (Score:2)
oh gosh, i sense a re-hash of the israeli submarine cable-cutters....
or was that the Indian-Ocean and the African-Oceans irrespectively....
Remember, we've always been at war with Eastasia, not Eurasia. Or was it the other way around?
Re:NSA and cable taps (Score:2)
The USA is reported to have a long history of cable tapping, Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mans-Bluff-Submarine-Espionage/dp/006097771X/ref=sr_1_1 [amazon.com]
"For decades American submarines have roamed the depths in a dangerous battle for information and advantage in missions known only to a select few. Now, after six years of research, those missions are told in Blind Man's Bluff, a magnificent achievement in investigative reporting. It reads like a spy
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has spent it's history thinking that the enemy was
1) The British
2) The native Americans
3) The Mexicans
4) The Russians
5) The Chineese
In time they may work out what the rest of the world has known all along. The French are the real enemy,
Re: (Score:2)
When I was in Mississippi some years ago, I got the impression they already considered the French an enemy.
Their War-On-Frenchfries was already well under way.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the Illuminati coordinates this sort off thing all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
IEEE 802 should set up a working group to write interoperability standards for communication backdoor systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember those cut cables in Suez canal? This was US military/NSA operation.
Re:NSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they need to lay NSA tapped cables.
Exactly.
This is nothing to do with politics, just practicality.
The NSA knows well just how much stuff can be gleaned from an under sea cable, so why would they want anyone else putting their equipment in place to tap into later? Too many taps spoils the surprise.
When the US worries about Chinese routers and switches it is most likely that someone in government already has "un-detectable" back doors into US made switches, routers and software. When they worry and bluster in congress about Chinese Cellular transmitter equipment it is likely because they already have all the other manufacturers compromised.
Re: (Score:2)
While the NSA might have taps. Huawei certainly does. Here's the relevent part of a Defcon 20 presentation: DEF CON 20 - Hacking Redacted Routers [youtube.com].
Huawei security is so bad that almost anybody could hack the things. Hell, the NSA probably uses these as the "easy" test when hiring hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"NSA on Tap". There's a product line in there somewhere - tshirts, mugs, doormats, etc.
toleration violation (Score:5, Interesting)
would not tolerate the use of Chinese gear in its construction.
Given the USAs recent activities, maybe the use of USA companies and gear should also not be tolerated.
Re:toleration violation (Score:5, Informative)
That's already happening.
Brazil is pulling away from doing business with US tech firms.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/nsa-spying-gives-advantage-to-brazil-s-local-tech-firms.html [bloomberg.com]
Germany is pissed:
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/08/14/german-backlash-to-nsa-spying-gets-stronger/ [wsj.com]
EU in general is looking elsewhere for technology:
http://gigaom.com/2013/06/07/nsa-spying-scandal-fallout-expect-big-impact-in-europe-and-elsewhere/ [gigaom.com]
Business world wide is starting to look elsewhere:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/09/10/how-the-nsa-revelations-are-hurting-businesses/ [forbes.com]
Cloud Computing was just sentenced to death by NSA
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/spying-bad-for-business/ [techcrunch.com]
The NSA revelations will prove to be one of the biggest detriments to US computer technology business in decades.
Re: (Score:2)
So with both Chinese and American gear unacceptable, where do you buy your networking equipment? Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Logically as it is bound to essential infrastructure. All government sourced, installed and owned. All based around open source hardware and software to ensure compatibility and so the public can be aware of what is going on. Cost more, hmmm, so what. Greater public control and scrutiny. Basically if a country does not produce their own communications infrastructure then their communications is under the control of who ever does, end of story.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise, of course that there has been exactly ZERO evidence of any form of backdooring in the
chinese gear that the US is working to block and has successfully blocked now from many projects, mainly
3G/4G cell rollouts?
You dont think that just perhaps the whole thing was a smokescreen to make SURE that the backdoored US
gear was used, rather than the actually secure chinese gear?
Hmmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, about that....
Huawei security is so bad they don't need backdoors. [youtube.com]
Let me guess (Score:1)
The US wants to be the only body involved who can spy on the traffic and perform man-in-the-middle attacks.
It's stopping terrorism.
Giving the example to the world (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if the rest of the world have a hint, they just need to use their own words
It has been made 'very clear' (some country) authorities would not allow significant U.S. investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of U.S. gear in its construction. 'It was made very clear. These are cables connecting whole countries. These are very political things,' one insider said."
Brazil [slashdot.org] is already doing something of this, and more countries should follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if the rest of the world have a hint, they just need to use their own words
It has been made 'very clear' (some country) authorities would not allow significant U.S. investment in one cable project and it followed that they would not tolerate the use of U.S. gear in its construction. 'It was made very clear. These are cables connecting whole countries. These are very political things,' one insider said."
Brazil [slashdot.org] is already doing something of this, and more countries should follow.
