Reality Check

This page is being created for continuity. A long time ago, before 2000 we started discussing China as a threat to the US. Later, that discussion continued (around 2000 or so ) on Anomalies.Net. After my "retirement" from the site, most of the News articles were relegated to the trashbin there, and while Olav kept those threads intact, they are now in an archive area with no access to the public (or no posting allowed anyway). In the mean time those threads have continued on the http://www.transasianaxis.com site. For meaningful discussion, I would urge you to go there to that site, and find "The China Threat" thread continuing. For historical reasons, I've kept everything, including the IP addresses on this page. I'll also be posting some similar things, to allow you to continue research along these lines (including "The World At War" threads as they originated on Anomalies.net). The original thread is located here: http://communities.anomalies.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/213952#Post213952 The continuation of this thread will be found on the TAA site here: http://www.transasianaxis.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=7 Rick Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 03:25:00 140.32.120.18 The China Threat Originally, I started the thread "Ground War in the US" to INCLUDE China as part of the threat of such a thing. However, in recent days I've come into some information that caused me to start doing some hard research on China. In doing so, I've found some things that scared me a bit. I'm not easily scared about anything, cautious, yes, scared no. In the research, I discovered a book I recommend that folks read. The book is: "The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America", Bill Gertz, (C) 2000, first paperback printing 2002, Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0-89526-187-1. Included in the book is an appendix which is full of documentation similar to the things I would personally like to see included in all such "theories" but is rarely included. To me, this book is not a theory, but documentation of the threat China currently poses to the US. In the introduction alone, it verifies and mirrors many of the things I've stated about China over the past year or so in the "Ground War" thread. A few days ago, I was "contacted" about my thread by a certain organization and asked to give them information to verify certain things I'd stated. I have done so, and they thanked me, and said they appreciated the work many of us have done to collect this data. Apparently, my thread has struck more than one nerve somewhere. I was frankly surprised that this information wasn't put together by someone else. It has been my contention all along that while our intelligence organizations are fully capable of collecting the right intelligence at the right time, it also my contention that during the previous administration they were constrained from doing so. This book not only verifies this, but backs it up with factual documentation. And with the "contact", it confirmed for me that "alert citizens" are as helpful as anyone in collecting intelligence. It just took more than a year for them to get around to reading it. (Shakes head....) Thus... anything you have on China, specifically RELATED to China as Threat to the United States, please post it here. That includes books and their information, articles, news reports and anything DIRECTLY related to China as a threat. What doesn't belong here. Opinions stating that "China isn't a threat". Facts proving they are not a threat is fine, if they are facts. Anything from the PRC that says they aren't a threat - well... don't put it here. Thanks **DONOTDELETE** () 2002-07-08 05:22:00 162.119.232.100 Re: The China Threat Considering US policy, has anyone considered, or looked into the economic costs that would be incurred by China, or the US if adirect military conflict between both nations ensued? It seems that such a reality must be accounted for in establishing credible threat assesment critera. Blind belligerence aside, most nations look to secure their soverigenty and expand their resource base- both of which would be threatened and/or denied in a hot war where both sides are armed with WMD. I am not suggesting that a war with China is not possible, I am suggesting that it is too costly (in terms of opportunity) to be a valid concern at this time. A serious cost-benefit analysis of military confrontation between any two groups should be done to adquetly assess the actual level of threat. Just my balanced view, delete me if you must, but it should be kept as a reminder. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 05:37:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Yes. Might I suggest, Clark, you go read that book I suggested, then come back. Thanks Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:39:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat TO TAKE TAIWAN, FIRST KILL A CARRIER The Jamestown Foundation | July 8, 2002 | Richard D. Fisher, Jr. China's communist leadership has long anticipated that to militarily subdue democratic Taiwan it will first need to win a battle against the United States. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is now preparing for one specific, and key, battle. It is developing methods to disable or sink American aircraft carriers and gathering the specific force packages to do so. With such a strike, Beijing hopes to quickly terminate American involvement in a Taiwan War. SHIFTING PRIORITIES The early 1990s saw much evidence of carrier-related research and nationalist-political advocacy, particularly from the PLA Navy (PLAN), to build a Chinese aircraft carrier. But, following the political crises of 1995 and 1996, which saw the Clinton administration deploy two battle groups around the carriers Independence and Nimitz near Taiwan in response to threatening PLA exercises in March 1996, sinking a U.S. carrier became much more pressing than building one. In developing that capability, Beijing hopes to deter U.S. military assistance to Taiwan, and by actually sinking one, to terminate U.S. attempts to save the island. This strategy follows from the bias--a potentially dangerous one for China--that America's aversion to military casualties equates to its unwillingness to risk a real war over the fate of Taiwan. This is apparently a widely held view. It was expressed most boldly by Major General Huang Bin, a professor at the PLA National Defense University, in Hong Kong's Ta Kung Pao daily newspaper on May 13: "Missiles, aircraft, and submarines all are means that can be used to attack an aircraft carrier. We have the ability to deal with an aircraft carrier that dares to get into our range of fire. Once we decide to use force against Taiwan, we definitely will consider an intervention by the United States. The United States likes vain glory; if one of its aircraft carrier should be attacked and destroyed, people in the United States would begin to complain and quarrel loudly, and the U.S. president would find the going harder and harder." SUMMONING COURAGE General Huang's statement is in fact not especially audacious, considering that since the mid-1990s the weakness of aircraft carriers and the methods to attack them has been a frequent topic in China's military press. It would appear that the PLA is mustering its courage, trying to convince itself that it can with some success attack U.S. carriers. In October and November 2000, for example, after Russian Pacific-based fighters and bombers made surprise runs against the carrier Kitty Hawk, the People's Liberation Army Daily could barely conceal its glee, devoting three articles to the incident. GATHERING FORCES The PLA's apparently growing confidence is likely bolstered by the fact that it is also gathering the forces needed to confront U.S. carriers at a useful distance from the Mainland. --Sensor Package. Finding an aircraft carrier group is aLMOST as important as attacking it. Understanding this, the PLA is investing in multiple layers of reconnaissance and surveillance systems. In space, it is expected to soon deploy the first of new generations of high-resolution electro-optical satellites and radar satellites, which are especially useful in piercing cloud cover. The PLA has been developing over-the-horizon (OTH) radar with ranges up to thousands of kilometers for a long time. And its Air Force will soon take delivery of its Russian A-50E AWACS to find ships at sea. But because radar can be jammed, it is likely that the PLA will also use hundreds of small fishing boats, as well as agents in Japan, to track U.S. naval forces. --Air Strike Package. The PLA Air Force (PLAAF) is now beginning to cooperate with the Navy in conducting naval strikes. Later in this decade, elderly PLA Naval Air Force H-6 (Tu-16) bombers will be supplanted by eighty to 100 PLAAF Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKK and about twenty indigenous Xian JH-7A fighter bombers. Both will carry long-range antiradar or antiship missiles, some of which will have supersonic speeds that can defeat U.S. close-in weapon systems (CIWS) for defense against such missiles. Both will also have new long-range self-guided air-to-air missiles (AAM) like the Russian R-77 or the indigenous Project 129 AAM, that will approach the usefulness of U.S. missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM. This means that PLAAF fighters will soon have half a chance fighting their way to their targets. --Sub-Strike Package. According to Russian press reports, China signed a contract on May 2 to purchase eight Project 636 KILO class conventional submarines, to be delivered in five years. The PLAN already has four KILOs, including two Project 636s, with advanced quieting technology that makes them very difficult to detect. The PLAN's new KILOs, however, will be armed with the Russian Novator CLUB antiship missile system. The CLUB-N is a 300km range cruise missile that looks like the American TOMOHAWK and can be configured for land-attack missions. The CLUB-S has a subsonic first stage with a 220km range, but also uses a rocket-powered second stage to defeat CIWS. In addition, the PLAN may now be building its fifth Project 039 or SONG class conventional submarine. Early difficulties with this class appear to have been solved: Series production is centering on an upgraded Project 039A version. For most of this decade, the PLAN will also have some twenty older MING class conventional submarines and approximately five older Project 091 HAN class nuclear-powered attack submarines. While these may be less effective than the KILOs or the SONGs, they will nevertheless greatly complicate the task of the defenders. --Surface Strike Package. The PLAN is adding two new modernized Sovremenniy class destroyers to two already acquired. Armed with their hard-to-intercept supersonic 300km range YAKHONT and the 120km range MOSKIT missiles, these ships would likely wait behind the submarines and attacking aircraft. But the PLA may also be considering purchasing a SLAVA class cruiser from Ukraine. These are armed with sixteen 550km range GRANIT supersonic antiship missiles. POSSIBLE PLA ANTICARRIER FORCES BY 2007-10, Surveillance/Targeting --2-4 A-50E Awacs --2-4 Optical and Radar Satellites --Over The Horizon Radar Air Strike --80-100 Su-30MKK w 4x antiship missiles --20 JH-7A w 2x antiship missiles --?? J-10 w 2x antiship missiles Sub Strike --4-12 Kilo SS --4-6 Song SS --20 Ming SS --5 Han SSN Surface Strike --4 Sovremenniy DDG Missile Strike --DF-21 intermediate range ballistic missile --DF-15 short range ballistic missile --Yakhont antiship missile --Sunburn antiship missile --Club Sub-launched antiship missiles --Air-launched antiship missiles --Other Strike Options. Another option mentioned in PLA literature is to attack carriers with long-range ballistic missiles. The former Soviet Union had considered this in the 1960s. With proper targeting, satellite navigation guidance and perhaps an enhanced radiation warhead, ballistic missile strikes could disable a carrier. The PLA can also be expected to make great use of deep-sea mines, such as its rocket-propelled EM-52, which could break the keel of a large ship. In