Remember when that Chinese General wrote that book or either gave that interview to the Washinton post in which he was discussing "other" methods to overwhelm an enemy? I.E cybewarfare economic disaster etc. etc. I've searched the TB2000 archives and either overlooked it or it's gone.

Thanks in advance!

-- missing the old forum (not@giv.ing), May 02, 2000

Answers

InternetNews - International News

From asia.internet.com

Chinese Military Seeks to Train Cyber Warriors August 3, 1999 Hans Lombardo, Managing Editor, asia.internet.com InternetNews - International News Archives

[Hong Kong, CHINA] The Chinese military hopes to develop the capability of engaging in warfare over the Internet by training hackers to take the battle online.

The Liberation Army Daily (LAD), a mouthpiece of China's Peoples Liberation Army (PLA), recently called for the development of this capability. The paper said that, by recruiting civilian hackers and training "cyber warriors" at Army schools, China could be prepared for an Internet war.

The call was made in response to several hacking incidents in the US and China after NATO's bombing of the China's Belgrade Embassy. The Army paper reported that a "battle" was fought on the Internet between US and Chinese hackers.

In May, Chinese hackers infiltrated various US government sites including the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of the Interior (DOI), the US Embassy in China, and the Naval Communications Command. Nearly a thousand US civilian sites were broken into in the two days following the bombing, sources said.

According to the Chinese military paper, US hackers responded by "counterattacking" several civilian sites in China.

More recently, the Chinese government has been accused of waging a cyber war against the outlawed Chinese sect, Falun Gong. Webmasters in Canada, the US, and the UK have reported that their sites, hosting or linking to the sect's sites, were sabotaged or brought down by hackers traced to Chinese domains.

In addition to this, Beijing has moved its rhetorical campaign against the sect on to the Web. The China Internet Information Center and The China Daily have set up anti-Falun Gong sites.

http://www.internetnews.com/intl-news/print/0%2C1089%2C6_173341%2C00.h tml

-- - (x@xxx.com), May 02, 2000.

Chine se views of future warfare

http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/inss/books/chinview/chinacont.html

-- - (x@xxx.com), May 02, 2000.

Chinese unresrtricted warfare

http://cryptome.org/cuw01.htm

-- - (x@xxx.com), May 02, 2000.

Conclusion

[pp. 241-247 in original]

"Computerization and globalization...have produced several thousand global enterprises and tens of thousands of international and inter-government organizations." -- E. Laszlo

"Mankind is making progress, and no longer believes that war is a potential court of appeals." -- Bloch

At a time when man's age-old ideal of "the family of man" is used by IBM in an advertisement, "globalization" is no longer the prediction of futurists. An era in which we are impelled by the great trend of technological integration that is plastered all over with information labels, agitated by the alternately cold and warm ocean currents from the clash and fusion of civilizations, troubled by local wars rising first here then there and by domino-like financial crises and the ozone hole over the South Pole, and which causes everyone, including the futurists and visionaries, to feel strange and out of place - [such an era] is in the process of slowly unfolding between the dusk of the 20th century and the dawn of the 21st century.

Global integration is comprehensive and profound. Through its ruthless enlightenment, those things which must inevitably be altered or even dispelled are the positions of authority and interest boundaries in which nations are the principal entities. The modern concept of "nation states" which emerged from the Peace of Westphalia [1] in 1648 is no longer the sole representative occupying the top position in social, political, economic and cultural organizations. The emergence of large numbers of meta-national, trans-national, and non-national organizations, along with the inherent contradictions between one nation and another, are presenting an unprecedented challenge to national authority, national interests, and national will. [2]

At the time of the emergence of the early nation states, the births of most of them were assisted by blood-and-iron warfare. In the same way, during the transition of nation states to globalization, there is no way to avoid collisions between enormous interest blocs. What is different is that the means that we have today to untie the "Gordian Knot" [3] are not merely swords, and because of this we no longer have to be like our ancestors who invariably saw resolution by armed force as the last court of appeals. Any of the political, economic, or diplomatic means now has sufficient strength to supplant military means. However, mankind has no reason at all to be gratified by this, because what we have done is nothing more than substitute bloodless warfare for bloody warfare as much as possible. [4] As a result, while constricting the battlespace in the narrow sense, at the same time we have turned the entire world into a battlefield in the broad sense. On this battlefield, people still fight, plunder, and kill each other as before, but the weapons are more advanced and the means more sophisticated, so while it is somewhat less bloody, it is still just as brutal. Given this reality, mankind's dream of peace is still as elusive as ever. Even speaking optimistically, war will not be wiped out rapidly within the foreseeable future, whether it is bloody or not. Since things which should happen will ultimately come to pass, what we can and must focus on at present is how to achieve victory.

Faced with warfare in the broad sense that will unfold on a borderless battlefield, it is no longer possible to rely on military forces and weapons alone to achieve national security in the larger strategic sense, nor is it possible to protect these stratified national interests. Obviously, warfare is in the process of transcending the domains of soldiers, military units, and military affairs, and is increasingly becoming a matter for politicians, scientists, and even bankers. How to conduct war is obviously no longer a question for the consideration of military people alone. As early as the beginning of this century, Clemenceau stated that "war is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military." However, the history of the past 100 years tells us that turning over warfare to the politicians is not the ideal way to resolve this important issue, either. [5] People are turning to technical civilization, hoping to find in technological developments a valve which will control war. But what makes people despair is that the entire century is just about gone, and while technology has made great strides, war still remains an unbroken mustang. People still expect wonders from the revolution in military affairs, hoping that high-tech weapons and non-lethal weapons can reduce civilian and even military casualties in order to diminish the brutality of war. However, the occurrence of the revolution in military affairs, along with other revolutions, has altered the last decade of the 20th century. The world is no longer what it was originally, but war is still as brutal as it has always been. The only thing that is different is that this brutality has been expanded through differences in the modes in which two armies fight one other. Think about the Lockerbie air disaster. Think about the two bombs in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Then think about the financial crisis in East Asia. It should not be difficult to understand what is meant by this different kind of brutality.

This, then, is globalization. This is warfare in the age of globalization. Although it is but one aspect, it is a startling one. When the soldiers standing at the crossroads of the centuries are faced with this aspect, perhaps each of them should ask himself, what can we still do? If those such as Morris, bin Laden, and Soros can be considered soldiers in the wars of tomorrow, then who isn't a soldier? If the likes of Powell, Schwartzkopf, Dayan, and Sharon can be considered politicians in uniform, then who isn't a politician? This is the conundrum that globalization and warfare in the age of globalization has left for the soldiers.

Although the boundaries between soldiers and non-soldiers have now been broken down, and the chasm between warfare and non-warfare nearly filled up, globalization has made all the tough problems interconnected and interlocking, and we must find a key for that. The key should be able to open all the locks, if these locks are on the front door of war. And this key must be suited to all the levels and dimensions, from war policy, strategy, and operational techniques to tactics; and it must also fit the hands of individuals, from politicians and generals to the common soldiers.

We can think of no other more appropriate key than "unrestricted warfare."

http://cryptome.org/cuw02.htm#Conclusion

-- - (x@xxx.com), May 02, 2000.

Oh thank you what you have given me is so much more than what I asked for.

I was just starting down this path and you have carried me miles and miles.

Bless you!!!

-- missing the old forum (not@giv.ing), May 02, 2000.

http://www.terrorism.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf

-- thats (more@like.it), May 05, 2000.