Plan Vs Usn

[QOHC32]

Well, i've noticed that noone mentioned that China has already developed a battle system somehow similar with the Aegis in cooporation with an Ukranian company.It is already in use in the Type 052C destroyers(170/171) and it is consisted of 4 static phase array radars. Among with the AAW HQ-9 system(Chinese version of the Russian S-300FM fort-M) can provide, thoritically speaking, AA coverage for the bigger Sovremennyy class destroyers and the rest ships.

[Manu]

Germany had to seek "place under the sun" by force because Napoleon III declared war on them to prevent the inevitable Germany unification. After that, Bismark became a rockstar and any hope for accomodation went out the window.

148487[/snapback]

 

Which was both a very stupid decision on Napo's part part and exactly what Bismark wanted him to do - considering that only 70 years before another Napoleon led France to kick serious divided german butts, the various grerman minors would not consider unifying Germany as a prussian takover but as a défense agaisnt a repeat show.

[jakec]

Hmm. I think you guys are conflating two different periods in German history. Bismarck was in fact the guy ousted by the new Kaiser in 1890. Bismarck had been largely playing by the rules of the European system and kept an alliance with Russia. The new Kaiser changed all this and promoted an entirely different strategy of Germany as a world power. The war with France was back in 1870, and as was alluded to, Bismarck successfully got France to look like the aggressor when Nap III foolishly attacked.

 

Back on topic, what is the current strength of the 7th Fleet? Anyone have any links or knowledge to share?

[TSJ]

I don't know how current this is:

 

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Pages/shippage.htm

[tankerwanabe]

Before the 1870s when had Germany last expanded outward, or Japan for that matter. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns as the investment handbooks say.

 

The real question IMHO is how, short of a military hedging strategy can the West be guaranteed that a China with a US sized economy won't become stroppy. Lets not forget that of all the potential great powers of the 21st Century, China is the only one with territorial disputes with all its neighbours (including Russia, Japan, India, Vietnam, Korea, and Taiwan of course). Spend a little time on Chinese BBS and you will see that the tech savvy urban male elite has not forgotten the "unequal treaties" of the 19th Century and the loss of Qing lands. Take a look at the map of the Qing Empire at its peak - it includes large swaths of what is currently Russia, Mongolia, Korea and Vietnam, as well as various Central Asian 'stans. In the Chinese perception, a lot of these lands were "stolen" while China was weak and divided. It does not take a great leap to see that today's fascination with gaining the return of the "lost province" of Taiwan and cementing the occupation of Tibet could potentially be applied with equal ferocity to other Qing lands when China is strong.

 

Agreed today's Chinese leaders are pre-occupied with internal strengthening and national development. So were Germany's leaders prior to 1890, when a change of leadership brought an abrupt shift in policy. That shift, combined with Germany's new industrial muscle created a formidable problem for the neighbourhood. But from the German point of view, all they wanted was their "place in the sun" and status commensurate with their economic power. China still perceives itself as relatively weak, and deliberately aims to keep its head down for twenty years until national power is built up. Then we'll all get to see who was right.

148475[/snapback]

 

But why does it need a big Navy to expand in those direction that you mentioned? That is landward.

 

However, I will admit some concern over China's declaration that they claim a 200 miles coast and the entire South China seas. A preemption on a strike into Taiwan perhaps?

[Guest Jokerblue]

Well, i've noticed that noone mentioned that China has already developed a battle system somehow similar with the Aegis in cooporation with an Ukranian company.It is already in use in the Type 052C destroyers(170/171) and it is consisted of 4 static phase array radars. Among with the AAW HQ-9 system(Chinese version of the Russian S-300FM fort-M) can provide, thoritically speaking, AA coverage for the bigger Sovremennyy class destroyers and the rest ships.

148495[/snapback]

 

AEGIS is powerful not because of the radar, but because its such an integrated system. A phased array radar does not an AEGIS-equivalent make. Even then, how many 52Cs are there? 2 ships are not a serious protection against what the USN will deal out. What is the ship's ASW capability? A ship faces threat not only from the air, but underwater too....

[jakec]

But why does it need a big Navy to expand in those direction that you mentioned? That is landward.

 

However, I will admit some concern over China's declaration that they claim a 200 miles coast and the entire South China seas.  A preemption on a strike into Taiwan perhaps?