addition, the PLA may use Special Forces to attempt to disable carriers in port and attack U.S. aircraft on foreign bases. This is especially critical, given that carriers now rely increasingly on land-based Navy and Air Force support aircraft. CAN THEY DO IT? It took the former Soviet Union more than twenty years to build a credible threat to U.S. carriers. China is trying to do so within this decade. To its credit, the PLA is rapidly gathering the right kinds of forces. Skeptics, however, will always question whether the PLA can use them in a sufficiently coordinated fashion to create maximum stress on carrier defenses. Once it has such forces in hand, the PLA will then have to marry layers of long-range sensors to force packages of air, submarine and surface ships armed with new long-range missiles. It may be that the Ukranian carrier Varyag, now being refurbished in a guarded Dalian shipyard, will best serve as a target ship to refine PLA carrier-attack doctrine and tactics. If properly used, the forces China is gathering could--at a minimum--stop one U.S. carrier battle group. IMPLICATIONS FOR WASHINGTON In a surprise attack scenario, given its strategic dependence on naval forces in East Asia, the United States might be able to muster only one carrier to support Taiwan. Strategic and economic pressures have reduced its fleet to thirteen carriers with smaller and less capable air wings. Former distinct fighter and attack aircraft are now melded in one platform, the F/A-18E/F. While this might be a convenient economical compromise for the Navy, it is not clearly superior to the Su-30MKK. Since 1999, the long-range antisubmarine function has been taken from the superb S-3 VIKING aircraft, and the number of E-2C HAWKEYE radar warning aircraft have been cut from five to four per air wing. It is time to reverse this trend. It is time to consider the systems needed to defeat China's gathering anticarrier forces if deterrence is to be sustained on the Taiwan Strait. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:42:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat (Personal experience shows that most of the attacks I've dealt with are from North Korea, China and former Russian satellite countries... in that order). Israel, Hong Kong Hotbed for Cyberattacks-Study iWon | July 8, 2002 SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Which part of the world has the dubious distinction of being the most active hotbed of computer hacking? Among the most highly wired economies, more cyber attacks originate from Israel and Hong Kong on a per-Internet-user basis than anywhere else, while Kuwait and Iran top the list of the category of countries with fewer Internet users, according to a study released on Monday. Overall, the United States generates by far the most cyber attacks, followed by Germany, South Korea, China and France, according to a report from Riptech Inc., a managed security service provider based in Alexandria, Virginia. The most likely corporate targets were power and energy companies, the study said. Political analysts have expressed concern hackers target such companies to try to maximize the impact of any attack. The Riptech study was based on a miniscule sample compared to the number of companies connected to the Internet, but because it was based on computer logs of attacks, which are not widely tracked or aggregated, it provides useful insight into global trends, industry analysts said. Riptech declined to speculate on why some countries were more active as the launchpads of computer attacks. "We try not to speculate as to motive," said Elad Yoran, co-founder and executive vice president of Riptech. "We want to keep the report as objective as possible." But he said, "it's interesting that countries that are less well-developed attack at a 50-percent higher rate on a per-person basis." Cyber attacks, which include everything from the spread of viruses to hacks used to cripple Web sites, were 28 percent higher in the first half of the year than attacks recorded during the second half of last year, a projected annual growth rate of 64 percent, the study found. Companies, on average, suffered 32 attacks per week, up from 25 attacks per week during the second half of last year. Most attacks happened on Wednesdays and Thursdays, the study said, without offering an explanation as to why. The report was based on data collected from computer logs at about 400 Riptech customers spread across more than 30 countries. Riptech monitors customer logs and traces attacks back to their purported source. Determining where attacks come from is complicated, said Tim Belcher, chief technology officer at Riptech. While most attacks can be traced back to what is believed to be the source country, it is possible for malicious hackers to hide their exact location. Still, 93 percent of the attackers monitored in the study were only active on one day, leading the company to believe they were launching attacks directly rather than going through another "zombie" system to hide their tracks, Belcher said. Forty percent of the attacks in the first half of this year appeared to have come from the United States, followed by 7.6 percent from Germany, 7.4 percent from South Korea and 6.9 percent from China. Although the United States is the source of most of the attacks, it also has the largest economy and a large share of Internet users. To get a more fair representation, the study also looked at attacks based on population of Internet users in each country, Belcher said. Of countries with more than 1 million Internet users, Israel had about 33 attacks per 10,000 users, followed by Hong Kong with 22 attacks per 10,000 users. Of countries with fewer than 1 million Internet users but more than 100,000, Kuwait had 50 attacks per 10,000 users, followed by Iran with 30 attacks per 10,000 users. ATTACKS DOWN IN THE UNITED STATES A second survey, also released on Monday, showed reports of cyberattacks may be waning in the United States. Of the nearly 3,500 U.S. companies and security professionals polled for the InformationWeek magazine survey, 44 percent said they experienced a virus, worm or Trojan horse attack, in which malicious software masquerades as a legitimate program, down from 70 percent a year ago. Reports of denial of service attacks, another common attack method that is the Internet equivalent to getting a busy signal from too many phone calls, were also down slightly, the survey found. "Although three in five firms report a security breach or espionage in the last year, the frequency of security incidents in the United States -- regardless of type -- is down in 2002," the InformationWeek survey said. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:43:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat US, China 'jammed each other's signals' The Strait Times (Singapore) | July 9, 2002 HONGKONG - Electronic warfare erupted recently when an unidentified US aircraft carrier, whose communications signals were interrupted by the Chinese military, retaliated by paralysing the 'enemy's' transmissions, reports said yesterday. Seen as the most severe military clash between the two countries in the past two years, the incident was also the second time that the US had crippled the Chinese military's communication capabilities in recent years. A report in the Taiwanese news portal ETtoday.com said the incident occurred during a routine military exercise by the US Navy's 7th Fleet off north-west Okinawa in Japan. A drill involving a jet fighter belonging to the carrier as well as another US EP-3 reconnaissance plane over the East China Sea was interrupted by electronic signals transmitted from a nearby Chinese warship, the report said. The US fighter plane retaliated by activating its anti-interference mechanism, leading to a brief electronic warfare of sorts between the two armed forces. Using very narrow frequency widths, the US fighter was said to have succeeded in jamming the electronic warfare equipment on board the Chinese vessel as well as bring communication at the Peoples' Liberation Army naval and army bases in the north of Fujian province to a standstill. Although media reports did not mention the precise date of the clash, the official website of the 7th Fleet indicated that one of its aircraft carriers - the Kitty Hawk - held its latest routine exercise in early May this year. There was no mention of the incident on the website. According to Hongkong's Apple Daily, this is the second time in recent years that a clash of this nature has taken place. The first took place in July 1995 during a controversial visit to the US by former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui. Displeased about the visit, China flexed its muscles by staging a large-scale military drill at its coastal regions near the Taiwan Strait. The Clinton administration then sent out four jet fighters to the Chinese coast to suss out Beijing's real intentions, but their aerial communication was interrupted by signals transmitted by Chinese planes alerted to their presence. The US fighters retaliated by using advanced equipment to counter the signals and succeeded in blocking them. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:45:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Next U.S. War - Made In China? Toogood Reports | June 25, 2002 | Toby Westerman As Americans brace themselves for terrorist activity at home, one of America's largest trading partners – China – is engaging in "a policy of intervention and naval adventurism," which could draw the U.S. into a major war in the Asia/Pacific region. China is "seeking the subservience of mainland Southeast Asia to Chinese national needs," and is "the main obstacle to democratic reform in mainland Southeast Asia today," according to a report in the China Reform Monitor, a publication of the American Foreign Policy Council. For the first time in that nation's long history, Chinese naval capability now extends into the Indian Ocean. With the cooperation of Burmese government, the Chinese navy now has the use of ports on the Bay of Bengal, with unfettered access to the wider seas to the south. Beijing's expansion is also occurring at the expense of fellow communist states. Vietnam, which, like Burma, borders China on the south, and historically has been able to defend itself against incursions of its much larger neighbor, ceded a portion of its territory to China in a secret 1999 treaty, according to China Reform Monitor. Beijing's continuing large military outlays continue to cause serious concern among its neighbors, especially to the island of Taiwan, which mainland China asserts is a renegade province. Taiwan served as the refuge for the anti-Communist forces of Nationalist Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-shek, following the communist triumph on the mainland in 1949. U.S. naval forces prevented communist forces from pursuing Nationalist troops, and remain a barrier to a mainland attack. The government on Taiwan refers to itself as the Republic of China (ROC), and, until 1971, the U.S. recognized the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. Over the years, Taiwan has developed a market economy, and a democratic form of government. After the U.S. withdrew official diplomatic recognition of the ROC in 1978, America, nevertheless, pledged continuing military assistance to Taiwan, and confirmed its opposition to the forcible reunification of Taiwan and the mainland. Mainland China has never renounced its claim to the right to take Taiwan by force, and, consequently, Taiwan lives precariously under the threat of imminent communist Chinese invasion. Following Washington's withdrawal of diplomatic recognition, Taiwan has sought to clarify its position within the nations of the world. In 1999, then-president Lee Teng-hui declared that Taiwan had a "special state to state relationship" with the mainland, a move that comes close to a declaration of independence. The U.S. stated that it would not support an independent Taiwan, and Beijing threatened to invade the island if independence should be announced. Tensions remain high between the island and the mainland, with current Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian condemning Beijing's military build-up as a "great threat to Taiwan's survival," according to Radio Taipei International, the official broadcasting service of the ROC. U.S. ambassador to China, Charles Randt, recently reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to Taiwan, and referred to Beijing's approximately 350 missiles aimed at Taiwan, stating that they "do not help China's image as a peace seeker," Radio Taipei reported. China also has conflicting territorial claims against the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. One of the most stunning – and contradictory – aspects of the communist Chinese build-up is the role of Russia. Despite the May 2002 declaration between U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin of a "strategic partnership" between their two nations, Moscow has – and continues to be – the single most important source of technologically sophisticated military hardware. Putin recently boasted that he has "big plans" for a substantial increase in Moscow's already considerable military cooperation with communist China. Russia, along with most of the former Soviet republics and allies, including Iran, is combining with China to form what may be called an "Eurasian empire" stretching over vast regions with incredible mineral wealth. Any confrontation with China may as well involve Russia and its allies, backed up by the region's incredible natural resources. Should Americans die in a conflict with China, much of the know-how and weaponry will have originated from our "strategic partner," Russia. