CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Ladies & Gentlemen, Welcome to The Next Generation of Warfare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ladies & Gentlemen, Welcome to The Next Generation of Warfare

post #1 of 24
1/2/08 at 5:14pm
Thread Starter 
Financial Times

January 2, 2008

US Extends China-3Com Probe

By Sundeep Tucker in Hong Kong and Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

A US probe into a proposed $2.2bn buy-out of 3Com, a network equipment supplier, by a consortium involving a Chinese company is poised to enter a decisive second phase. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a branch of the executive able to block sensitive inward investment, is this week expected to take the rare step of extending a month-long investigation into the deal by a further 45 days. Cfius is studying possible national security implications of the 3Com takeover led by Bain Capital, the US private equity firm. Bain is trying to buy 83.5 per cent of US-listed 3Com with Huawei Technologies, a Chinese telecoms equipment maker, taking the rest. The deal has sparked political concerns in the US because 3Com supplies intrusion prevention technology to the US defence department. The Pentagon believes that hackers in China conducted a massive cyber-attack on its systems in 2007. Thaddeus McCotter, chairman of the US House of Representatives‘ Republican policy committee, has described the proposed deal as a “stealth assault on America’s national security” and urged US authorities to stop Huawei buying a stake in 3Com. Probes by Cfius, which comprises representatives of 12 US government agencies, begin with a 30-day study and only rarely extend a further 45 days. Bain voluntarily submitted the 3Com deal for review in early December. It is understood that Cfius has signalled to Bain that it will begin a statutory 45-day investigation because it needs more time to decide whether to endorse, block or seek changes to the proposed buy-out. Cfius does not issue public statements. The next six weeks are likely to feature some tough talks. Bain could be forced to commit publicly to a divestment of TippingPoint, the 3Com division which deals with the US military, or Cfius could recommend that Huawei reduces its proposed stake. The decision to extend the investigation will not surprise many of those involved in the deal, given heightened sensitivities surrounding Chinese investment in to the US, especially in the run-up to November’s presidential election. China believes that Huawei’s involvement in the consortium is a non-issue. Beijing is watching the probe amid concerns that Chinese investment into the US is being blocked. Bain has strongly rebuffed claims that the deal endangers US national security, asserting that criticism ignores Huawei’s limited stake in the proposed buy-out vehicle and its previous role as a joint venture partner of 3Com in China.
Reply
post #2 of 24
1/2/08 at 6:18pm
This almost sounds like what went down with Japanese companies buying American ones a few years back.
Reply
post #3 of 24
1/2/08 at 6:22pm
Effectively you're right Donde, that was about the mid to late 80s
Reply
post #4 of 24
1/2/08 at 6:52pm
Thread Starter 
I think this is a little different. Japan was, and continues to be, a close ally and commercial partner / competitor. We didn't mind that Toshiba made the propellers on our submarines, so long as they didn't sell the specs to the Soviets [Which it did, btw. Big scandal, and I still don't buy Toshiba products.].

China, on the other hand, will become a peer competitor of the US by the middle (or, at the latest, the last third) of this century. China penetrated the Naval War College's computer system last year, and many believe that it was behind the a number of the intrusions into the Pentagon's network this year (Pentagon spokesmen studiously avoided mentioning PRC by name, but come on.). The PLA is PRC's single largest business entity, and it's behind Huwai.

I think we're seeing a bid by one of PLA's client corporations to purchase an interest in a corporation that does significant business in the US nat'l security arena. Further, I think this is part of a greater corporate espionage strategy on PRC's part.

Why am I calling it the next generation of warfare, or at least classic nation-state competition? Because it's about more than spies and listening stations and Val Kilmer movies. It's about using the economic power to gain an upper hand. It's very smart, and it costs very little in terms of blood or national will, and it could play a critical role in future national security decisionmaking processes.

At the very least, it's pretty cool.
Reply
post #5 of 24
1/2/08 at 9:09pm
There can't be two superpowers at the top so eventually there has to be a war with china conventional thinking goes. I think both sides would like that kind of status quo providing the conflict is contained to a certain area of the globe and fought largely by proxy using poorer peoples. A precarious stalemate is the only way 2 super powers can exist at the same time and be able to pursue the resources they need ruthlessly across the planet using national security as justification. Our economies will no longer be mixed, but prolonged standoffs produce economic benefits of their own when "police actions" like nam and korea will need to be fought requiring many bombs and guns.