Many Brazilians seem to think that the U.S spying is just an excuse to get social media sites to open offices and place their servers in Brazil where they could be pressured or even censored by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that NZ is a willing partner in the "Five Eyes" SIGINT hoovering operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement [wikipedia.org] , I'd imagine the yanks are pretty worried about losing access to a shit-load of data.
I wonder if NZ will get any political currency from keeping The Commies at bay - free-trade agreement, anyone?
Of course! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Flip it (Score:3, Insightful)
China is building a cable across the Pacific, and American firms want to invest and use their equipment. Suddenly it sounds rational to disallow foreigners. How's that work?
I get the idea that Americans just aren't allowed to do anything that's in their national interest. If the Chinese government (and that's what state-owned enterprises means) wants to invest and install their own equipment, then the Americans must allow them! The Chinese will install spyware on the cable? Oh, boo hoo you Americans will just have to take it because you're bad people and hurt puppies!
Re: (Score:2)
So you want the objectively more oppressive country on top, to the detriment of billions, because it won't personally affect you. What a great guy you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Everybody will just have to build their own transoceanic cables, with only their own equipment. The Chinese will send data down the Chinese cable and the Americans will send data down the American cable, but since neither wants to cooperate, the other end of the cable is not connected to anything, so the whole thing is an exercise in futility.
The point of these cables is that there are several parties to the project who are going to use them. It is thus entirely unreasonable to insist on excluding one party
Re: (Score:2)
Step up the game (Score:1)
This Doesn't Help the People (Score:3)
the growing rivalry between the U.S. and China
If anything the US and Chinese people have grown closer over the past decades; scratch that - for certain the US and Chinese people have grown closer over the past decades.
Only a bunch of crazy old men claiming to represent the people could continually fuck this up. To them I say: "get out of the way."
Re:This Doesn't Help the People (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you referring to the US Congress or the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
what's the difference? (Score:2)
China cable = PLA, Korea spying
Because we can trust American hardware (Score:2)
<SARCASM>Because we can trust American hardware not to have NSA back doors, right?</SARCASM>
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
What a laugh (Score:1)
What they are worried somebody else it going to be listening in on every conversation apart from them !
Then let the countries decide (Score:4, Interesting)
Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?
Given the inherent malignity of state entities, which is the least-worst?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US, certainly. In China, Snowden would have been hunted down by internal security, given a quiet trial, and executed shortly thereafter and his organs harvested. In America not only was Snowden able to escape due to not having to go to a government office and get an exit visa for his passport (documenting where you're going, when, for how long, and showing airline tickets and hotel reservations, then the government will allow you to leave) but he was soundly cheered by many Americans.
As a Westerner w
typical American Exceptionalism BS (Score:3)
How many Al Jazeera offices has the Chinese military bombed in the last 10 years? Has the PM of China personally called a third world dictator to keep a journalist imprisoned and tortured, like Obama did with Yemen?
Nonsensical talking point. Getting an exit visa wouldn't have changed anything, because Snowden chose Hong Kong precisely because it wouldn't rai
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes. Rwanda. If America did get involved it would have been cast *just like Somalia*, white people killing black people. If America didn't get involved, it's the callous whites allowing genocide to happen. I notice you conveniently left out the fact that the UN refused to authorize action in Rwanda, and America should never act unilaterally.
Actually, I am quite a rare bird. I am both pro-America and pro-China. You don't find those very often.
Re: (Score:1)
Who do you prefer listening into your communications? The US or China?
Given the inherent malignity of corporate entities, which is the least-worst?
An alternative and eqally valid wording.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's not a "defense" or justification. My point is that "not being snooped-upon" is not a credible option in 2013. SOMEONE - usually multiple someones - will be snooping on everything you do. In many cases it's corporate, and in some it's government(s). Some people misunderstand, and compare what's happening vs some utopian ideal of what they think "should be". This is misleading; our choices aren't about the "best" alternative, they're about the least-worst.
Second, I entirely disagree with you:
Sovereign nations? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure I understand this story: why US has its word to say about who is connecting Australia and New Zaeland? Aren't theses territories sovereign nations?
We like to think so, but we have our doubts (especially now that Tony is PM).
Re: (Score:2)
The submarine cable map [submarinecablemap.com] is insightful.
The idea to add another cable through Hawaii is not obvious. In order to improve path redundancy, going to south america would be a better idea. And at least Brazil could be interested [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Debt" on a "US" national scale doesn't work that way? - as in never pay back "work that way" or some other trading/computer/war/political trick?
Re:Easy answer... (Score:5, Informative)
China had, at last count, almost two thousand nuclear weapons [wikipedia.org] and climbing.
Re:Easy answer... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use [wikipedia.org]
"China undertakes not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones at any time or under any circumstances."