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:49:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat This guy is ECHOING what I've been saying all along (also happens to be the author of the book I'm reading and mentioned in the first message): Inside the Ring - Mock Invasion - If India and Pakistan War, China may attack Taiwan Wash Times | 5-31-02 | Gertz; Scarborough Inside the Ring Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published 5/31/2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mock invasion U.S. intelligence officials have uncovered the war-game scenario for large-scale Chinese military exercises under way: An invasion of Taiwan. Communist Chinese military forces, specifically the 12th Group Army, have massed along the coast. As many as 100,000 troops, armored vehicles and amphibious ships are in the region. The maneuvers are expected to continue for six months. They will coincide with upcoming elections in Taiwan, a sign Beijing is using the war games to intimidate the breakaway island. The annual exercises are being watched closely by U.S. intelligence agencies because of recent tensions between China and Taiwan. Chen Shui-bian, president of the Republic of China (Taiwan), used the word "independence" recently in an interview with Newsweek magazine. He said Taiwan is ready for independence. Beijing has said it would use military force against Taiwan if the Taipei government makes such a declaration. One unusual feature of the war games this year is that there has been no mention of military exercises in the state-controlled press on the mainland. The only mention to date has been from Wen Wei Po, a mainland-controlled newspaper in Hong Kong. Intelligence officials are concerned that if war breaks out between India and Pakistan, which have massed troops on both sides of the border in disputed Kashmir, the Chinese military might use the war games to attack Taiwan. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:49:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat U.S., wary of China, outlines Asia buildup MSNBC | April 25 | Reuters WASHINGTON, April 25 — The United States, worried by China's missile build-up opposite Taiwan, is pushing ahead with plans to boost its forces in the region, according to the Pentagon's top policymaker on East Asia. In previously undisclosed remarks to a conference last month, Peter Brookes, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, said Washington was seeking ''contingency basing options'' and more access in Asia, the Pacific and beyond to be able to respond more readily to a crisis. U.S. intentions in the region are likely to figure in talks in Washington next week with China's leader-in-waiting, Hu Jintao, who arrives in Honolulu on Saturday on his first official visit to the United States. Brookes made his remarks at a closed-door conference on U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, which China deems a breakaway province risking attack if it moves toward formal independence or stalls on unification talks. Brookes' text was released to Reuters by the Pentagon this week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Hu, widely expected to be promoted to Communist Party general secretary in September, is expected to meet President George W. Bush on Wednesday after talks with Vice President Dick Cheney. He is also to meet Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In his remarks to the conference in St. Petersburg, Florida, on March 12, Brookes said the United States was moving to expand the presence of U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups in the Western Pacific. Until now, U.S. Navy policy has been to maintain only one carrier battle group at all times in the Western Pacific. It is currently built around the Kitty Hawk, which is based in Yokosuka, Japan, headquarters of the U.S. Seventh Fleet. ''We are exploring options to homeport three to four additional surface combatants in the region, as well as guided-missile submarines to improve our forward deterrent posture,'' Brookes said, without specifying where the additional vessels might be based. ''These changes mean a U.S. presence in Asia that will be more capable, more flexible and able to respond more quickly and capably when needed,'' he said. In 1996, then President Bill Clinton sent two carrier battle groups to the region after China fired missiles into the sea off Taiwan's two main ports. The Pentagon laid out plans to put more U.S. warships in the region in a congressionally mandated, four-year strategy overview released September 30. Brookes, in his prepared remarks, said the United States did not view China as an adversary, ''but we must be honest about our differences such as human rights, proliferation and Taiwan arms sales.'' ''We are concerned about China's continued deployment of offensive missiles near Taiwan, and its growing naval and air forces that seems focused on building capabilities that could inflict harm on Taiwan and undermine peace across the Taiwan Strait,'' he said. A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, said Thursday the United States was planning to rotate battle groups with home ports on the U.S. west coast to boost its presence. He said he was unaware of any plan to seek new bases in another country. In addition, later this year the Navy plans to base two Los Angeles-class nuclear-fueled attack submarines in Guam, a U.S. dependency in the North Pacific. A third is scheduled to be based there no later than 2004, according to a Navy spokesman, Ensign David Luckett. The Navy is also expected to base in Guam Trident submarines being converted to carry conventional cruise missiles and special operations forces. Larry Niksch, an expert on East Asian security issues at the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, said it was significant that Brookes outlined the buildup at a gathering that brought together Taiwan's defense minister, Tang Yiau-ming, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. ''It counters the post-September 11 notion that old U.S.-China issues have been relegated to the back burner,'' he said. The meeting between Wolfowitz and Tang marked the highest-level, documented U.S.-Taiwan defense dialogue in at least 21 years. It angered China and led to speculation that it might cause Hu to cancel his visit. Wolfowitz told the session China's buildup of short-range missiles opposite Taiwan was ''clearly designed to project a threatening posture, and to try to intimidate the people and and the democratically elected government of Taiwan.'' The United States was ''eager to help'' Taiwan modernize and reform its defense establishment, Wolfowitz said in remarks made available earlier in response to a separate Reuters Freedom of Information request. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:50:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat How the US will play China in the new Cold War Asia Times | 4/19/02 | Henry C K Liu How the US will play China in the new Cold War By Henry C K Liu There is a new Cold War brewing. The old Cold War, which ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, was a struggle between competing ideologies backed by two superpowers. International trade among Western bloc economies then occurred mostly within a narrow geopolitical context, with the United States subsidizing dependent economies to build showcase examples of capitalistic market economies. There was no official trade at all between the two opposing ideological blocs. The old Cold War brought about an all-out militarization of the peace that distorted the US economy, with the actual shooting in recurring regional conflicts confined to local surrogates. Each bloc attempted to show its ideological superiority through economic aid to the weaker economies within its orbit and to needy non-aligned nations. Since the end of the old Cold War, foreign trade has replaced foreign aid as the development venue of choice. Domestic economic development in the periphery has since been adversely distorted by excessive concentration on export to rich markets. The new Cold War is less ideologically based and more geopolitically framed, although still couched in residual ideological polemic. This trend actually began with former US president Richard Nixon who saw that world communism was not any more monolithic than world capitalism and that age-old geopolitical factors had not been made obsolete by modern ideology. In the new Cold War, the US, as the sole remaining superpower, has increasingly adopted a modus operandi of unilateralism and exceptionism against all not to its liking. The US now holds up American values as incontestable universal truths and proudly imposes moral imperialism on a defenseless world through the doctrine of failed states. It sponsors a new economic imperialism through neoliberal globalization. While at the beginning globalization was peddled as a trickling down of benefits from the rich to the poor, it now is presented as a new liberal imperialism that this chaotic world needs. The new Cold War is a conflict between the world's rich and its poor, between the powerful and the powerless who have been forced to resort to terrorism as a resistance of last resort, which in turn generates violent military response abroad coupled with wholesale assault on civil liberties at home. It is not unreasonable to question whether state terrorism is morally superior to outlaw terrorism. Neoliberal market fundamentalism operates on the principle that the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited at all, and the only rational option in dealing with the new imperialism is to be co-opted into the global empire. Before the war on terrorism, which has been hastily launched in reflexive reaction to the surprise attacks of September 11, the US had unilaterally identified China as its arch-enemy in the new Cold War. It is not that China does not wish to have friendly relations with the US. Rather, the US has made it clear that it will not permit normal, let alone friendly, relations with a communist China, except in the area of non-strategic trade. This shift from the Nixon China policy, despite the moralistic pretense of promoting liberal democracy against totalitarian centralism, represents a faithful commitment to geopolitical realpolitik under changed conditions. China is no longer considered as necessary for countering Soviet threat. Beginning with the Ronald Reagan administration, the US has been moving toward its historical fixation that any rising power in Asia is deemed a threat to US interests in the region. Replacing the European imperialistic powers, the US after World War II took upon itself