4 ms·

>I believe that Chinese hackers are the scariest thing in the world today. I'm much more worried about nuclear weapons, Authoritarianism, and biological warfar

>I believe that Chinese hackers are the scariest thing in the world today. I'm much more worried about nuclear weapons, Authoritarianism, and biological warfare.

lostlogin 14y ago
The Chinese government?
- unimpressive 14y ago
  I'm not exceptionally worried about China's nukes. They understand MAD. I'm more worried about the middle east. Authoritarianism is more worrying if it's in the country I'm standing on. My main fear with biological warfare is non-state actors. As it becomes possible to do more with less, the chances of fundamentalists and other malicious parties using biological agents for terrorism or worse go up.
  - dontstealmyname 14y ago
    The Chinese government made a statement last year about MAD. It basically boiled down to their population being so large and spread out so far across china that they would still have a large enough population base to continue on past past the Armageddon to rebuild while everywhere else would suffer a lot higher casualty rates because a lot of the developed world is concentrated in large cities. IIRC one of the main reasons MAD was a threat to the Russians was because they're populated centres are mostly in one area of the country. Its all saber rattling regardless I guess, as china develops they'll be more so concentrated in cities like everyone else.
    - chalst 14y ago
      All of the most populous, productive area of China are concentrated along the coast and around the four main inland cities: over 3/4s of Chinese GDP comes from these, which cover relatively little area. China might be less vulnerable than the USSR was to targetted nuclear strikes, but I doubt it is less so than the US, and I doubt Chinese leadership believe China would have the advantage against the US if a military conflict turned nuclear. Who made the statement?
      - Jd 14y ago
        There was a Chinese general (Zhu Chenghu) who has made several controversial statements to this end, including that initiating nuclear war would be acceptable in case of US intrusion in Taiwan (still considered by most mainland Chinese as a Chinese possession). However, to the best of my knowledge he hasn't been in the press the last couple of years.
    - powertower 14y ago
      As far as I'm aware, their strategy is based on a scenario where the US can and does defeat it in a nuclear war. And hence that strategy works to prevent that attack, not defeat it... Have a bunch of relatively large (much larger that the US's) warheads strike American cities exclusively. Forget about military targets.
      - tanzam75 14y ago
        The Chinese nuclear arsenal was built to deter the Soviet Union. That is why it consists primarily of medium-range missiles. The Russian population is concentrated in European Russia, which is easily within range of a medium-range nuclear deterrent based in Western China. This deterrent is ineffective against the United States. The medium-range missiles cannot even hit Seattle, much less Miami. The entire Chinese ICBM force consists of 20 missiles with non-MIRVed 5-megaton thermonuclear warheads. Thus, in terms of nuclear weaponry, the United States outguns China by about 2000-to-20. This is why their plans assume defeat in a nuclear exchange -- because it is a virtual certainty.