Truth is, superpower nations don't like to share and when sharing isn't the answer, then taking is. It's quite a generalization, but the trends in history on this are pretty clear.
Reply
post #6 of 24
1/3/08 at 12:22am
Val Kilmer movies?
Reply
post #7 of 24
1/3/08 at 3:34am
"What's wrong with having it good for a change? Now they're gonna let us have it good if we just help 'em. They're gonna leave us alone, let us make some money. You can have a little taste of that good life too. Now I know you want it, hell everybody does."
Reply
post #8 of 24
1/3/08 at 11:24am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai
Val Kilmer movies?
Eh, it was a Top Secret! joke. Move along.
Reply
post #9 of 24
1/3/08 at 11:32am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator GAC
There can't be two superpowers at the top so eventually there has to be a war with china conventional thinking goes.
I suggest that there is no conventional thinking on China right now. The US gets that China will rise to superpower status, and is trying to figure out how to midwife the process in a peaceful manner. The question is whether China will see itself growing into partnership with the US or antagonism. There are multiple indicators for either outcome and, at the moment, it's anyone's guess.

By the way, there never was a war to knock the USSR out of superpower status. Not a hot war, anyway.


Quote:
I think both sides would like that kind of status quo providing the conflict is contained to a certain area of the globe and fought largely by proxy using poorer peoples. A precarious stalemate is the only way 2 super powers can exist at the same time and be able to pursue the resources they need ruthlessly across the planet using national security as justification. Our economies will no longer be mixed, but prolonged standoffs produce economic benefits of their own when "police actions" like nam and korea will need to be fought requiring many bombs and guns.
I don't necessarily buy your vision of the future. I accept that "wary standoff" could be the way things play out, but I don't think that's inevitable. Neither do I accept that cold war is better for national economies than warm relations. Warm relations open markets, while cold war closes them.

Quote:
Truth is, superpower nations don't like to share and when sharing isn't the answer, then taking is. It's quite a generalization, but the trends in history on this are pretty clear.
Nations generally don't like to share. However, they'll do so when it's in their mutual best interest. In this case, I think it's in USA and PRC's best interest to share and figure out a way to get along. By "get along," I'm not naive enough to suggest that hearts and flowers will eventually be the order of the day. Think more along the lines of a good, competitive basketball game. Sure, elbows get thrown and the occasional nose gets bloodied, but everyone's playing by the same rules.
Reply
post #10 of 24
1/3/08 at 12:30pm
I don't have the time or desire to write the post this thread deserves, but I think that old presumptions of balance-of-power theories are going to be less applicable to China than they were to the USSR and significantly less useful than they were in the past. Global integration of economies has made war between superpowers exceedingly risky (even by proxy, since you can alienate a necessary trading partner that way).

What distinguishes China from the USSR is the degree of insularity of the economy. By having a more free economy, China is both stronger (able to grow with a competing superpower) and more vulnerable (reliant on the competing superpower for its own growth). The rules are going to be rewritten here, at least at the finer levels of detail. Obviously, competition for resources, etc. will continue as it always has, so the macro rules of competition will continue.

Another important impact of integrated superpower economies is the role of corporations. They aren't patriotic entities, they exist solely to grow economically. As a result, they may use their significant influence on governments to help find the best path for both countries (as that benefits them more than a war).

Of course, national defense complicates things. If hacking attacks continue, that will make things awkward between the countries. Then again, I'm quite sure we're doing the same thing to them.

One other thought occurs: If a war occurs, manufacturing capacity is a major factor in victory. The U.S., as the most advanced economy in the world, has let its manufacturing base slip in favor of service-based industries. This concerns me.
Reply
post #11 of 24
1/3/08 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
I don't have the time or desire to write the post this thread deserves, but I think that old presumptions of balance-of-power theories are going to be less applicable to China than they were to the USSR and significantly less useful than they were in the past. Global integration of economies has made war between superpowers exceedingly risky (even by proxy, since you can alienate a necessary trading partner that way).