148807[/snapback]

China also claims the entire East China Sea basically up to Okinawa coast as Chinese territory, along with Senkaku Islands (currently occupied by Japan). There are similar but a bit more obscure claims on the sea between China and Korea and a dispute with Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin.

[Sparviero]

Ok stupd time here from the civvie corner.

 

Wouldn't the Chinese immediate need for a blue water fleet be something that can operate against taiwan and data-link with all the missiles on shore missile batteries, that they are busy upgrading I believe, in case of USN intervention? Or are those shore based missiles going to be used up in the initial attack to soften up Taiwan and the island garrisons in the straights?

 

Basically my thoughts would be that they would send out assets(merchant ships) to mine any approaches and declare an exclusionary zone ala the Falklands if there would be a way to leave them turned off until the attack on Taiwan takes place. Start the missile barrage, attrition of Taiwanese assets that could harm invasion fleet, etc. Use datalinks between surface/air/sea assets to conduct missile attacks on any USN ship that comes nearby. I know our ships are good but seems like only a matter of time before missile stocks get dried up fending off continous harrasment attacks from the Chinese and have to operate from extended ranges. Especially if the Chinese figure out someway to use their satellites to help in the guidance so they can sling missles from long range. Not sure if they have any in geosynch orbit where it would be possible though. Now I imagine this is the part where I'll be informed the Chinese don't have near as many missiles are required to make that feasible. I'm not saying they could do this right now but in a decade or two?

 

The thing that sticks most in my mind is that if I'm giving the Chinese a decade or two in my thinking we should have deployed energy based weapons on our ships that would be able to enhance the fleet's defense ability. Minituraized and much more potent THEL 3.0 or what not in 15 years time? What would be the counter to this a large missile carrier mirv style vehicle that launches multiple minimissiles once in range of fleet defense weapons? Go ahead and shoot me for the robotech moment there.

 

Please laugh responsibly I don't want to be responsible for a busted gut.

[Josh]

Re: Sparviero

 

Ok stupd time here from the civvie corner.

 

Wouldn't the Chinese immediate need for a blue water fleet be something that can operate against taiwan and data-link with all the missiles on shore missile batteries, that they are busy upgrading I believe, in case of USN intervention? Or are those shore based missiles going to be used up in the initial attack to soften up Taiwan and the island garrisons in the straights?

 

The balistic missiles AFAIK have no terminal homing capability. They most likely will be used against airfields and C2 sites in a conflict.

 

 

Basically my thoughts would be that they would send out assets(merchant ships) to mine any approaches and declare an exclusionary zone ala the Falklands if there would be a way to leave them turned off until the attack on Taiwan takes place.

 

Not aware of any mines that have timing devices that sophisticated, though I believe mines usually have some kind of randomizer to prevent them from being easily slept. No doubt mines would be used extensively by the PLAN to prevent as much as possible, any reinforcement of the island.

 

Use datalinks between surface/air/sea assets to conduct missile attacks on any USN ship that comes nearby.

 

Not aware of any significant data linking in the PLAN, at least not directly to missiles. They largely lack the kind of sophisticated tracking and targeting ability to engage a US CVBG. See the following:

 

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

 

I know our ships are good but seems like only a matter of time before missile stocks get dried up fending off continous harrasment attacks from the Chinese and have to operate from extended ranges.

 

The USN would have several hundred VLS cells available in your average CVBG. Admittedly its classified how many of those would actually be loaded with SM-2's, but it seems like a formation could hold out for quite some time. This is also ignoring short range SAMs like ESSM and RAM. I believe CV's are being upgraded to have 3 ESSM launchers (replacing Sea Sparrow) and 4 more RAM launghers (replacing CIWS)--this is around a hundred point defense missiles. If the USN's situation seems desperate, than it will be nothing compared to the kind of attrition the PLAN would be suffering.

 

Especially if the Chinese figure out someway to use their satellites to help in the guidance so they can sling missles from long range. Not sure if they have any in geosynch orbit where it would be possible though.

 

The Chinese have no naval tracking satellites in orbit that I'm aware. Furthermore spy satellites and the like usually opperate in low earth orbit, typipcally in the 250 nm altitude. Geosynchronous orbit is around 22,000nm--com sats are in these orbits, not spy sats, AFAIK. The only country to opperate satellites specifically for tracking ships was the Soviet Union, using Radar Oceanic Recon Satellites (RORSAT). A partner satellite system tracked naval formations via ESM. Neither has been in orbit for over a decade; the former required a nuclear power plant to run the energy intensive radar system.