the task of extending a new version of its open-doors policy, originally devised to preserve US interests during the de facto partition of China by Western imperialist powers in the 19th century. This new open-door policy is now extended to all of Asia, indeed the whole world, in the name of neoliberal globalization. Thus the US posture of moral imperialism against residual national communism is merely a convenient pretext to contain Chinese national revival in the New Cold War. There is a strong parallel between current US security policy toward China and US security policy toward a rising Japan in the 1930s. Thus, regardless of domestic political ideology inside China, as long as political developments lead toward Chinese national resurgence, the US will pursue a hostile security strategy toward China. The communism issue is merely icing on the cake. That is the fundamental reason why US-China relations will not be conflict free in the foreseeable future. Ironically, this US policy pushes China to form coalitions with non-communist governments internationally against US global hegemony. The central weakness of the Taiwan regime is that its subservient alliance with the US is based less on ideological convergence and more on opportunistic separatism that is treasonous to Chinese nationalism. The new Cold War is different in that while the US and China are locked into a long-term path of escalating security conflict, both governments appear to agree on the need for near-term economic cooperation based on each nation's own separate interests. Whether trade and economic cooperation can be facilitated within the framework of latent security conflict will be the challenge facing political leaders in both countries. History is not without examples of such arrangements. The US traded with Japan until Pearl Harbor. General Motors and Ford, among other major US companies, operated profitably in Germany even after Germany's declaration of war on the US in 1941. History is less clear on the ability of trade to prevent war. The US, while actively promoting trade with China, has maintained an embargo of duo-use strategic and military sales to China in the new Cold War. Despite a free-trade agenda, the US maintains a trade embargo against a list of other nations that provoke its displeasure, from Cuba to Libya and from Iran to Iraq, on which former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright asserted in a CBS interview on May 11, 1996, that the death of more than 500,000 children among the total 1.5 million deaths caused by US sanctions was a worthwhile policy cost. President George W Bush defends the US free-trade agenda by arguing that his administration's effort to break down tariffs is a moral imperative, a paraphrase of Henry Kissinger's "peace too is a moral imperative" dating back to rhetoric used in defense of his approach to end the Vietnam conflict and the policy of detente. "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative," Bush declared. "Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we're providing new hope for the world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom." The Bush White House has been reorganized to place its top economic adviser (Lawrence Lindsey) under its national security adviser (Condoleezza Rice). Such claims remain highly controversial when tested by actual data. Millions of domestic manufacturing jobs in the US have been lost to overseas locations through foreign trade. On a global basis, although the number of jobs has been increased to do the same amount of work through the use of less skilled labor, the aggregate wages for the same amount of work has been falling drastically. The World Bank has shown that globalization has created 200 million newly poor people in the world in the past decade, adding up to a total of 1.5 billion poor, a quarter of the world's 6.2 billion population. Bush also predicted that China, which reached a trade agreement with the US at the close of the Bill Clinton administration, would benefit from political changes as a result of liberalized trade policies. Yet it is clear that political freedom is often the first casualty of a garrison state mentality which inevitably would result from increasingly hostile US security policy toward China. For trade to truly benefit the trading economies, two preconditions are necessary: 1) the de-linking of trade from ideological/political objectives, and 2) a recognition that global full employment is the prerequisite for true comparative advantage in global trade. With regard to Europe, Japan and Australia, the US faces a different situation. While the US is likely to be able to preserve its residual old Cold War security alliances with these nations, despite mounting difficulties in identifying new common threats, the conflict between these decades-old military allies lies in trade contradictions. The US has benefited from an international financial architecture that gives the US economy a structural monetary advantage over those of the European Union (EU) and Japan, not to mention the rest of the world. Competition between these three leading economic heavyweights could spill over into security areas, allowing economic interests to conflict with ideological sympathy. All three of these stalled engines of growth are desperately seeking new markets, which inevitably leads them to populous Asia, anchored by a fast growing Chinese economy, with its 1.2 billion eager consumers bulging with rapidly rising disposable income. Even the US defense establishment has largely come around to the view that US industries must export, even to China, to remain on top. This was spelled out for Congress recently by Donald Hicks, a leading Pentagon technologist in the Reagan administration. "Globalization is not a policy option, but a fact to which policy makers must adapt," he said. "The emerging reality is that all nations' militaries are sharing essentially the same global commercial-defense industrial base." Already, China is the main supplier of army boots to US troops, a critical item even as warfare turns high-tech. With trade replacing aid, the US has embarked on a strategy to use Third World cheap labor and environmental lawlessness to compete with its industrialized rivals, taking advantage of the US anti-labor tradition to export low-paying jobs, which both the EU and Japan cannot do with comparable immunity. At the same time, the US has pushed for global financial market deregulation and emerged as a 500-pound gorilla in the global financial markets that left the Japanese and Europeans playing catch-up in the dust. The enabling tool of this strategy was the hegemonic role of the dollar as the dominant reserve currency for world trade. Out of this emerged an international financial architecture that does real damage to the actual producer economies for the benefit of the virtual financier economies. Money, instead of a neutral agent of exchange, has become a weapon of massive economic destruction more lethal than nuclear bombs and with more extortionary power, which is exercised ruthlessly by the International Monetary Fund all over the developing world on behalf of the Washington consensus. Trade wars are fought through volatile currency valuations. The dollar enables the US to use its trade deficit as the bait for its capital account surplus. Trade is no longer a valid measure of global competition. Today, transnational firms compete with unparalleled success in the global marketplace through foreign affiliate sales instead of exports. This has created a gap between gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP). To mask this tilted playing field and unfair monetary regime, GNP has been quietly replaced by GDP as a statistical measure for growth. GDP measures the total value of a country's output, income or expenditure produced within the country's physical/political borders. GNP is GDP plus "factor income" - income earned from investment or work abroad. With globalization, these two technical measurements have taken on new meanings and relationships. In 1991, GDP replaced GNP as a standard statistical measure for growth - a quiet change that had very large implications as the 1990s were the decade of rapid globalization. GNP attributes the earnings of a transnational firm to the country where the firm is owned and where profits would eventually return as factor income. GDP, however, attributes the profits to the country where factories or mines or financial institutions are located, regardless of ownership, even though profit and investment may not stay there permanently. This accounting shift has turned many struggling, exploited economies into statistical boomtowns, while seducing local leaders to embrace a global economy. The rich nations at the core are walking off with the periphery's resources and profiting obscenely from local slave wages while calling it a statistical gain for the periphery, with the help of the local elite - a new compradore class whose members are celebrated by the neoliberal press as national heroes. GDP figures are "gross" because GDP does not allow for the depreciation of physical capital or environmental degradation, let alone the abuse and depreciation of human resources. When the value of income from abroad is included, then GDP becomes the GNP. A declining GNP is particularly damaging for economies with large trade sectors, which includes many developing countries that have been forced to rely on exports financed by foreign direct investment as the sole development path. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has changed the shape of the international economy. Since the early 1970s, FDI has grown faster than global trade and has been the single most important source of capital for developing countries, displacing near non-existent domestic net savings. Much FDI is denominated in dollars, a fiat currency that the US can produce at will since 1971. By necessity, FDI is concentrated in export-related development, mainly those destined for US markets, or markets that resell to US markets, for dollars with which to provide the needed FDI financial returns, also denominated in dollars. US economic policy is shifting from trade liberalization promotion to FDI liberalization promotion. A trade spat with the EU over beef and bananas, and now steel, for example, risked large US investment stakes in Europe. And the suggestion to devalue the dollar to promote US exports is dismissed, for it would only make it more expensive for US affiliates to do business abroad while making it cheaper for foreign companies to buy US assets. An attempt to improve the US trade balance, then, would actually end up hurting FDI balance. This is the rationale behind the slogan: a strong dollar is in the US national interest. In the US, and now also beginning in Europe and Asia, capital and debt markets are rapidly displacing banks as funding intermediaries - savings vehicles and sources of corporate finance. This shift, along with the growing global integration of financial markets, is supposed to create promising new opportunities for investors and make capital allocation more efficient around the globe. Neoliberals even claim that these changes could help head off the looming pension crises facing many nations. But so far it has only created sudden and recurring financial crises as those in Asia in 1997, and Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Turkey and Argentina subsequently. The reasons are traceable to dollar hegemony. The introduction of the euro has accelerated the growth of the EU region's financial markets. For the current 12 members of the European Monetary Union, the common currency has nullified national requirements for pension and insurance assets to be invested in the same currencies as their liabilities - a restriction that had long locked the bulk of Europe's long-term savings into fragmented local assets. Europe's corporate pensions industry is set to grow from 3.5 trillion euros (US$3.1 trillion) to 17 trillion by 2020 as governments are forced to make companies and individuals pay into pension schemes. Freed from foreign exchange transaction costs and risks of currency fluctuations, these savings fueled the rise of larger, more