The White House has been unable to detect a single cyber security threat more than six months after issuing a “national emergency” to deal with what the administration identified as growing and immediate danger, according to a new government report.
Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton insists she has no evidence that anyone successfully penetrated her personal, private email server that she used for government business.
I wonder the basis of that claim.
There’s an aspect of so what to the question: what would actually change if the Brits vote to go their own way in a few weeks? One set of answers involves British influence on the continent or within the EU.
[I]f the British do vote for Brexit and then have to trade with the EU, the UK would in fact find itself isolated with very little influence over regulatory standards in the single market.
Great Britain already has very little influence over those regulatory standards: look, for instance, at the hue and cry from the rest of the EU over how the British comport themselves, and regulate others, in London’s financial markets. Also, from outside, the British would be utterly free to set their own market regulatory standards without interference or “help” from their Continental betters.
It’s the same with welfare programs and immigration generally. Although the British do fare quite a bit better here—as part of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s pre-British exit (Prexit?) negotiations with the EU, he won concessions (not enough, some would say) regarding the amount of British welfare payments would be paid to migrant (not immigrant) workers and their stay-at-home (country) families. But the French already are up in arms over English impertinence at not letting immigrant/refugees to flow across the channel quickly enough to suit France.
Neither of those problems would be any worse with a British exit, and the British would be in absolute control over them were they to go their own way.
The upshot looks as though there is, indeed, a what to the so what—and it favors a British exit from the EU. Which, in addition to giving Great Britain a great deal more flexibility and complete national sovereignty, would restore the British to their historical role of power broker among hegemon wannabes on the continent.
That last isn’t all bad for the British or for the continent.
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday warned Romania and Poland they could find themselves in the sights of Russian rockets because they are hosting elements of a US missile shield that Moscow considers a threat to its security.
Never mind that this is a blatantly bogus beef and a naked threat. The defensive missile shield cannot, by its very nature, be a threat to any naiotn other than one that’s planning an offensive attack. Sort of like Russia already has done to Georgia and Ukraine at gunpoint, and to the Baltic States—each of the three—with cyber attacks.
Putin is beginning to act on his threats, too, thereby confirming the need for a missile shield.
Russia conducted a successful flight test of a developmental anti-satellite missile on Wednesday that is capable of destroying satellites in orbit, American defense officials said.
And
The launch marks another major milestone for Moscow’s efforts to develop weapons capable of destroying US navigation, communications, and intelligence satellites, a key strategic advantage.
This was a direct ascent missile firing, too. A direct ascent shot means the missile did not have to orbit and then close with the target satellite; it could go from launch straight to satellite attack and impact. This sort of attack takes hours off the launch to destruct time.
But, of course, this represents no threat to us. Mm, mm.
…from the PRC, now?
China on Thursday ordered the US to end its surveillance patrols around the contested South China Sea region after the Pentagon said Chinese fighter jets “buzzed” a US military reconnaissance plane in an “unsafe manner” earlier this week.
The correct answer to the PRC’s order is to step up our close approaches, and move them in to low overflight, sailings as close as navigable water allows, and escorting those aircraft with combat aircraft.
And order the PRC to take its military occupation forces out of these international waters.
…from President Barack Obama’s (D) timidity in the South China Sea.
Beijing has responded to the January election of Tsai and her pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party by intensifying pressure on Taiwan with military exercises, diplomatic moves and cross-border deportations and prosecutions.
It’s quite explicit. Here’s Zhu Weidong, Deputy Director Institute of Taiwan Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing:
It is impossible for the mainland to get along with a party or a leader that doesn’t recognize the one-China policy or seeks to split the country.
There will be no so-called cold peace, but will definitely be a fresh confrontation. In that case, the domestic and international situation for Taiwan will only get more and more difficult.
And Li Fei, Xiamen University’s Taiwan Research Institute Deputy Director:
If Tsai fails to recognize the ’92 consensus and one-China principle, there will be no room left for Taiwan’s diplomacy.
And this, too:
In April, a meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s steel committee ejected a [RoC] delegation after China complained.
We could help Tsai and the Republic of China by expanding trade with the RoC to reduce its dependency on the PRC and by selling the RoC arms with which to upgrade and strengthen its military. And we could tell the PRC to stop whining; the RoC, as a vibrant, prosperous nation, is entirely welcome in organizations like the OECD.
A personal, State Dinner-type meeting between our President and President Tsai would go a long way, too.