6 ms·

>the Chinese did not steal the code but captured it from an N.S.A. attack on their own computers I don't understand the US's relationship with China. The above

>the Chinese did not steal the code but captured it from an N.S.A. attack on their own computers I don't understand the US's relationship with China. The above seems to possibly suggest some mild cold war scenario?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dekhn 7y ago
We are in an advanced persistent cold war with multiple Nations. I've always been curious just how aggressive the nsa's tailored access operations and other groups were in terms of attacking other nation-states.
hangonhn 7y ago
I don't know how much foreign relationships or China-US policy you follow but when it comes to China-US, the term "Thucylides' Trap" gets thrown around a bit ( https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ - a term coined by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison ) Rivalry between a rising power and an existing superpower is inevitable. How it gets resolved though is not certain. China is on track to overtake the US economically in a decade or two (if you consider PPP adjusted GDP they've already surpassed us). That have implications in other areas too -- strategic, diplomatic, cultural, etc. How will the US respond to this? Will we simply let it happen or will we stop it and perhaps violently? What will it mean for our agendas in different areas since China and the US don't share the same goals in many areas. What's especially frightening to me is that Xi seems to advocate a view that China's rise is a return to a historical greatness and that China is destined to dominate -- similar in some sense to the old "manifest destiny" idea of the US. Xi's idea is now enshrined into the Chinese constitution along side Mao's ideas. My view is on this rather bleak but I think the US needs allies more than ever. Ironically I think two equally matched powers are more likely to come to a peaceful coexistence than if one side perceives the other to be weaker. Maybe a new cold (or cool-ish) war isn't so bad compared to a hot war.
- kmlx 7y ago
  never in our modern history has an up and coming superpower wanted or desired the mantle of top superpower. the UK was economically beneath the US a full 3 decades before the US actually decided they wanted to be the world leading superpower. almost two years in a world war, and after a massive attack by the japanese empire did the US finally took the reigns. the reason for this is that the top global superpower needs to have an extensive network of diplomacy and military, things that come with huge costs domestically. when you’re top dog, everyone looks at you for guidance and rules.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Its important to point out that American entry into WW2 did not establish American hegemony, but only accelerated it. Roosevelt had been supplying Allied forces with Material for a long time before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor (from historical records, its pretty clear that the Japanese understood it was only a matter of time before the US entered the war and thus attacked pre-emptively). The event that solidified US as the superpower was actually the Suez crisis, where the UK and French had to begrudgingly agree to American demands, making it clear who was the top dog.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    Kind of reminds me of how Nintendo decided with the Wii not to compete with Sony and Microsoft on graphics and raw compute capabilities. By offering a machine that was much cheaper to manufacture than Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo was able to solidly occupy the #3 spot in the market (on graphics quality) without huge expenses on hardware development. They intentionally chose not to compete for first place because it was so much more cost effective not to.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    That seems to presume a lot about superpower motivations. I think a more realistic assessment is that there is a high degree of uncertainty in the relative balance of power between two nations, made worse by nationalism, ethnocentrism, and the tendency of charismatic leaders to believe their own hype. Peaceful, commerce-based regimes - the ones most likely to become economic superpowers - tend to be risk averse when it comes to pushing geopolitical boundaries, because war destroys the economic development that led to them becoming superpowers. Militaristic or fundamentalist regimes tend to be risk-embracing, because you don't come to power as a militaristic regime unless the populace believes they can win (a belief which is often distorted in fundamentalist or fascist regimes). WW2 proved that the U.S. was light years ahead of Japan's industrial capacity. This was known to Japanese military officers who had visited the U.S, but the ruling cabal in Japan discounted their assessment as impossible. Similarly, Cold War propaganda (in both the U.S. and Russia) painted them both as roughly equal superpowers, but we learned after the Iron Curtain fell that the Soviet Union was never really an economic threat to the U.S. The U.S. may have passed the UK as an industrial superpower in WW1, but in the eyes of much of the world they were still an unknown quantity, enough that Japan directed simultaneous attacks on Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaya at the same time as Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.
8bitsrule 7y ago
It starts about 200 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
intopieces 7y ago
Allies routinely spy on each other. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/2014/05/16/israel-wont-stop-spying-us-249757.html%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/2014/05/16/isr...
tepidandroid 7y ago
It's quite simple really: everyone is spying on everyone to further their own strategic interests.
781 7y ago
So when the US hacked Angela Merkel's phone, it was also a mild cold war?
throwflowlow 7y ago
US sees China as incompatible partner, a competitor, and is quickly decoupling from China. It's already a cold war. South China Sea: Chinese admiral wants to 'sink two US aircraft carriers'- https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/sink-two-aircraft-carriers-chinese-admirals-chilling-recipie-to-dominate-the-south-china-sea/news-story/aaa8c33d57da62e7d5e28e791aa26e0f https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/sink-... Trump says tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods will increase to 25%. Additional tariffs on $350 billion goods as well - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/05/trump-says-tariffs-on-200-billion-of-chinese-goods-will-increase-to-25percent-on-friday.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/05/trump-says-tariffs-on-200-bi... US accuses China of using 'concentration camps' against Muslim minority - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/04/us-accuses-china-of-using-concentration-camps-uighur-muslim-minority https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/04/us-accuses-chi...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dekhn 7y ago