liquid European stock and bond markets, including the recent emergence of a growing high-yield (junk) bond market. These more dynamic capital markets, in turn, have placed increased competitive pressure on banks by giving corporations new financing options and thus lowering the cost of capital within Euroland. How this will interact with the euro-dollar market is still indeterminate due to dollar hegemony. Interestingly, the European Union Competition Commission rejected General Electric's proposed $41 billion merger with Honeywell International by citing concerns about whether the combination of GE's strong market share in aircraft engines and Honeywell's in avionics would give the merged company an unfair advantage in the European market to possible bundling or tying that could allow the new entity to extend its dominant position from one market to another. A key issue was the aggressiveness of GE marketing through vendor financing in which GE, until now, has enjoyed an unique advantage through its dominance in the US and euro commercial paper markets. Other regional markets, particularly in Asia, will no doubt become more aware of such concerns going forward. Before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on July 20, 2000, Fed head Alan Greenspan summarized his view of the US boom at its peak, "For some time now ... a continuing disparity between the growth of demand and potential supply would produce disruptive imbalances." Greenspan repeatedly insisted that it was to address this anticipated "imbalance", his euphemism for inflation, that governed his one-note monetary policy of raising short-term interest rates. It was not to target the equity market bubble. Between 1999 and 2000, Greenspan raised Fed funds rates (ffr) six times, from 4.75 percent to 6.5 percent to fight phantom inflation. Barely four months later, he was forced to lower short term rates 12 times in 12 months, with the ffr set at a historical three-decade low of 1.75 percent currently, down from 6.5 percent on January 2, 2001. Price volatility in the equity market is the bastard child of derivatives and portfolio insurance, which Greenspan repeatedly celebrates as the innovative financial tools of the new prosperity. Sudden changes in short-term rates also create volatility in commodity prices. Greenspan is merely trying to defend himself from the monetarist criticism when he defends interest rate volatility as an effective means of combating price volatility, which in some other quarters is considered as fighting fire with gasoline. Greenspan continued, "The current account deficit is a proxy for the increase in net claims against US residents held by foreigners, mainly as debt, but increasingly as equities. So long as foreigners continue to seek to hold ever-increasing quantities of dollar investments in their portfolios, as they obviously have been, the exchange rate for the dollar will remain firm. Indeed, the same sharp rise in potential rates of return on new American investments that has been driving capital accumulation and accelerating productivity in the United States has also been inducing foreigners to expand their portfolios of American securities and direct investment. There has to be a limit as to how much of the world's savings our residents can borrow at close to prevailing interest and exchange rates. And a narrowing of disparities among global growth rates could induce a narrowing of rates of return here relative to those abroad that could adversely affect the propensity of foreigners to invest in the United States." Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers pointed out with some accuracy that the current account deficit of the 1990s reflects the nation's economic health. Professor Paul Davidson, an eminent American post-Keynesian economist, also has insightfully observed that the price of US-led globalization is a perpetual US trade deficit. The 2001 current account deficit was $420 billion, compared to $155 billion in 1997. This money eventually came back to invest in US assets, meaning the US ran a capital account surplus. Foreign direct investment flows into the United States have been robust. Direct investment inflows have been lifted by the extraordinary level of cross-border merger and acquisition activity. Portfolio flows have also been affected by this activity. Many of the largest acquisitions have been financed by swaps of equity in the acquiring firm for equity in the target firm. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that US investors acquired $153 billion of foreign equities in this way in 2001. The ominous aspects of this situation are the hot and cool money issues. A market crash can result from hot money flight if foreign-owned dollars earned from US trade deficits suddenly exit US markets en masse. And if foreigners exchange their dollars into their own currencies suddenly, in order to buy assets in their own countries, the dollar can go into a free fall. The extra investment income coming from abroad in the form of cool money can eventually cause US entrepreneurs to take too much risk, as has been evident in the Internet and telecom sectors. According to Greenspan, this could create significant problems for the US economy. On this point he is correct, even though he has taken no action to prevent it. Hot money movement is directly linked to interest rates. As Greenspan raised US rates to moderate reflexive inflation fears, he pushed up the exchange value of the dollar, and thus forestalled potential capital exit. Greenspan has now been forced to lower rates aggressively to a three-decade low. It is anybody's guess when abnormally low US rates will trigger a hot money flight from US assets. Besides the hemisphere-wide pact pursued at the summit meetings in Quebec City and Mexico City, the US is seeking bilateral trade agreements with such countries as Jordan, Chile and Singapore, as well as a new round of global trade accords. While the US historically has claimed security monopoly in the Americas under the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, economic and trade conflicts have emerged as problems with uncertain futures, despite Bush's recent declaration of trade as a moral imperative. Argentina and Venezuela, though fundamentally dissimilar, are glaring examples of US policy failure. Ironically, the weaker economies in the Americas now have alternative options away from US domination because of globalization, despite the US push on a regional free trade zone. Further, populist regimes can no longer be conveniently dismissed as communist stooges directed from Moscow, or be summarily overthrown with military coups instigated from Washington. Resentment against US hegemony has been growing around the world when government policies are constrained, if not dictated, by US ambassadors and bankers; when globalization turns out to be a trade regime used for the special benefits of US transnationals; and when the global financial architecture is dominated by dollar hegemony. Nationalism developed historically against the forced internationalization of the Napoleonic empire, despite the fact that the French Revolution began as a liberating force against the ancient regime. Nationalism rose up against the Napoleonic idea of a supranational European order unified by uniform law and administration, with a continental economic system, a single-dimensional anti-British foreign policy backed by a grand army under unified command. In the new Cold War, US hegemony has many parallels with the Napoleonic imperial order. China has no direct security issues with any nation beyond Asia, and most of its security conflicts within Asia are traceable to US instigation. As Nixon played his China card in 1972, Leonid Brezhnev played his India card. Now three decades later, Bush is playing his new India card as part of his pan-Asia strategy to contain China. China does face complex economic issue with the Southeast Asian economies, but the prospect of peaceful resolution of these issues remains high due to the high growth potentials for all of Asia. To do this, Asian economies have to get off the dead-end path of competing for exports to US markets in a race to the bottom. To counter US security hostility, China will develop mutually beneficial economic relations with Russia, the EU, Japan, Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East economies, some of which also face security hostility from the US. Russia continues to be a security threat to the US by virtue of its formidable nuclear arsenal. Russia also has historical geopolitical security conflicts with Europe, both Eastern and Western, and with Japan and China. An economically desperate Russia will mean problems for Europe, particularly Germany, as an expansionist Russia also would. Regionally, security relationships between Russia, China and Japan have a triangular nature that may require classic balance of power solutions. Thus both Japan and Russia have incentives to help strengthen China technologically to a certain extent. Russia needs low-cost Chinese consumer goods until it manages to restructure productivity in its economy and Japan needs the vast Chinese market to get out of its decade-long recession. The US cannot afford to import inflation, especially since last year's interest rate cuts, and a decade-long tax cut program has been designed to stimulate consumption to counter a slowing economy. Also, many suspect that the US monetary strategy of a strong dollar is to continue to export inflation, leading to global deflation in dollar terms and inflation in local currency terms. US allegations against Chinese military prowess are a false pretense. The US is not seriously concerned about China's present or potential military might in the foreseeable future. The gap between US and Chinese technological capabilities may in fact be increasing. The US is actually uneasy about Chinese economic growth, which might challenge US economic predominance in the 21st century, even though actual data in the past two decade show that the per capita GDP gap between the two economies actually widened, despite impressive strides made by China since 1978. A Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) report on the year 2015 presents four possible future scenarios, and in all of them US economic power is projected to be waning while China's is rising, not withstanding that in the old Cold War the CIA consistently over-estimated Soviet strength, up to the fall of the USSR, which took the CIA by surprise. Thus, despite anticipated structural problems facing the Chinese economy after World Trade Organization accession and intractable social resistance to economic reform, the US is fixated on China's bullish future, and therefore worried about losing its sole superpower status, at least in Asia. Washington's real objective is to check China's growth along a path independent of US satellite models. In this scenario, US strategy is to help China develop enough to moderate China's current political system, so as to avoid a total political collapse caused by economic failure, but it aims to prevent China from prospering too much outside of the US orbit as to challenge US hegemony. In the 1980s, despite a lingering fear for the Soviet threat, a main concern in Washington was the rise of Japanese economic power, which looked like it was destined to surpass the US, at least in manufacturing, and impose a whole new set of alien values onto US society. Anti-Japanese sentiments rose sharply in the US as a consequence, until the US figured out the new game of finance capitalism, leaving the Japanese economy to wallow in obsolete industrial capitalism. Similarly, the Chinese economy in the coming decades could eventually overtake that of the US in size if not in sophistication. Furthermore, as Japanese transnational companies did in the 1980s, Chinese transnationals could challenge US transnationals' market shares in sectors that the US no longer considers critical, or shift the natural loyalty of some international transnationals away from US national interests. There is also the ugly race issue that has yet to subside fully in US geopolitics. A new containment policy against China is becoming the main fulcrum around which US