 

Now I imagine this is the part where I'll be informed the Chinese don't have near as many missiles are required to make that feasible. I'm not saying they could do this right now but in a decade or two?

 

The Chinese have a lot of ballistic missiles they could rain on Taiwan, and their ships and planes have cruise missiles they could try to engage surface units with. There's no shortage of either type AFAIK. But they have to detect and track their targets and close to within launching range--which is unlikely for planes, given the swarm of AIM-120s they'd probably absorb, and is even more unlikely for ships, given the number of Harpoons they'd get lobbed their way. The USN not only is large, it also is qualitatively decades ahead of the PLAN in terms of information sharing and linking, and opperating a full CV allows patrol and AEW planes to collect information and share it real time with other ships and planes while not revealing the position of units that are not radiating.

 

The thing that sticks most in my mind is that if I'm giving the Chinese a decade or two in my thinking we should have deployed energy based weapons on our ships that would be able to enhance the fleet's defense ability. Minituraized and much more potent THEL 3.0 or what not in 15 years time?

 

I think the technology is there, if there is a perceived need. Ships make easy platforms for a laser in as far as they have a lot of space and a lot of power. However the air and moisture at sea level on the ocean may not be that condusive to firing a laser either. Still I see no show stopper that would prevent a THEL like installation on a ship.

 

What would be the counter to this a large missile carrier mirv style vehicle that launches multiple minimissiles once in range of fleet defense weapons?

 

No idea--lasers, at a dangerous enough power level, make the ultimate AD weapon in that there is no flight time and no dodging them. I suspect in the short term missiles would be either stealthed against radar and IR detection or hardened against lasers, or both. Eventually perhaps rail guns would be used to fire solid projectiles that a laser cannot burn up or destroy.

[Sparviero]

Basically the stupid idea on the minimissiles is saturating a laser defensive with multiple targets on at least slightly different vectors to cause the system to spend valuable time evaluating and moving to intercept projectile paths. Going from having to intercept 50 missiles to 150+ would be a bit of a headache I think. Then again like I said it was a robotech fantasy nothing else. As I imagine even if such a system was possible more than a few would not hit a ship and the defensive computer could disregard and greatly alleviate any problem in targeting and destroying incoming missiles in time. Just some vague half thoughts if I was a Chinese general. I would be looking to saturate the USN task force with enough targets that look to present a threat that they are forced to expend defensive countermeasures at an accelerated rate and forced to operate from further away. I may be presuming wrong but the Chinese have the advantage of being able to resupply and reinforce faster than the US can throw anything at them and have in the past accepted large casualties for minimal gain. Just my uneducated view point.

 

That is if the Chinese are able to locate and target the task force as you said. I imagine the plans and methods of blinding any Chinese capability at doing such are in place and updated all the time. Not to mention the Taiwanese probably have their own suprises to hinder the Chinese efforts.

[gewing]

From what I recall of the tactial airborne laser program, it would be intended to hit targets at up to about 10-12 km. Mounted on an aircraft, or I would GUESS an Aerostat...

 

Though mounting the emitter high on the mast of a surface ship would give a pretty good range....

[crobato]

However, I will admit some concern over China's declaration that they claim a 200 miles coast and the entire South China seas. A preemption on a strike into Taiwan perhaps?

 

The Senkaku/Diayutai is claimed by Taiwan, who accordingly said that Japan ceded the islands to the ROC government after WWII. Said islands are much closer to Taiwan than they are to Okinawa. The PRC claim is based on the ROC/Taiwan claim.

[crobato]

Not aware of any significant data linking in the PLAN, at least not directly to missiles.

 

I think you need to update your knowledge of the PLAN. Go visit the Chinese Defense Forums. This is a large forum and we have one major subforum just for the Navy alone.

 

http://www.china-defense.com/forum/index.p...na-defense.com/

 

The way this thread is going it seems like questions from people who don't have a clue are being answered by people who also don't have a clue. We got listings and essays on EW, ECM, radar and datalinks used by the PLAN, plus a whole lot of information gathered from all sources. We got orbats, ship listings, tons of photos, and we have people all over the world participating, especially from various military services.