I like the nato reponse
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options" such as enless threats of using them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until somebody develops the ability to nuke all it's enemies globally instantly, and synchronized down to the second globally, there's no point in signing such an agreement as MAD pretty much ensures that nobody is going to be using nuclear weapons.
Consequently, that treaty was just an effort to bolster China's image on the world stage. If there were really any purpose to such a treaty, it would have been signed a long time ago.
Re: (Score:1)
> ... as MAD pretty much ensures that nobody is going to be using nuclear weapons.
Unless there is a mistake, such as the one where a training program was left in NORAD computers. Or there is a system failure, such as the one that happened to Russian computers. Or there is an accidental detonation during transportation, such as nearly happened in 1961 in North Carolina. And it can be helped along by poor security, such as the US launch code of 0000.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options"
What's so hard to understand about that? NATO will only use nukes in defense. That includes defending against chemical or biological attacks, for example. Signing on to a NFU treaty would take away that option.
Re: (Score:1)
That's why Bush was trying to get the U.S. to develop nuclear bunker busters?
Re: (Score:1)
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options"
What's so hard to understand about that? NATO will only use nukes in defense. That includes defending against chemical or biological attacks, for example. Signing on to a NFU treaty would take away that option.
Everybody understood just fine. Everybody also knew full well that "defense against chemical or biological" attacks also include potential ones, i.e. pre-emptive strike. And of course, whenever convenient, cyberattacks or humanitarian disaster would be included in the list of potential "attacks" to be defended against, which basically opens the door to strike anyone anytime.
A kind of "defense" which, for most of the world, just means "offense".
Take a clue, nobody buy these word games anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options" such as enless threats of using them?
I gather from your question mark that you have a question. So what is it? It's rather obvious that the best defense against a nuclear attack is to stop the attack before it starts. Preemptive nuclear strike is one way to attempt that.
Re: (Score:1)
China had, at last count, almost two thousand nuclear weapons and climbing.
Uhh, try 200-300 [nti.org]. And they presently lack an effective delivery mechanism. They're testing [freebeacon.com] one now. They are not a significant threat to the United States at this time. Russia is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
hey dumbass ... every space faring nation (china is one) has a delivery mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously think they'd be able to get a nuke onto a ship without being noticed? If it were truly that easy, we wouldn't be bothering with missiles at all.
Re:Easy answer... (Score:4, Informative)
And they presently lack an effective delivery mechanism.
Except for the 65 odd ICBMs [defense.gov].
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Except for the 65 odd ICBMs.
After thumbing through the dense tomb that you posted, which was moderated +4, Informative, I find no mention of any intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is also three years older than my link, which wasn't in PDF form, and indicated they only had regional launch capability. The document you provided indicated they had only managed to create missiles with a 500 or so mile range. Barely enough to get the nuclear ordinance they've developed far enough up-wind to not eat the radioactive fallout after. China
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would the United States ever actually use nuclear weapons?
Er... the United States is the (singular) country to ever have used nuclear weapons (plural). Granted, it probably won't use them (again). But as far as statistics go, so far it's still USA 2 x 0 Everyone-Else-Summed.
Re: (Score:1)
There's billions of chinese, and only millions of Americans.
There is only one order of magnitude difference between the populations of USA and PRC, not three as your post implies.
Re: (Score:2)
um 1.3 billion verses .3 billion
where is that order of magnitude again?
Re:Easy answer... (Score:4, Informative)
China needs someone in their corner with nuclear weapons. Either that, or develop their own.
There are only 8 states known to have nuclear weapons (nine if you count Israel). If you are too fucking ignorant to know that China is one of them, which undermines most of your supposed argument, then you have no business discussing foreign policy.
And China isn't running around hunting down its ex-pats in Russian airports when its citizens come forward and say what its government is up to. They just stare blankly into the camera and then say "We make you iphone! iPhone good! You want more iphones? Shut up." ... and that's the end of it. -_-
This manages to be both idiotic, ignorant and racist all in one, so that's awesome.
Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
China needs someone in their corner with nuclear weapons
Are you forgetting Dennis Rodman's batshit insane friend? North Korea's existence depends entirely on being China's delightfully-insane-but-moderately-dangerous second cousin who is locked in the basement and only let out to amuse the neighborhood kids.
Re: (Score:1)
I love how the anti-American bigots trot this sort of bullshit out, without context.
The US had a sterling record compared with any other nation that's gone through an industrial revolution. What's more, the industrial revolution happened well before we had any concept of the long term consequences to the destruction. The Chinese are well aware of global warming and the rest, they've chosen to engage in dangerous policies because they view it to be better than enforcing their own regulations.
As far as the la
Re: (Score:2)
I love how the anti-American bigots trot this sort of bullshit out, without context.
Talking of context... anti-American? The guy kept saying EU/US, which means a shedload of other developed countries, and you immediate peg it as an attack on American masculinity. Nice.