foreign policy is framed, affecting Washington's traditional Eurocentric perspective as well as US policy in the Middle East, as evidenced by recent US-Israeli conflict over the Israeli sale of military technology to China. The increasingly visible manifestation of US policy of hostile confrontation has in turn fueled anti-American sentiment among the Chinese public, putting the current Chinese leadership on the defensive on its pro-US policy of the past two decades. The anti-China Blue Team in the Bush administration currently dominating US policy on China views a policy leading to a revival of the radical left in Chinese domestic politics as serving to kill two birds with one stone: the stone is its anti-China Pan-Asia strategy, and the two birds are: 1) minimize the potential success of China's reforms and open-to-the-outside policies that would lead to Chinese economic prowess, by creating conditions that would encourage the rise of the radical left in domestic Chinese politics in the name of nationalism, and; 2) promote a global high-tech arms race that would bleed China of its economic potential. The real battle in the US-China-Taiwan arena is the battle between the trade doves and the security hawks on all three sides. In reality, no amount of arms sales to Taiwan, quantitative or qualitative, can enhance the security of Taiwan. What makes China think twice about taking Taiwan by force is the cost-benefit analysis of the possibility of a direct military conflict with the US over Taiwan. If such conflict is inevitable due to US policy in Asia generally, then a military offensive to achieve the reunification of Taiwan would simply be a matter of forsworn conclusion. The "one country, two systems" (OCTS) policy, originally framed during the final phase of the old Cold War, has become China's response to the new Cold War. For Hong Kong, OCTS has a time limit of 50 years. For Taiwan, OCTS has no time limit. The two systems refer to the socialist and capitalist systems in a strict economic sense, although allowances are tolerated in Hong Kong for a neoliberal socio-political-legal infrastructure deemed necessary for the smooth functioning of a market economy. OCTS assumes a non-adversary relationship between the two economic systems. It is a precarious assumption. Hong Kong is not expected to be an anti-China political base nor is market capitalism expected to work for the demise of socialism. Neither of these expectations has been fulfilled flawlessly in the almost five years since Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997. One aspect of the OCTS policy that is conveniently underemphasized is that the "two systems" arrangement implies that socialism will remain the operative system on the mainland, that Chinese policies of reform and open-to-the-outside do not include anti-socialist objectives. Many supporters of OCTS are in fact quietly and openly working for the "one country, one system" - the capitalist system, with direct US support. It is not at all clear that OCTS has redeeming positive impacts on the economic development of China, or on the reunification of Taiwan. On the other hand, OCTS legitimizes the Hong Kong Relations Act and the Taiwan Relations Act, two pieces of US legislation that the US relies on to interfere openly in China's internal affairs. The Taiwan Relations Act further provides the legal basis of provocative US arms sales to Taiwan. Trade in the new Cold War also has domestic consequences in all countries. Widening domestic income disparity in both rich and poor countries is justified as necessary for national security, as are unemployment and environmental abuses. The battle is increasingly shaping up to be one between an international elite against the world's poor, many of whom live in the rich economies. Henry C K Liu is chairman of the New York-based Liu Investment Group. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:52:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Japanese leader warns China of nuclear option The Times of India | Sunday April 7 2002 | AFP TOKYO: A conservative Japanese political leader has warned Beijing that Japan can arm itself with nuclear weapons overnight if China goes ahead with an excessive military build-up, press reports said on Sunday. The warning from opposition Liberal Party chief Ichiro Ozawa is likely to provoke sharp reaction from China and the rest of Asia, sensitive to any signs of Japan's military revival. In a lecture in the provincial city of Fukuoka on Saturday, Ozawa said he had referred to the nuclear option during a recent meeting with an official from the intelligence division of the Chinese Community Party, the reports said. "China is undergoing an expansion of its military power in a bid to join the ranks of the superpowers," said Ozawa, a renowned advocate of a strong armed forces. "It is trying to become a military power following in the steps of the United States." Ozawa, 59, a former secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, said he had told the unidentified Chinese visitor: "If you get too inflated, Japanese people will get hysterical." "It would be easy for us to produce nuclear warheads. We can produce thousands of nuclear warheads overnight. We may have enough plutonium at nuclear power plants for 3,000 or 4,000 rounds." He added: "I told that person that if we rise to the occasion, we will never be beaten even in terms of military power." Ozawa, however, emphasised that what he really wanted was a fully democratic China and a society in which "China and Japan can co-exist". He said the introduction of democracy to China was essential to world peace. "Any break down of order in China will be no match for that in Afghanistan or Yugoslavia. It will lead to significant global turmoil," he said. However, Japanese newspapers expressed concern about the possible repercussions arising from Ozawa's remarks. "His position, in which he has tried to hold China in check by bringing up the possibility of nuclear armament, is likely to cause ripples at home and abroad," the conservative daily Sankei Shimbun said. The influential daily Asahi Shimbun said it anticipated a "backlash from the Chinese government and others". Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:53:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China warns US over actions on Taiwan Dawn | March 20, 2002 BEIJING, March 20: China has starkly warned the United States that a "freezing wind" was chilling relations because of Washington's policy towards Taiwan, putting at risk newly-improved bilateral ties. Washington put good relations "in jeopardy" with a string of actions this month, most notably allowing Taiwan's defence minister to attend a conference in Florida, Chinese media said. "A freezing wind is blowing in China-US relations," warned an angry and strongly-worded commentary by the official Xinhua news agency late Tuesday. China has been enraged by the US decision to allow Taiwan's Defence Minister Tang Yaoming to participate in an arms summit this month and to meet key US officials while in the US. The US ambassador to Beijing has twice been called in for dressings down over the issue while a state-controlled newspaper reported Monday that China was preparing to cancel naval exchanges with the US in retaliation. However, the Xinhua commentary used perhaps the strongest language unleashed by China on the US since relations began improving following Beijing's backing for the US-led war on terrorism. Ties warmed still further during US President George W. Bush's visit to Beijing last month, the article noted. "However, since the beginning of March, what the US government has done with regard to bilateral ties is putting them in jeopardy with its erroneous move," it thundered. "The US government must correct this serious mistake and put up no new barriers to the development of China-US relations." The commentary condemned a recently-leaked US review of its nuclear arms policy listing China as a potential target and Taiwan as the likely flash-point. "These perfidious acts by the US side... interfere in China's internal affairs and represent a provocation to the Chinese people." It added: "Today, certain Americans should learn from history and not do to others what you do not want done to yourself - as the old Chinese proverb goes. Some 'hawks' in the US, however, are bent on acting in a diametrically opposite way - to do to others what you do not want done to yourself. What is the logic?" Analysts have warned that while relations appear to have improved in recent months, Beijing and Washington remain at odds over a series of issues, notably Taiwan, and that the strain was bound to show sooner or later.-AFP Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-08 23:58:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat (and now a slightly different perspective) Will China and US Follow the Tracks of Soviet-US Cold War? Peoples Daily (CCP NEWS) | 6/29/02 Will China and US Follow the Tracks of Soviet-US Cold War? Seeing the rise of China in recent years, some people in the United States and other countries advertised the "theory of China threat", holding that China, following the former Soviet Union, would become the main enemy of the United States and a new Cold war and even a hot war would break out between the United States and China. Then let's make a comparison between the then Soviet-US relationship and today's Sino-US relationship, will China really become another Soviet Union? The nearly 50-year period from the end of World War II to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union was the so-called Cold-War period. During this period, the world situation was characterized by the all-round confrontation between the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, a nuclear war had reached the extent where "the bow was drawn but the arrow was not discharged", the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union overwhelmed other international relations and put them in a subordinate position. This phase of just past history stamped deep brands in people's minds and psychology. Seeing the rise of China in recent years, some people in the United States and other countries advertised the "theory of China threat", holding that China, following the former Soviet Union, would become the main enemy of the United States and a new Cold war and even a hot war would break out between the United States and China. Then let's make a comparison between the then Soviet-US relationship and today's Sino-US relationship, will China really become another Soviet Union? The answer is negative. China Does not have Super-powerful Military Strength In those years, both the United States and the Soviet Union were superpowers and both had military and overall national strength which was greater than the combined strengths of other large countries. The nuclear arsenals of the two countries were approximately equal, and both had the capability to destroy the other side many times, the conventional military strength of the Soviet Union was even more mighty. US economic and scientific and technological strength was superior to that of the Soviet Union, but the gap between the two at that time was not very wide, the Soviet Union was the opponent on a par with the United States. Therefore, in the Cold War, both sides had offensive and defensive, before the Soviet Union was finally disintegrated, it was hard to tell who would win and who would lose. Today, the United States is the sole superpower, its GDP represents over one-fourth of the world's total, its military spending is greater than the combined total of the eight military powers placed behind it, its military might is great enough to cover the whole globe, it also possesses enormous soft strength. There has never been any other country possessing so great superiority like it since the dawn of history. China of today is still a developing country, with its GDP accounting for only one-ninth of that of the United States, and its nuclear weapons for only the odd of that of the United States. The balance of strength between the two sides is asymmetric, that is to say, the strength of today's China is just enough for self-defense. China has very great potential, but