 

The YJ-83 antiship missiles do have datalinks, and has a range of 160km to 255km, the latter was the range detected of a launching of such missile from a JH-7 strike fighter by US intelligence. These air breathers can be launched from planes like the JH-7s, from subs like the Song and the Yuan class, and from the majority of the PLAN fleet which they are standard weapon.

[Josh]

I think you need to update your knowledge of the PLAN. Go visit the Chinese Defense Forums.  This is a large forum and we have one major subforum just for the Navy alone. 

 

http://www.china-defense.com/forum/index.p...na-defense.com/

 

The way this thread is going it seems like questions from people who don't have a clue are being answered by people who also  don't have a clue.  We got listings and essays on EW, ECM, radar and datalinks used by the PLAN, plus a whole lot of information gathered from all sources.  We got orbats, ship listings, tons of photos, and we have people all over the world participating, especially from various military services. 

 

The YJ-83 antiship missiles do have datalinks, and has a range of 160km to 255km, the latter was the range detected of a launching of such missile from a JH-7 strike fighter by US intelligence.  These air breathers can be launched from planes like the JH-7s, from subs like the Song and the Yuan class, and from the majority of the PLAN fleet which they are standard weapon.

149183[/snapback]

 

I stand corrected.

 

Edit: does this forum not allow guests to view? I see sub forums but no posts or disucssions.

Edited February 26, 2005 by jua

[UN-Interested Observer]

Especially if the Chinese figure out someway to use their satellites to help in the guidance so they can sling missles from long range. Not sure if they have any in geosynch orbit where it would be possible though. Now I imagine this is the part where I'll be informed the Chinese don't have near as many missiles are required to make that feasible. I'm not saying they could do this right now but in a decade or two?

148963[/snapback]

 

I was waiting for this to involve space! In a book from about a decade ago, called 'future war', iirc, they highlight info tech and space as the crucial variables.

 

It would be irresponsible for western software manufacturers like Microsoft not to build backdoors into their software for defence uses, similarly with hardware (routers etc). Essentially China, especially Hong Kong is likely ridden with so many foreign trojans that they will have to replace every foreign electronic component in their infrastructure to be secure. The bad news - the same rule applies to us.

 

For an example of using a back-door, a hacker was employed by the NYSE to try their new information security system. They were confident the system was impregnable, with safeties and firewalls and all the bells and whistles, no one could interfere with the exchange. The hacker got to work, and fter a couple hours the exchange malfunctioned, and shut down. The hacker had commanded the air-conditioning unit for the main-frame computers to maintain a higher temperature, and the bios safeties in the computers shut them down. This was a hacker completely unfamiliar to a new system, covertly surveilling, planning, and executing an attack against one of the hardest targets. If one has the resources of a nation at their disposal, and years to plan attacks against rather exposed targets, and the capability to attack in sequence for cascade effectiveness, a modern information-economy country could shut down over night. Example of weakness in China is the centralization, if you interfere with a few dams you cause massive problems for energy and agriculture. In America the opposite problem occurs, massive decentralization, but weak protection and interlinkages invite special attention.

 

I realize this looks irrelevant to naval combat, but it is really quite involved. When one touches on the issue of satellites and global function, it is incredible, truly boggles the mind in scope. The usefullness of satellites is a double-edged sword; they are so useful that we use them, but we use them so we are weaker if we lose them. The navy even has its own constellation of satellites. I'm not sure about the F22, but the F15 has anti-satellite capability, and Russians proved effectiveness of killer satellites with (once again) mind-boggling mathematics.

 

To be more concise, the first strike in any equal=power war would be simultaneous against info-tech and space equipment. Continued conflict would see hacking on an unprecedented level, communications down to the squad level being monitored or disrupted, logistics disrupted and such. When the fighter wing receives HMMWV headlights, and the HMMWVs receive AMRAAMs neither functions at full effectiveness, yet all that happened was the slight modificaton of transmitted data sheets.

[TSJ]

Most of the infrastructure in the US, if it is controlled by computer, is stand alone stuff. Very little of it is wired into a network of some sort. And sorry to disapoint, but you won't be able to get on the internet and gain access to ATM machines. There's no connection. As part of y2k I did an audit of our areas electric utility. Very little of the grid was actually controlled by computers. And certainly no internet connection either. However, I will admit that could be changing. And you do have to know what equipment comes with dial up modems. You would be surprised how few companies know if some of their equipment that they purchased have this.

