Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> China Hearsay

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

International Law

: China Hearsay

Defense Analysis Not What It Used To Be

By Stan

ADVERTISEMENTS

Well, actually I have no idea how it used to be. However, I am quite underwhelmed by this (from CNN.com):

The Chinese military continues to increase spending on efforts to break into U.S. military computer systems, expand its Navy, and invest in intercontinental nuclear missiles and weapons to destroy satellites, according to the latest U.S report on China’s military power.

The annual report from the Pentagon to Congress says China’s total military spending in 2007 was between $97 billion and $139 billion, but it is hard to tell exactly how much was spent and on what.

Pentagon officials said a chunk of China’s spending went to cyberwarfare, because 2007 saw several "intrusions" believed to be from the Peoples Liberation Army. In the incidents, unclassified U.S. military computer systems were broken into and information was taken, according to Pentagon officials.

OK, let’s unpack this a bit. At the beginning of the article, we have a statement that China is increasing its spending on cyberwarfare. Normally, you would then have a policy discussion or present some evidence or something. Instead, the next paragraph throws some numbers around with a disclaimer that no one really knows how much is spent on what defense system.

Then we get another statement from the Pentagon on cyberwarfare, this time the supposition is that because there were several "intrusions" (target sites not mentioned because they are classified) thought to be from the PLA, funding must be increasing.

Does that sound hopelessly weak or is it just me? I understand that I argue for a living and therefore might have high standards (ha ha), but if that’s all the Pentagon can come up with, I am quite disappointed.

I have not even mentioned, of course, why CNN is parroting all of this without being even slightly critical. Oh, I forgot. CNN doesn’t criticize the Pentagon during "wartime" because that would be an insult to the "troops". Compare the CNN article with this excellent FT piece that focuses on naval power and other topics for which there is actual information available.

Full post as published by China Hearsay on March 04, 2008 (boomark / email).