        powertower 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Warheads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China_an... You are correct on the number. But the part about the Soviet Union, Im not so sure... > History Mao Zedong decided to begin a Chinese nuclear-weapons program during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1954-1955 over the Quemoy and Matsu Islands. While he did not expect to be able to match the large American nuclear arsenal, Mao believed that even a few bombs would increase China's diplomatic credibility. Construction of uranium enrichment plants in Baotou and Lanzhou began in 1958, and a plutonium facility in Jiuquan and the Lop Nur nuclear test site by 1960. The Soviet Union provided assistance in the early Chinese program by sending advisers to help in the facilities devoted to fissile material production, and promised to provide a prototype bomb.[12] In July 1960, however, during the Sino-Soviet split, all Soviet assistance with the Chinese nuclear program was abruptly terminated and all Soviet technicians were withdrawn from the program.[13]
    - iy56 14y ago
      They have to say things like that, because you need the other side to believe you will use your nukes for them to be an effective deterrent. Nobody actually wants to use them.
  - paganel 14y ago
    > As it becomes possible to do more with less, the chances of fundamentalists and other malicious parties using biological agents for terrorism or worse go up. I just thinking the other day, once home-made drones become capable enough of carrying loads of up to 5kg then what would stop such a potential malicious "non-state actor" of using such a drone fully-loaded with chemical nasty stuff to bypass all the obsolete ground-security system at a big open-air event (say, the Super-Bowl or any other sports event attended by 70,000+ people) and cause harm to most of all those present?
jlgreco 14y ago
Also drunk drivers, lightning strikes, and spiders... Seriously, who actually experiences fear because of chinese hackers?
- methehack 14y ago
  After reading the article, that would be me. Why do you think they've worked their asses off to be able to shut off our power grid? Can you think of an explanation that isn't just a little bit spooky?
  - olalonde 14y ago
    You think the US government doesn't do similar things in China? Should people living in China be spooked?
    - intended 14y ago
      Thats really not an answer. Just because people in both countries can now face a new angle of attack doesn't mean that there is something to not be spooked about. People in both countries should be equally spooked. The USA has more to lose in this battle - for a nation moving away from manufacturing and aiming to keep a tech lead for its economy - China's actions eventually would mean check mate.
  - Herover 14y ago
    Problem is, they would probably shut themself out if they turned off the power...
  - vorg 14y ago
    Why would the Chinese want to shut off the US power grid? The reason why they built nukes to defend against Russia and none to defend against the US is they want to take over the US by immigrating there in large numbers. Australia/NZ and Canada today were just trial runs. There were 1 million ethnic Chinese in the US in 1990; by 2010 there were 3 million. Extrapolating the geometric series, 10 million by 2030, 30 million by 2050, and 100 million by 2070. Their students are coming to rent the houses, get jobs afterwards, then buy the houses. Americans will vote for the government that lets in more rich Asian immigrants, so house prices go up higher. By 2100, the US will be a majority Chinese nation, and the Ming Dynasty's big mistake of closing down Zheng He's 15th century treasure fleet will have been rectified.

