Nicole Perlroth

But if we're really counting on mutually assured digital destruction to hold China back, we need to take a sober look at just how mutual that destruction would be. And the hard truth is that the battlefield may be tilted in China's favor. For one, we live in the glassiest of glass houses. Our digital attack surface is larger by a significant margin.

But if we're really counting on mutually assured digital destruction to hold China back, we need to take a sober look at just how mutual that destruction would be. And the hard truth is that the battlefield may be tilted in China's favor. For one, we live in the glassiest of glass houses. Our digital attack surface is larger by a significant margin.

We dove head first into cloud computing, smart devices, automation, and now AI. It makes us incredibly efficient, but also deeply vulnerable. When it comes to our core infrastructure, our economy, our everyday life, we're simply more reliant on tech than they are. Secondly, most of our technology, routers, phones, chips, even the cranes running our ports, is made overseas, much of it in China.

We dove head first into cloud computing, smart devices, automation, and now AI. It makes us incredibly efficient, but also deeply vulnerable. When it comes to our core infrastructure, our economy, our everyday life, we're simply more reliant on tech than they are. Secondly, most of our technology, routers, phones, chips, even the cranes running our ports, is made overseas, much of it in China.

Meanwhile, China controls its supply chains and runs a closed internet, the Great Firewall, giving it far greater visibility and control. Third, the Chinese Communist Party is willing to absorb massive amounts of pain in ways that, frankly, we aren't. Think back to Mao's great leap forward. Millions died from famine, and the party didn't flinch.

Meanwhile, China controls its supply chains and runs a closed internet, the Great Firewall, giving it far greater visibility and control. Third, the Chinese Communist Party is willing to absorb massive amounts of pain in ways that, frankly, we aren't. Think back to Mao's great leap forward. Millions died from famine, and the party didn't flinch.

That legacy still shapes the party's tolerance for suffering in pursuit of strategic goals. Here in the US, Americans can stomach a day without TikTok. Even after Congress voted to ban TikTok or force China to divest, the PRC didn't blink. We did. What happens when it's not access to TikTok, but clean water?

That legacy still shapes the party's tolerance for suffering in pursuit of strategic goals. Here in the US, Americans can stomach a day without TikTok. Even after Congress voted to ban TikTok or force China to divest, the PRC didn't blink. We did. What happens when it's not access to TikTok, but clean water?

And finally, when it comes to offensive cyber attacks, as a democracy, we play by different rules. On that, here's Rob Joyce, NSA's former cybersecurity chief, who previously led hacking teams at NSA.

And finally, when it comes to offensive cyber attacks, as a democracy, we play by different rules. On that, here's Rob Joyce, NSA's former cybersecurity chief, who previously led hacking teams at NSA.

Here's what most people don't realize. We are locked in a cyber battle where only one side is actually authorized to attack civilian systems. By law, the U.S. can't hack civilian targets like the Chinese power grid or its water systems unless it directly supports some PLA purpose. Here's Dakota Carey on that small but critical point.

Here's what most people don't realize. We are locked in a cyber battle where only one side is actually authorized to attack civilian systems. By law, the U.S. can't hack civilian targets like the Chinese power grid or its water systems unless it directly supports some PLA purpose. Here's Dakota Carey on that small but critical point.

Track one and track two diplomacy. Track one is official government on government communications. U.S. officials meeting directly with their CCP counterparts. Track two is unofficial communications between non-government actors. Jim Lewis is a regular presence in those track two dialogues.

Track one and track two diplomacy. Track one is official government on government communications. U.S. officials meeting directly with their CCP counterparts. Track two is unofficial communications between non-government actors. Jim Lewis is a regular presence in those track two dialogues.

Last year, he broached whether the PRC would be open to drawing red lines around civilian targets, like water.

Last year, he broached whether the PRC would be open to drawing red lines around civilian targets, like water.

So the answer was no. So long as the U.S. abides by the law of armed conflict, there will be targets that are off limits to us, but fair game to the CCP. And they know it. Which starts to make the mutual and mutually assured digital destruction ring a little hollow.

So the answer was no. So long as the U.S. abides by the law of armed conflict, there will be targets that are off limits to us, but fair game to the CCP. And they know it. Which starts to make the mutual and mutually assured digital destruction ring a little hollow.

And speaking of red lines, here's Jenny Sterling in conversation at our live panel in March.

And speaking of red lines, here's Jenny Sterling in conversation at our live panel in March.