What distinguishes China from the USSR is the degree of insularity of the economy. By having a more free economy, China is both stronger (able to grow with a competing superpower) and more vulnerable (reliant on the competing superpower for its own growth). The rules are going to be rewritten here, at least at the finer levels of detail. Obviously, competition for resources, etc. will continue as it always has, so the macro rules of competition will continue.

Another important impact of integrated superpower economies is the role of corporations. They aren't patriotic entities, they exist solely to grow economically. As a result, they may use their significant influence on governments to help find the best path for both countries (as that benefits them more than a war).

Of course, national defense complicates things. If hacking attacks continue, that will make things awkward between the countries. Then again, I'm quite sure we're doing the same thing to them.

One other thought occurs: If a war occurs, manufacturing capacity is a major factor in victory. The U.S., as the most advanced economy in the world, has let its manufacturing base slip in favor of service-based industries. This concerns me.
In todays state of economy, you cannot win a physical war against China. They may not win either, true, but as ironical as it is, the fact that China has not yet developed to the point of the western industry, meaning it has not yet given such large quantities of production capacities into foreign hands makes them far less vulnerable.
On the other hand, China and the USA are fundamentally different nations as in how their people see themselves. While I agree that both countries have a government thats pretty removed from any kind of influence or checks and balances, its not entirely academic whether your populace wants an expensive and hurtful competition for the Top-Dog spot. I personally, right now, cant see a majority in the USA actually be willing to sacrifice life standard for a hypothetical economic or real war just to hold that badge that says "I live in the badass country of the world, yo!".
I dont know enough about China to really comment on their side of this debate.

My personal opinion, only mediocre-informed I might add, says we wont have a definite super-power on a global scale for a long time to come when this is over. I suspect several major players, but the time for european supremacy during the earlier centuries faded, the time of the british empire went by, and the US, and China will follow suit. Nobody is on top forever.
Reply
post #12 of 24
1/3/08 at 12:54pm
Personally I think the Chinese leaders aren't idiots. I think they're more than willing to share global power with the US because in the long-run it really helps them out to have that ying and yang (pun intended). China can make so much more money, and use that internally to help improve their own economy and people, by working with the US on a global ecomnomic level.

China has much more to worry about from an internal struggle between their widening poor vs. rich population than they do an external war. Super powers have realized that World War is a lose-lose situation with nukes and with the massive economic impact.
Reply
post #13 of 24
1/3/08 at 1:08pm
I have a hunch that China rising to superpower status will be the best thing that's happened to the US since the 80's.

The last few years have pretty much turned America into the most hated nation in the world and demoted its status pretty much to that of a rogue state. However, if other states are forced to choose between the Americans and the Chinese, I doubt they will go for the oppressive, robber-baron nation.

In short, I believe the emergence of a (not imaginary) antagonist will polarise the international community and help the US win back old allies and extend its area of influence.
Reply
post #14 of 24
1/3/08 at 1:46pm
But we've been fighting fake antagonists for so long, will we even know what the fuck to do when a real one rears its ugly face?!
Reply
post #15 of 24
1/3/08 at 1:55pm
Thread Starter 
Yes. Yes, we will.
Reply
post #16 of 24
1/3/08 at 2:03pm
This just means we are one step closer to that Serenity-esque future that Wheedon was going on about.

Damn, and I was rooting for a Cowboy Bebop style future.
Reply
post #17 of 24
1/3/08 at 2:20pm
Thread Starter 
Y'know, I think Whedon was right on with his version of pidgin.

I think I read on CHUD about how all of Firefly's Chinese cursing was real melt-the-paint stuff, but it just flew by all the censors because the censors didn't speak Mandarin.

Just another thing to love about that show.
Reply
post #18 of 24
1/3/08 at 3:52pm
[QUOTE=mastronikolas]
The last few years have pretty much turned America into the most hated nation in the world and demoted its status pretty much to that of a rogue state. However, if other states are forced to choose between the Americans and the Chinese, I doubt they will go for the oppressive, robber-baron nation.
[QUOTE]



Currently though, China has a hands off foreign policy. They do business with nations around the globe and pledge more or less to never interfere with the internal politics of their business partners. This has given them a leg up in securing resources in places like south america and africa where they really don't appreciate meddling, not after what the west has done to them over the last few hundred years. The US on the other hand, likes to use sanctions to force change in certain misbehaving partners. Due to this, I can see a future where many soverign nations, fearing the self righteousness of the US, would choose to ally with a chinese led bloc due to their 'do whatever you want as long as business continues' attitude.