>I believe that Chinese hackers are the scariest thing in the world today. I'm much more worried about nuclear weapons, Authoritarianism, and biological warfare.

lostlogin 14y ago

The Chinese government?

unimpressive 14y ago
I'm not exceptionally worried about China's nukes. They understand MAD. I'm more worried about the middle east. Authoritarianism is more worrying if it's in the country I'm standing on. My main fear with biological warfare is non-state actors. As it becomes possible to do more with less, the chances of fundamentalists and other malicious parties using biological agents for terrorism or worse go up.
- dontstealmyname 14y ago
  The Chinese government made a statement last year about MAD. It basically boiled down to their population being so large and spread out so far across china that they would still have a large enough population base to continue on past past the Armageddon to rebuild while everywhere else would suffer a lot higher casualty rates because a lot of the developed world is concentrated in large cities. IIRC one of the main reasons MAD was a threat to the Russians was because they're populated centres are mostly in one area of the country. Its all saber rattling regardless I guess, as china develops they'll be more so concentrated in cities like everyone else.
  - chalst 14y ago
    All of the most populous, productive area of China are concentrated along the coast and around the four main inland cities: over 3/4s of Chinese GDP comes from these, which cover relatively little area. China might be less vulnerable than the USSR was to targetted nuclear strikes, but I doubt it is less so than the US, and I doubt Chinese leadership believe China would have the advantage against the US if a military conflict turned nuclear. Who made the statement?
    - Jd 14y ago
      There was a Chinese general (Zhu Chenghu) who has made several controversial statements to this end, including that initiating nuclear war would be acceptable in case of US intrusion in Taiwan (still considered by most mainland Chinese as a Chinese possession). However, to the best of my knowledge he hasn't been in the press the last couple of years.
  - powertower 14y ago
    As far as I'm aware, their strategy is based on a scenario where the US can and does defeat it in a nuclear war. And hence that strategy works to prevent that attack, not defeat it... Have a bunch of relatively large (much larger that the US's) warheads strike American cities exclusively. Forget about military targets.
    - tanzam75 14y ago
      The Chinese nuclear arsenal was built to deter the Soviet Union. That is why it consists primarily of medium-range missiles. The Russian population is concentrated in European Russia, which is easily within range of a medium-range nuclear deterrent based in Western China. This deterrent is ineffective against the United States. The medium-range missiles cannot even hit Seattle, much less Miami. The entire Chinese ICBM force consists of 20 missiles with non-MIRVed 5-megaton thermonuclear warheads. Thus, in terms of nuclear weaponry, the United States outguns China by about 2000-to-20. This is why their plans assume defeat in a nuclear exchange -- because it is a virtual certainty.
      - powertower 14y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Warheads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China_an... You are correct on the number. But the part about the Soviet Union, Im not so sure... > History Mao Zedong decided to begin a Chinese nuclear-weapons program during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1954-1955 over the Quemoy and Matsu Islands. While he did not expect to be able to match the large American nuclear arsenal, Mao believed that even a few bombs would increase China's diplomatic credibility. Construction of uranium enrichment plants in Baotou and Lanzhou began in 1958, and a plutonium facility in Jiuquan and the Lop Nur nuclear test site by 1960. The Soviet Union provided assistance in the early Chinese program by sending advisers to help in the facilities devoted to fissile material production, and promised to provide a prototype bomb.[12] In July 1960, however, during the Sino-Soviet split, all Soviet assistance with the Chinese nuclear program was abruptly terminated and all Soviet technicians were withdrawn from the program.[13]
  - iy56 14y ago
    They have to say things like that, because you need the other side to believe you will use your nukes for them to be an effective deterrent. Nobody actually wants to use them.
- paganel 14y ago
  > As it becomes possible to do more with less, the chances of fundamentalists and other malicious parties using biological agents for terrorism or worse go up. I just thinking the other day, once home-made drones become capable enough of carrying loads of up to 5kg then what would stop such a potential malicious "non-state actor" of using such a drone fully-loaded with chemical nasty stuff to bypass all the obsolete ground-security system at a big open-air event (say, the Super-Bowl or any other sports event attended by 70,000+ people) and cause harm to most of all those present?

jlgreco 14y ago

Also drunk drivers, lightning strikes, and spiders... Seriously, who actually experiences fear because of chinese hackers?

methehack 14y ago
After reading the article, that would be me. Why do you think they've worked their asses off to be able to shut off our power grid? Can you think of an explanation that isn't just a little bit spooky?
- olalonde 14y ago
  You think the US government doesn't do similar things in China? Should people living in China be spooked?
  - intended 14y ago
    Thats really not an answer. Just because people in both countries can now face a new angle of attack doesn't mean that there is something to not be spooked about. People in both countries should be equally spooked. The USA has more to lose in this battle - for a nation moving away from manufacturing and aiming to keep a tech lead for its economy - China's actions eventually would mean check mate.
- Herover 14y ago
  Problem is, they would probably shut themself out if they turned off the power...
- vorg 14y ago
  Why would the Chinese want to shut off the US power grid? The reason why they built nukes to defend against Russia and none to defend against the US is they want to take over the US by immigrating there in large numbers. Australia/NZ and Canada today were just trial runs. There were 1 million ethnic Chinese in the US in 1990; by 2010 there were 3 million. Extrapolating the geometric series, 10 million by 2030, 30 million by 2050, and 100 million by 2070. Their students are coming to rent the houses, get jobs afterwards, then buy the houses. Americans will vote for the government that lets in more rich Asian immigrants, so house prices go up higher. By 2100, the US will be a majority Chinese nation, and the Ming Dynasty's big mistake of closing down Zheng He's 15th century treasure fleet will have been rectified.