Eventually, the price has to outweigh the benefit for them.

When people see toys from China with lead in them, or poisoned milk, that brings down the name of China. News shows, commentaries, blogs… people’s opinions matter and they need information to act: shall we choose China or India for such and such resources, for instance. If one country is showing themselves untrustworthy… our hand gets forced.

Further, it is because of exposure corporate America has been able to harden their systems, not just against hardened criminals with limited resources… but the fact is made known you might have foreign intel with vast resources trying to steal your corporate secrets, or even set up an entryway for sabotage.

This exposure also raises some big moral questions about why countries that have such poverty and misery… would choose to act dishonestly to keep the status quo, instead of acting honestly and fulfilling their trusted roles as public servants for their own people with honesty to outside nations.

Eventually, they would only cool off if the price outweighed the benefit.

Mere protection, in my opinion, is not enough.

Ultimately, they need something to replace at least the S&T theft. And that which is they need is clear: a functioning market system not weighed down by nepotism and other unnecessary government controls. True democracy, with accountability of public officials.

Rigged races never produce excellence. Totalitarian systems create rigged races, and it is no wonder then they have no excellence in the market place and their people are not fed… and definitely not living to the standard we do in the Free World.

It is not that the Chinese are lazy workers. It is that their system is rigged for corruption. It is dysfunctional.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Hathaway.Strategic%20Advantage.Why%20America%20Should%20Care%20About%20Cybersecurity.pdf

I fail to see how potentially causing severe diplomatic problems for their country could possibly be helping their country.

Do these hackers give the government hackers cover? Plausible deniability? “Not us, look, we have hackers that are independent”.

Considering that no one is fooled on that matter, I fail to see the value in it. Ends up, we have to consider every Chinese hacker a potential government agent.

Does Britain hack us? Japan? France? Germany?

Is it they want to be #1? What does that even mean. Or to display the greatness of their country? Do they feel people don’t appreciate China? People would far more if they freed things up there. Democracy works is why we do it. Free markets work. This is obviously proven.

Transparency works.

If China wants to be greater, they should reverse the damage done by the cultural “revolution”. It was not a revolution, it was a systematic, all pervasive destruction of the culture.

That is what makes country what they are. Their personalities. Their culture. Communism is not a culture, it is a failed, sick excuse for tyranny and nepotism.

Clearly, these directions are the directions that have aided China. Clearly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125616872684400273.html

Maybe of interest

As for your 1st post, I am not sure, its definitely an very interesting concept and would definitely be something that any agency running operatives on foreign soil would most likely do in an actual warfare situation, but as for peacetime I don’t know. Far as I know, this really was only done last during world war 2 in which both british and american commando teams were trained up. On a much smaller scale of course and sent in overseas operations to link up with the local resistance operatives (using the BBC broadcasts as communications link up messages) and then coordinating their efforts to support the resistances groups and better organize others in to effectively taking out supply, communications and just general disruption and terrorism (murders of officers) and mayhem.

So although there is historical evidence that this process works, I don’t know about actually filling out a 10000 strong force and sending them out all over the world. The smaller the teams are the more effective they seem to be (based on historic fact -ww2) and something 10k people strong, even throughout the world seems rather large to coordinate and communicate effectively. For instance in the case of the canada cell (i’ll use that term loosely) the group is still estimated at 50 people. (so .05 percent of your force is located in one city?) seems rather odd to me. I think a more effective force would be selected maybe at battalion strength 900-1000 men/women.

All the training and all of that still fits but then only 3-4 would be needed in an average city and those teams don’t necessarily know about each other they could act independantly or might work through a 3rd party handler who then comes up with a plan for local communications. The hardest part of this whole thing I would think would be the communications links, both from the senior command staff, reporting to it and to the handler in the group coordination lead position. Whereas the local communication would most likely be the most likely to go undiscovered due to unwariness of average citizens.

They became a hot topic on Internet chat rooms and forums. Chinese netizens found that one woman leading the militia unit was the Miss Etiquette of the Beijing Olympics, and another a model for foreign carmakers
……….mini skirts are still a weapon no matter which girl is wearing
them.