We are in an advanced persistent cold war with multiple Nations. I've always been curious just how aggressive the nsa's tailored access operations and other groups were in terms of attacking other nation-states.

hangonhn 7y ago

I don't know how much foreign relationships or China-US policy you follow but when it comes to China-US, the term "Thucylides' Trap" gets thrown around a bit ( https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ - a term coined by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison ) Rivalry between a rising power and an existing superpower is inevitable. How it gets resolved though is not certain. China is on track to overtake the US economically in a decade or two (if you consider PPP adjusted GDP they've already surpassed us). That have implications in other areas too -- strategic, diplomatic, cultural, etc. How will the US respond to this? Will we simply let it happen or will we stop it and perhaps violently? What will it mean for our agendas in different areas since China and the US don't share the same goals in many areas. What's especially frightening to me is that Xi seems to advocate a view that China's rise is a return to a historical greatness and that China is destined to dominate -- similar in some sense to the old "manifest destiny" idea of the US. Xi's idea is now enshrined into the Chinese constitution along side Mao's ideas. My view is on this rather bleak but I think the US needs allies more than ever. Ironically I think two equally matched powers are more likely to come to a peaceful coexistence than if one side perceives the other to be weaker. Maybe a new cold (or cool-ish) war isn't so bad compared to a hot war.

kmlx 7y ago
never in our modern history has an up and coming superpower wanted or desired the mantle of top superpower. the UK was economically beneath the US a full 3 decades before the US actually decided they wanted to be the world leading superpower. almost two years in a world war, and after a massive attack by the japanese empire did the US finally took the reigns. the reason for this is that the top global superpower needs to have an extensive network of diplomacy and military, things that come with huge costs domestically. when you’re top dog, everyone looks at you for guidance and rules.
- pm90 7y ago
  Its important to point out that American entry into WW2 did not establish American hegemony, but only accelerated it. Roosevelt had been supplying Allied forces with Material for a long time before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor (from historical records, its pretty clear that the Japanese understood it was only a matter of time before the US entered the war and thus attacked pre-emptively). The event that solidified US as the superpower was actually the Suez crisis, where the UK and French had to begrudgingly agree to American demands, making it clear who was the top dog.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Kind of reminds me of how Nintendo decided with the Wii not to compete with Sony and Microsoft on graphics and raw compute capabilities. By offering a machine that was much cheaper to manufacture than Sony or Microsoft, Nintendo was able to solidly occupy the #3 spot in the market (on graphics quality) without huge expenses on hardware development. They intentionally chose not to compete for first place because it was so much more cost effective not to.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  That seems to presume a lot about superpower motivations. I think a more realistic assessment is that there is a high degree of uncertainty in the relative balance of power between two nations, made worse by nationalism, ethnocentrism, and the tendency of charismatic leaders to believe their own hype. Peaceful, commerce-based regimes - the ones most likely to become economic superpowers - tend to be risk averse when it comes to pushing geopolitical boundaries, because war destroys the economic development that led to them becoming superpowers. Militaristic or fundamentalist regimes tend to be risk-embracing, because you don't come to power as a militaristic regime unless the populace believes they can win (a belief which is often distorted in fundamentalist or fascist regimes). WW2 proved that the U.S. was light years ahead of Japan's industrial capacity. This was known to Japanese military officers who had visited the U.S, but the ruling cabal in Japan discounted their assessment as impossible. Similarly, Cold War propaganda (in both the U.S. and Russia) painted them both as roughly equal superpowers, but we learned after the Iron Curtain fell that the Soviet Union was never really an economic threat to the U.S. The U.S. may have passed the UK as an industrial superpower in WW1, but in the eyes of much of the world they were still an unknown quantity, enough that Japan directed simultaneous attacks on Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaya at the same time as Pearl Harbor and the Philippines.

8bitsrule 7y ago

It starts about 200 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

intopieces 7y ago

Allies routinely spy on each other. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/2014/05/16/israel-wont-stop-spying-us-249757.html%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/2014/05/16/isr...

tepidandroid 7y ago

It's quite simple really: everyone is spying on everyone to further their own strategic interests.

781 7y ago

So when the US hacked Angela Merkel's phone, it was also a mild cold war?

throwflowlow 7y ago

US sees China as incompatible partner, a competitor, and is quickly decoupling from China. It's already a cold war. South China Sea: Chinese admiral wants to 'sink two US aircraft carriers'- https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/sink-two-aircraft-carriers-chinese-admirals-chilling-recipie-to-dominate-the-south-china-sea/news-story/aaa8c33d57da62e7d5e28e791aa26e0f https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/sink-... Trump says tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods will increase to 25%. Additional tariffs on $350 billion goods as well - https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/05/trump-says-tariffs-on-200-billion-of-chinese-goods-will-increase-to-25percent-on-friday.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/05/trump-says-tariffs-on-200-bi... US accuses China of using 'concentration camps' against Muslim minority - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/04/us-accuses-china-of-using-concentration-camps-uighur-muslim-minority https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/04/us-accuses-chi...