Talk:Unrestricted Warfare

message: This book appears to be somewhat controversial yet there is no sourcing given for the claims that are made in it. I see from Amazon that a translation was published by a publisher I have never heard of. I frankly question the notability of this book.--Samiharris 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sourcing 

message: :Image:Unconditional warfare.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Unconditional warfare.jpg

message: This book is strange, as is this article on it.
As pointed out in the PROD, there doesn't seem to be any record of the publisher
"Pan American Publishing Company" of Panama City.  There is a "Pan American Publishing Company" of Los Angeles that publishes bilingual Spanish/English texts for grade schools.  There doesn't seem to be much on this from anywhere other than the book itself (btw would the Chinese authorize the publication of this?  Is it a copyright violation?), and a couple of things from the "intelligence" community.  In short this has propaganda, spooks, and unreliable written all over it.
A couple of references that I could find
from
Jane’s Intelligence Review
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jir/jir000223_1_n.shtml
An article by:
Dr Ehsan Ahari is a Professor of National Security and Strategy at the Joint Combined Warfighting School, Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia, USA.
A second from
An online "Energy Bulletin" (see their editor's note)
http://www.energybulletin.net/4301.html
Published on 8 Feb 2005 by 321Energy. Archived on 10 Feb 2005.
China and the Final War for Resources
by Bill Ridley
"[ Ed's note:
This article, while making some excellent points, refers uncritically to the document which is the focus of the article, known as 'Unrestricted War: China?s Master Plan to Destroy America.' The document is available as a book on Amazon .com, where it is described as a CIA translation of a Chinese military document (obviously with an appended sub-title). An initial google search didn't bring up much more about it. One commentator seemed outraged that on the one year aniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this book was re-released with a photo of the attacks on the WTC on the cover. The commentator apparently assumed that the Chinese authors had authorised this. As it happens, the book is published by the 'Pan American Publishing Company' of Panama City (who don't seem to have published anything else). Why they were supplied with the CIA translation, and whether or not the CIA approved of the cover art, is not known.
I think it's fair to say that while it does seem to be based on an authenic document, the translation and emotive cover of the book has the smell of a black propaganda effort, or at the very least, irresponsible sensationalism. This would not be inconsistent with the proto-neocon organisation Team B's mistranslations of Russian documents in the late 1970s, and related CIA misinformation which indirectly convinced the then head of CIA William Casey into believing the agency's own lies, lies suggesting that Russians were the masterminds behind seemingly unrelated global terrorist activities."
:I'll suggest that any source on this seems unreliable, and that nothing should be put on Wikipedia until a RELIABLE SOURCE can be found.
:Smallbones 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%. Someone placed this book on deletion review, and I think it would be a good idea to recommence that.--Samiharris 14:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocols of the Elders of China???? 

message: I think it would be pretty strange to delete this article suggesting that it is a CIA conspiracy or something like that, given the print version was the last version to appear. Just google around on the internet for the basic information if you want. It is an important book.
I will grant you that article could be written alot better.
The article should be something like this:
1 Intro
2 Authors
3 Version
3.1 Chinese Version
3.2 FBIS Version
3.3 FBIS abridged version
3.4 Print Version
3.4.1 Cover & Subtitle Controversy
3.4.2 Introduction Controversy
3.4.3 Publisher Controversy
4 Overview of the Concepts
5 References
6 Other Links
I would be willing to start the above, but it would take me a week or two to find the time.
--Purpleslog 00:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't Delete 

message: this is about content, content authored by two intelligent Chinese colonels nearly ten years ago. The Amazon book is a hack job by some capitalist opportunist when the text in its entirety is freely available on the web, so stop focusing on the lame book, regardless of cover art. There are two versions of the text, one summarized with commentary (such providing context to the authors' bias against Soros... and why aren't you picking up on that, sysops??), and the other in its complete form. This text is akin to valuable books like Brave New War, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, among many others. But maybe those reads are bad as well because of the Air Force / Counterterrorism pedigree of the first author and the active duty status of the second. Grow up. 76.167.203.164 15:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ignore the cover art 

message: There is a para in the article that says the book was translated and published in 1999, with a cover picture showing the WTC on fire; it also gave a link to the Internet Archives. But the link shows a book which reads, "Copyright 2002".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.185.191.170 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the first edition published? 

message: Confession, they say, can be good for the soul.
In early 1999, I was teaching at the School of Information Warfare and Strategy, National Defense University, Ft McNair, DC.  I was in charge of the Information Warfare component of what was called the Joint Land-Air-Sea Simulation wargames, which pit the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps War College students in a theater sized war game, along with their classmates from National and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
I'd come across a news item, from a Toronto outlet, that mentioned the book.  So I called my research librarians; they referred me to FBIS; they told me that they had the book in Chinese, and had translated only the table of contents and the first and last chapters; but they didn't see the demand for the item, hence, no priority to translate the rest.
So I called my counterparts at the other four schools; within days, phone calls and emails were begging FBIS to turn up the gain and get it all translated.
In about two months, FBIS called me, and asked me how many copies of the CD edition I would like.  "Six, please," I said.
In late November, I think it was(I do not have my appointment calendars from those days any more, sad to say), I got a call from the General Accounting Office.  They, too, seemed to have someone on staff who was convinced that the recent FORSCOM budget justifications, citing the book, were all part of a dastardly plot to plump up their budgets with no real need.  They had heard from various people at the Pentagon that I was the one that they needed to talk to.
So I went over and talked with them.  After a while, it was clear that the analyst whose idea this was had not even read the translation of the book.  After about two hours of discussion, the GAO seemed content that at least as far as I could see, this was no "red team" scam.
About that same time, the Commandant of the National Defense University of the Peoples Republic of China visited NDU Washington (at the invite of LtGen Chilcoate, then NDU-DC President); he gave a lecture on the modernization efforts that the PLA was undertaking, including its significant efforts to modernize their digital information warfare capabilities.  To me, the book had its footprints all over that briefing.
I still teach from the translation of the book, and from that set of lecture slides; they both provide an interesting look in to China's efforts to bring their military into the modern world.  Chinese officers I've encountered since then have also mentioned the book in conversation; so at least, at home in the PLA, its existence seems .... consistently reinforced enough that it passes the Occam's test.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notonyourtintype (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, if it's a CIA conspiracy, it was a good one!