to develop in every aspect to the extent that can be mentioned in the same breath with the United States perhaps still needs 30-50 years even if everything goes smoothly. China Does Not Have the Ambition to Seek Hegemony Both the United States and the Soviet Union had the ambition to play the hegemonic overlord. What they were scrambling for was world domination, that is, to exercise the right to control over others. They had carved out spheres of influence in Europe since the Yalta Agreement in 1945, they had their respective military alliances, carried out massive activities to guarantee each other's destructive nuclear deterrent strategy and tried to regulate long-term, unceasing arms race through arms control negotiations. At the same time, they stirred up one crisis and local war after another in various parts of the world outside of their own territories, striving to expand their own domains. Their struggles had never ceased. China is different from them. As a developing country which had not long rid itself of foreign aggression and control. The main purpose of China's foreign policy has always been defense of its own independence and striving for a peaceful international environment to carry out economic and social development and improve the living standards of the entire Chinese people. China advocates the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, nonalignment, not serving as head and refraining from forming blocs. China does not have a single soldier overseas, nor a sphere of influence. China opposes hegemonism, particularly American acts of infringing on China's sovereign interests, but China does not seek hegemony and it has not the least intention to contend for hegemony with the United States. There Are Widespread Exchange and Cooperation Between China and the US The two major camps of the United States and the Soviet Union not only were opposed to each other politically and militarily, they also divided into two isolated markets economically, their economic systems were totally different, and they had very few non-governmental exchanges. Today, Sino-US relationship is quite different. After China introduced the reform and opening up policy, particularly after it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), the country has successfully changed its planned economic system, established a socialist market economy and actively participated in the international trading system. There are lots of mutually beneficial exchanges between China and the United States and a situation in which "there is something of each in the other" has been formed to some extent. Now the number of American tourists traveling to China each year has exceeded 800,000. Altogether 180,000 students and visiting scholars from the Chinese mainland have studied or worked in the United States and over 60,000 Chinese students are continuing their studies there; the trade volume between the two countries reached US$80.4 billion in 2001, actual US investment in China has totaled US$34.5 billion, and these figures are still on the rise, more and greater mutually beneficial cooperation is in the ascendant. China Does Not Differentiate Between Friend and Foe According to Ideology Both the United States and the Soviet Union insist that their own concepts of value, social modes and lifestyles are the only ones universally applicable to the whole world, while those of the other side are evil and reactionary. Perhaps this attitude is related to the history and religious traditions of the two countries. Puritans who founded the United States believe in the manifest destiny, holding that they themselves are the God's "voters" and saving the world is the sacred mission entrusted to them by the God; Russia's Orthodoxy maintained that Moscow was the "third Rome" following the ancient Rome and Byzantine. Therefore they both spared no efforts to disseminate and spread their own concepts of value and social modes, and even unhesitatingly imposed them on others. Well-wished people maintain that reshaping others' society in accordance with their own images means practicing benefactions and doing others a favor; while ill-intentioned people seek occupying things of others, publicize themselves and control others. Whether they are well wished or ill intentioned, they lack respect for others' society. China adheres to socialism and has contradiction with the United States in ideology, but this kind of contradiction is somewhat relaxed than the US-Soviet contradiction. China has a long history and has seen much of changes in human life, ordinary Chinese lay stress on reality, pay attention to the middle course, and have a faint religious concept about monotheism and they do not have the tradition of doing missionary work abroad. Today China is adopting a fairly open attitude toward ideology, and advocates seeking truth from fact and emancipating the mind. It adopts an attitude of compatibility toward either China's own fine tradition or advanced foreign cultures. In international relations, China does not marking out in accordance with ideology, it recognizes the diversity of the cultures of various countries, it stands for dialogs between different civilizations and learning from each other. The Chinese people's achievement of this has not come about easily, it is because the many sufferings they experienced over a period of nearly 200 years have compelled them to adapt to and influence the outside world by selectively changing hemselves, they have traversed a course of exploring between blind conceit and passive inferiority, learning from the strong points of foreign cultures to make up for China's deficiencies on the basis of mutual respect and seeking common grounds while reserving differences. In addition, the sources of Chinese and the US cultures are different. When reflected in diplomacy, the interaction of China-US relationship is more sensitive and complicated, eliminating misunderstanding and reducing trouble will become a long-term arduous task that will appear over and again. China Does Not Have the Nature of Expansion Both the United States and the Soviet Union had a strong expansionist tradition. Over a short span of several hundred years, the small Moscow grand duchy had expanded several hundred times to become the Soviet Union, while the United States with only 13 states located out of the way on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean had expanded within even a shorter time deep into the Pacific Ocean to become today's United States consisting of 50 states. In the process of expansion, they both resorted to unbridled use of war means to plunder other countries of their territories. After they ceased territorial expansion, they still continually expanded their spheres of influence. An American statesman once said that expansion was the life of Russia, once it ceased expansion, Russia's subsistence would face crisis. In fact, US own records show it was so busy expanding that it had no time to make concession. Therefore crashes between the two were unavoidable. China does not have the nature of expansion. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in particular, we have been pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace, good neighborliness and friendship, although we have fought several wars of resistance against aggression to protect our homes and defend our motherland and counterattack for self-defense, we suffered not a single defeat, but even we had won big victories we invariably pulled our troops back to our own territory and even withdrew from the disputed areas which we had occupied, this is rare in the history of international relations, ordinary Chinese people consciously accepted this policy decision of the government. US Attitude: Key to Determining Sino-US Relations The key to China-US relations is the Taiwan issue. The nature of this question is US intervention in China's internal affairs and encroachment upon China's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Similar issue did not arise between the United States and the Soviet Union. For some US right-wingers, maintaining the situation of no war, no peace, no reunification and no independence between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits could possibly be a magic weapon for containing the rise of China. This is a potential explosive issue, the longer it is delayed, the more it is unfavorable to Sino-US relationship. The nature of Sino-US contradiction is quite different from the US-Soviet contradiction. Currently China does not constitute threat to the United States, and it has no intention to contend for hegemony with the United States. After China is fully developed in the future, there is great possibility for China to continue peaceful coexistence, friendship and cooperation with the United States, while the possibility is very small for a life-and-death struggle with the United States. This distinguishing feature of China has reduced the possibility of a China-US conflict, but this does not mean Sino-US relationship is bound to be a plain sailing. Facts since the birth of New China show US attitude is the main aspect determining whether China-US relationship is good or bad. When the United States adopts an offensive posture and alternately or simultaneously uses the two tactics of contact and containment, it has an object in its mind of changing China in accordance with the US requirement. China is in a defensive position, it also reacts by taking two policies, it strives both to establish a constructive and cooperative relationship with the United States, and resolutely opposes any US power means. China has never taken the initiative to provoke the United States, nor does it want to change the United States in accordance with China's requirement. Considering the backgrounds of the growth of China's strength as well as scientific and technical progress, globalization and the rapid development of threat to non-traditional security, we can say that today's China-US relationship will not evolve into the long-term, all-round confrontation during the US-Soviet Cold War. Bilateral cooperation in the aspect of common interest will continue to develop, but contradictions and struggles in many fields will also exist for a long period of time. As to partial confrontation, for instance, the Taiwan issue and some problems in the ideological field, they have never been ceased for many years, but facts have proved that so long as both sides properly handle such problems, and refrain from overdoing things, such local confrontation can be brought under control and will not expand to become all-round confrontation. Before Nixon's China visit, China and the United States had experienced all-round confrontation for more than two decades. Confrontation, needless to say, means a heavy burden on China, it is not a light and easy thing to the United States either. In October 1967, in his article published in the periodical, "Diplomacy", Nixon said: From the long-term point of view, we can't afford to bear the burden of eternally keeping China outside the big family of various countries¡­.In this small celestial body, the 1 billion talented and capable people cannot be allowed to live in a state of wrath and isolation. The strong anti-China force in the American society incessantly advocated coping with China as they did with the former Soviet Union. Some of them did so out of political or ideological prejudice, some out of the intention of guaranteeing the United States' absolute, ever-lasting superiority, some out of the consideration of the interest of war industry or other economic benefits, they need to create an enemy, so as to deceive the masses and divert people's line of sight. China has a vast expanse of land, a large population and rapid development, and it is a socialist country, so it is just right to be taken as their target, it is described as a threat even though it is not a threat. However, these people are in the minority in the United States, most Americans disagree to this viewpoint. Several American presidents have openly stated that a powerful and prosperous China is in the interests of the United States and that the United States hopes to establish stable, good relationship with China. These