 

I don't see the Chinese trusting hardly any of their infrastructure or security to computers or the internet. Or having dial up modems on their equipment. No way. They are way more suspicious and paranoid than we are.

 

And no day in hell is the NYSE going to allow some hacker that they employed to shut down their system. I don't care if the system was completely open and had a neon sign on it going, blink-blink-Hackers try here! blink-blink.

Edited February 27, 2005 by TSJ

[UN-Interested Observer]

And no day in hell is the NYSE going to allow some hacker that they employed to shut down their system. I don't care if the system was completely open and had a neon sign on it going, blink-blink-Hackers try here! blink-blink.

149604[/snapback]

 

Have you made any trades today or yesterday?

 

ASUI you can test a system before it is fully integrated, it is rather idiotic if you do not. I was under the impression that the NYSE episode was common knowledge, I suppose I could find a source for you.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Have you made any trades today or yesterday?

 

I was under the impression that the NYSE episode was common knowledge, I suppose I could find a source for you.

149706[/snapback]

No trades today or yesterday, but then again it *is* Sunday in NY The NYSE has had a few glitchs but none recent I recall or any ever with any real financial impact. Hackers can attack computer systems, but those sort of offhand remarks tend to lack a sense of perpsective, what kind of really major disruption is easy to cause? Since there aren't examples of really massive disruptions, it hasn't happened on the NYSE or any other comparable place, it's hard to say. So while it can't be said it can't happen, it's actually not so obvious that it's easy to cause, and therefore not obvious the measures major financial institutions take are not reasonably commensurate with the threat.

 

Joe

[swerve]

No trades today or yesterday, but then again it *is* Sunday in NY   

 

Joe

 

I think that was his point (not that I'm arguing he's right - I have no knowledge of this episode, & I'm sceptical). They could test the security on a weekend when there was no trading.

[JOE BRENNAN]

I think that was his point (not that I'm arguing he's right - I have no knowledge of this episode, & I'm sceptical). They could test the security on a weekend when there was no trading.

149799[/snapback]

Yeah OK whatever . Just to be really precise (and pedantic), OK. I haven't heard of the major hacker outage at the London exchange last Friday or the one at the Nikkei the Friday that were all fixed over the weekend and escaped any press attnetion, so I'm also skeptical, but lets give the benefit of the doubt and parse the exact wording fairly...

 

Joe

Edited February 28, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[UN-Interested Observer]

Yeah OK whatever (rolleyes) . Just to be really precise (and pedantic), OK. I haven't heard of the major hacker outage at the London exchange last Friday or the one at the Nikkei the Friday that were all fixed over the weekend and escaped any press attnetion, so I'm also skeptical, but lets give the benefit of the doubt and parse the exact wording fairly...

 

Joe

149922[/snapback]

 

Well, it's not every day that one sees an otherwise respectable member of this board revert to the mannerisms of a teenage girl. I suppose it could simply be chalked up to the weekend, many of us suffer from the previous night's beverages on a Sunday afternoon.

 

I suppose I'm feeling generous in sympathetic response - here is everything you could need, just in case the title was not enough.

 

Future war : non-lethal weapons in twenty-first-century warfare /

by Alexander, John B.

View full image

St. Martin's Press, 1999.

# More About This Subject Nonlethal weapons.

# War -- Forecasting.

# Law enforcement -- Forecasting.

ISBN:

0312194161

 

I believe you will find a short interview with the fellow who designed the information network linking US Naval vessels in there as well.

[JOE BRENNAN]

I suppose I'm feeling generous in sympathetic response - here is everything you could need, just in case the title was not enough.

 

Future war : non-lethal weapons in twenty-first-century warfare /

by Alexander, John B.

View full image

150187[/snapback]

I much appreciate the sympathy of a recently joined member of the board who usually posts without a lot of facts, and often just plain wrong stuff when he tries to, and has no basic credibility separate from his providing very specific, very credible sources, AFAIC.

 

The title of some book from 6 yrs ago, how does that fit with asking somebody whether they were able to trade on the NYSE last Saturday and Sunday? And you're expecting people to buy a book just to find out what specific incident are you speaking of so they can check alternative information about it. The NYSE had a couple of *short* outages in the late 90's (not related to hackers AFAIK) but if you actually said what you were talking about, rather than just obfuscating with references to last weekend or tap dancing with just listing titles of books, people would probably be open to checking it out and evaluating it against what you said.