And true Frank, it wouldn't be a hot or cold war like in the past and yes, peace is always preferred, even by the mad men, but when you have 2 lions in a cage and only so much meat to go around, it doesn't take much to provoke a confrontation even if it wasn't the intention. I mean, look at that incident in 2001 when the US lost a spy plane over there. We again self righteously labeled the chinese to be the agressors and we the innocent spies and the public got all fired up about how china was posturing and trying to provoke us despite the fact that it was our plane spying OVER THERE. Both sides engage in a wide range of spying and counterintelligence, but once governments begin spinning the situation to paint the other side as an enemy, things can get out of hand fast. We've forgotten about that incident now, but the next one is always around the corner and someone is ready and waiting to spin it into the next pearl harbor.
Reply
post #19 of 24
1/3/08 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator GAC
I mean, look at that incident in 2001 when the US lost a spy plane over there. We again self righteously labeled the chinese to be the agressors and we the innocent spies and the public got all fired up about how china was posturing and trying to provoke us despite the fact that it was our plane spying OVER THERE.
Um, not to derail, but our plane was flying in international airspace. Their plane came up to say "Hi," which is fine and happens all the time. Problem is, their pilot was a dipshit with a long history of dipshit moves. He pulled yet another dipshit move, but this time, he got himself killed and nearly got our guys killed.

(Our pilot then violated protocol and made an emergency landing on Chinese soil, when he should have flown the plane into the water. We gave him a medal for it because when you fuck up smalltime you get the hammer, but when you fuck up gloriously they make you a hero.)

China beat its chest and tried to make us look like the aggressors. The Bush Administration, in a brilliant display of statesmanship that did not indicate its future performance, did not respond in kind, but instead played softball, ate the browbeating and the intel setback of the PLA getting its hands on our cutting edge cryptographic gear. It damped emotions, got everyone home, and it even got the plane (albeit stripped down) home. It did not fire up the public, particularly when compared to the Chinese response (Remember the vigils for the downed PLA pilot, the heroic websites, the whole nine yards? See my earlier comment about fucking up gloriously.). We downplayed it, avoided confrontation, and acted like grownups.

Just as I expect we'll avoid confrontation and act like grownups in the future. Provided, of course, that PRC continues to want to play ball.
Reply
post #20 of 24
1/3/08 at 5:27pm
Well, I wasn't trying to label a good guy or a bad guy, but my point is that both sides did alot of posturing and I remember alot people here being indignant about it. Yes, we were in international waters, but what if they had lost a plane just off the coast of LA? It'd be treated as an invaison.

I agree, the bush admin let it go and diffused it all well, but I would also agrue that they did that because, as you mentioned, while we got our people back, they got to get their hands on our gear. They were all to happy to have returning hostages grab the headlines and so were we. Nobody had an interest in having such a breach of security splashed across the front pages of the world.

Anyway, back to the macro-strategic discussion...
Reply
post #21 of 24
1/3/08 at 5:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperator GAC
Yes, we were in international waters, but what if they had lost a plane just off the coast of LA?
I can't let this go just yet.

During the height of the Cold War, the pilot of a Russian spy plane fucked up his fuel calculations and made an emergency landing at a U.S. air base in Alaska.

We fuelled him up and sent him on his way.
Reply
post #22 of 24
1/3/08 at 5:41pm
Don't know about that one, was it classified at the time? How did the public react if it wasn't?
Reply
post #23 of 24
1/3/08 at 6:25pm
Thread Starter 
I don't think it was classified, but I don't recall.
Reply
post #24 of 24
1/4/08 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt
"What's wrong with having it good for a change? Now they're gonna let us have it good if we just help 'em. They're gonna leave us alone, let us make some money. You can have a little taste of that good life too. Now I know you want it, hell everybody does."
gum chewing/asskicking quoters take note: THAT is how you reference a Carpenter movie. awesome yt, as always.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Ladies & Gentlemen, Welcome to The Next Generation of Warfare