> bureaucracies tend to do extremely stupid stuff when looked at from the outside but every cog on the inside thinks that its action makes perfect sense.

If this is Chinese doing, the likely ones responsible are the Chinese Intelligence, not their bureaucracy.

> Evidence?

Occam's Razor. I find it hard to believe that a society with sufficient level of sophistication to obtain $9 trillion GDP[1] would 'accidentally' go on to declare cyber war on US. Especially considering the fact that the attack itself was pretty sophisticated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nom...

I question your invocation of Occam's Razor here. Between:

1) the attack is perpetrated by the entity the evidence suggests and

2) the attack was prepetrated by another entity who cleverly used infrastructure of the first entity to frame them for it,

applying Occam's Razor would suggest situation #1 in lieu of evidence to the contrary.

On closer examination, you seem to be correct. Without insight into how Chinese secret service works the simplest explanation is that the attack was likely perpetrated by them and that is what we must assume to be of highest probability. I will leave my comments here for posterity.

> the Chinese Intelligence, not their bureaucracy.

Intelligence agencies are bureaucracies. Some are more efficient (less wasteful) than others, but in the end, intelligence work is seldom about secret agents driving Aston Martins. Most of it has always been paperwork. Paperwork is nowadays in electronic format. I don't think the Chinese intelligence agencies are an exception.

Occam's Razor is unscientific. Unless you know of any proof that given 2 or more possible explanations for a phenomenon the simplest one is always closer to the truth.