 

Joe

Edited March 1, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[UN-Interested Observer]

I much appreciate the sympathy of a recently joined member of the board who usually posts without a lot of facts, and often just plain wrong stuff when he tries to, and has no basic credibility separate from his providing very specific, very credible sources, AFAIC.

 

The title of some book from 6 yrs ago, how does that fit with asking somebody whether they were able to trade on the NYSE last Saturday and Sunday? And you're expecting people to buy a book just to find out what specific incident are you speaking of so they can check alternative information about it. The NYSE had a couple of *short* outages in the late 90's (not related to hackers AFAIK) but if you actually said what you were talking about, rather than just obfuscating with references to last weekend or tap dancing with just listing titles of books, people would probably be open to checking it out and evaluating it against what you said.

 

Joe

150299[/snapback]

 

I'm going to have to assume you ment that all in the most collegial manner, so I'm going to politely answer your questions and silently ignore the rather personal jabs...

 

I re-read the last few posts and I believe the confusion comes from basing your interpretation on another person's interpretation of what I wrote. To summarize;

 

Myself, "For an example of using a back-door, a hacker was employed by the NYSE to try their new information security system."

 

TSJ, "And no day in hell is the NYSE going to allow some hacker that they employed to shut down their system. I don't care if the system was completely open and had a neon sign on it going, blink-blink-Hackers try here! blink-blink."

 

MYself, "Have you made any trades today or yesterday?

 

ASUI you can test a system before it is fully integrated, it is rather idiotic if you do not. I was under the impression that the NYSE episode was common knowledge, I suppose I could find a source for you."

 

- Now this seems to be the catching point. If you read Swerve's post it does an excellent job of explaining my vague (I was trying for witty, oh well maybe next time:)) reference to weekend trading.

 

 

So a brief summary would point that a confusion developed between us, and can be clarified by accentuating the point that the hacker episode was not malicious, but an arranged security test. That was all rather irrelevant, though, the central idea I was trying to communicate was that vulnerabilities exist where you would never think to look.

 

 

Back to topic - I could borrow the book from a library, an option I prefer to purchasing, and copy verbatim the sections peraining to networking amongst naval vessels, if so desired.

[TSJ]

TSJ, "And no day in hell is the NYSE going to allow some hacker that they employed to shut down their system. I don't care if the system was completely open and had a neon sign on it going, blink-blink-Hackers try here! blink-blink."

 

MYself, "Have you made any trades today or yesterday?

 

Nobody crashes an IBM mainframe system even on the weekends, not if they can help it. You can say, "I have control of the air conditioning system therefore I can turn the heat up and crash the mainframe". I've heard of hacker/consultants doing things like that. But that is a far cry from *actually* crashing the system. I've even heard of consultants calling up the CEO's secretary and tricking them into getting the CEOs login ID and password. But nobody in his right mind actually used it. No legitmate consultant *ever* causes his client any damage. No way, no how. They write it up and put it in a report and present the bill for services rendered. I can't even imagine the NYSE admitting a hacker got control of their mainframe to the public. Some idiotic investor might ask for damages or to reverse his bad trade to due to some imagined errors or whatever. And news to you, mainframes are usually busy on the weekends as well. One of the curses of the SysProg is trying to find time on the mainframe to update the operating system software. Even on the weekends.

 

A unix instructor that I know once deleted one of his client's system one weekend. In unix it is very easy to do if you are not careful. he spent the entire weekend recovering the system and he lost that client as one of his customers. Live and learn, buddy.

 

So, I will admit that it could have happened. Anything is possible. But I would sure like to see it documented somewhere.

Edited March 1, 2005 by TSJ

[JOE BRENNAN]

I re-read the last few posts and I believe the confusion comes from basing your interpretation on another person's interpretation of what I wrote.

150408[/snapback]

"The hacker got to work, and after a couple hours the exchange malfunctioned, and shut down."

 

You were challenged on that, which seems a pretty clear claim, but which you haven't been able to back up, or been willing to clarify that you mispoke or overstated, or whatever the explanation is; after a lot of verbose tap dancing. If it's "personal" to point out that that doesn't enhance your general credibility posting here, and state the opinion that it seems rather common in your posts, you have a thin skin.

 

Joe