words have been repeated over and again. In the United States, debate on US policy toward China will continue for a long time to come and there will still be twists and turns, but it should be believed that the interests of most people will ultimately take the upper hand, we hold a prudent and optimistic view about the prospect of Sino-US relationship. The above commentary was published on page 4 of Global Times, June 20 Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-09 00:01:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China warns of looming setback in Sino-U.S. ties Yahoo/Reuters | 28 March 2002 | John Ruwitch BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese media blasted the United States on Thursday barely a month after President George W. Bush's euphoric visit to Beijing, accusing his administration of betrayal after a string of insensitive moves. The English-language China Daily criticised Washington in an editorial on Thursday, reflecting a turnaround in Beijing's rhetoric on the United States since the late February visit. In the days after the visit, state media were hailing Bush's meetings with top leaders as bringing relations closer than ever. Those heady reports have all but dried up. "Here we are on the verge of another setback in Sino-U.S. ties," the China Daily said in an editorial on Thursday. "Beijing feels betrayed," the state-run newspaper said, adding: "Gone is the euphoria that surrounded U.S. President George W. Bush's visit in February." The renewed tension in relations has raised speculation about whether Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao will visit the United States in April as planned, but on Thursday the Foreign Ministry said both sides were making preparations for the trip. Topping the list of China's concerns was the U.S. decision this month to allow Taiwan defence minister Tang Yiau-ming into the United States for talks with defence officials. China regards Taiwan as a rebel province which must be reunited with the mainland by force if necessary. "FRIENDSHIP OUT OF THE QUESTION" Beijing is also upset about a Pentagon report saying China was one of several targets in America's nuclear weapons planning, and "undisguised attempts" to bring Taiwan into the World Health Organisation, it said. Taiwan, ousted from the United Nations in 1971, is pushing to join the WHO as an observer. "The current row, unless resolved in a timely and constructive manner, will definitely undermine the already slight Chinese confidence in genuine friendship between the two countries," the state-run newspaper said. "Friendship is out of the question in the absence of reciprocity," the editorial said. In another sign of its displeasure with the United States, China this month denied permission for a U.S. navy destroyer to make a routine port call in Hong Kong. And on Tuesday, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji told visiting U.S. senators that Beijing was opposed to America's Taiwan policies, saying Washington had violated three Sino-U.S. communiqués by letting Taiwan's Tang into the United States. That visit to Florida, in which Tang met U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, is the highest-level documented U.S.-Taiwan defence dialogue in at least 22 years. HU STILL LIKELY TO GO The Foreign Ministry has declined to confirm whether or not Hu's trip was still on. But on Thursday spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said preparations were under way in what appeared to be a positive sign. "The details I will let you know in due time," she said. Political analysts said they would be surprised if Hu pulled out of the U.S. invitation over the latest row, saying it would be a disproportionate response. "It would take something much bigger than this," said one Western diplomat in Beijing. Mei Renyi, director of the American Studies Centre and the Beijing Foreign Studies University, said the signal to the United States of Hu pulling out would be too strong. "Not going would be a very big move. I would consider it similar to the recall of the ambassador in 1996," he said. China withdrew its ambassador from the United States after Washington issued Taiwan president Lee Teng-hui an American visa. Hu is expected to take over as Communist Party chief later this year when President Jiang Zemin steps down as general secretary. Hu is set to become president next year. The planned U.S. trip would be a key opportunity for him to bolster his credentials, analysts say. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-07-13 06:26:00 68.83.185.238 Re: The China Threat China - Taiwan ALERT The Pentagon has issued an alert that China is in position for an immediate and sustained blitz-like attack on Taiwan. This first indication come up on DebKa an hour or so ago. I am now looking for anything to corroborate the Alert Message Status. (BTW...I have now High-Speed Internet access hooray! so searching is 50x is more rapid.) Anyway this is meant as a heads-up (high gain antenna search mode...any attack against Taiwan, IMHO, would also certainly be initiated with a blinding US intel in region, and/or attempting to neutralize Any US carrier forces/naval assets in situ. Like to DebKa (Pentagon Alert headline) Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-07-13 07:07:00 68.83.185.238 Re: The China Threat Found this about Joint Russian-Chinese miltary exercise scheduled for mid-August 2002. China-Russia Joint Exercises Set for mid-August Becareful accessing Chinese site. i just experienced massive attempted intrusion at one site. Info via PeMail only. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-07-13 07:48:00 68.83.185.238 Re: The China Threat Here is the basis of the DebKa headline. The Pentagon released a major study to Congress yesterday. The intelligence findings of this magnitude would normally be classified. So this maybe an intentional leak of classified material, for the obvious reasons. Pentagon report: China Targets Taiwan; ICBM\'s Take Aim on USA Theere is additional intel in the Jiang Zemin will not step down as planned. He is being lionized in the tradition of Mao Zedong, and the Chinese penchant for "Cult Personality" in leadership roles. There is informed speculation he will not cede power. Al C. (Member) 2002-07-13 08:17:00 208.193.163.206 Re: The China Threat Buy your bicycles but not from 'China' along with other things. Again the report from another place: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020713-92365049.htm High Tech War beginning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2124000/2124946.stm I certainly hope that people begin to 'NOT' support China. I would be concerned with saving their 'face' but perhaps, they do not have one! Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-07-13 18:07:00 216.68.39.209 Re: The China Threat Sean, You beat me to the punch in regards to announcing the DoD China report! Also, thanks for the update on the Chinese ambitions against Taiwan. As the report says, China relies on surprise as a force multiplier. Here is the actual report put out by the DoD – Annual Report On The Military Power Of The People’s Republic Of China It certainly makes for an interesting read. A few interesting points brought up by the report: - Despite China’s claim of spending only $20 Billion on their military, it is in effect 4 times that much. quote: China’s defense spending may be some four times larger than its public announcement in March 2002 of a defense budget of about $20 billion. -The DoD admits that their knowledge of Chinese military activities is not at all complete. quote: This report begins with a cautionary note that was first outlined in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment’s Report to Congress on Implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act in 2000. The Net Assessment report surveys how little is known about the most significant aspects of Chinese military power. Chinese secrecy is extensive. ~~~ Since the 1980s, U.S. military exchange delegations to China have been shown only “showcaseâ€� units, never any advanced units or any operational training or realistic exercises. Although, the report is 56 pages long it is well worth the read. While it states that China may not yet pose a direct threat to the US, keep in mind that this report is simply based on what IS KNOWN, NOT WHAT IS UNKNOWN! The whole stance the government is taking in regards to China is indeed curious. On one hand we see people saying that China isn’t a threat and is our ally: - Paper Says Bush Keen for New China Military Ties - Powell Unconcerned with Chinese Military Buildup - Chinese Army Barracks Open to Foreign Media (I wonder if any of the soldiers were seen still holding their scripts in hand? :rolleyes: ) - China\'s Military Opens Doors in Transparency Drive And on the other hand we see those who are saying that China is a threat and we should be preparing to deal with them in the near and long term: - U.S. Eyes Chinese Military Buildup - U.S. Panel Expected to Urge Tougher China Sanctions - Report: China Moves Endanger Taiwan - U.S. Eyes Chinese Military Buildup - China Moves Endanger Taiwan - Pentagon to Release Report on China Threat - Pentagon Warns of China Threat There certainly seems to be quite a bit of divergence in opinion within the government. In my opinion, this is a concerted effort by the Chinese to undermine the US government. Much in the way they didn’t hesitate to cause a rift in the government by donating to the Democratic party. An interesting line of thought… Perhaps Jiang intends to retake Taiwan before he is scheduled to cede power to Hu Jintao in an effort to cement his position as President and keep himself in power. It would not only be beneficial for him but, it would be beneficial to China in that it would unite them behind one goal. This uniting would help to relieve some of the problems that they have been having with the working class and others who are becoming disillusioned. I could see this happening when we have our resources tied up in Iraq (An attack is expected to come in late summer/early fall). The Iraq attack would come before Jiang is expected to turn over power to Hu in the fall. It would all coincide. And it would obviously come when China has a huge number of its forces in the area for “military exercisesâ€�. Assuming that an invasion of Taiwan would be successful (Which in my opinion would be since they have such massive numbers of SRBMs. They could literally blanket the island with them. Perhaps some of them NBCs.) Jiang would become nearly immortal in the eyes of most Chinese for being successful for not only “reunitingâ€� China but reuniting all the people disillusioned with the Communist party. The public would then most certainly support his staying in power. It would also be a way in which the Chinese can say that they indirectly defeated the Evil West. This would cause further uniting of the Chinese people and a drive to finally overthrow the US. Another interesting tie-in is the reluctance of some Mid-East countries to allow us to use their air and land for staging the attack against Iraq. This would require the use of more aircraft carriers to stage air strikes from. With a larger than normal number of our carriers tied up in Iraq, there would be less to respond to Taiwan’s need for help in the event of a Chinese invasion. With the diminished number of ships available, the Chinese military stands a larger chance to successfully attack US military assets that respond to the situation. This would coincide with the article recently posted on China’s plans to kill a carrier to disillusion the American public and make them pull out. The disillusion of the American public and subsequent pullout would make us appear to be weak and in the eyes of the Chinese, that would be a huge blow. Also, here are a few more articles dealing with what you brought up about a joint Russian/Chinese military exercise: - China-Russia War Games Confirmed quote: Liu added that reports in overseas media which suggested the maneuvers were aimed at a third country were "untrue and [circulated] with an ulterior motive." Of course they are! How dare anyone accuse the Chinese or Russians of having ulterior motives! :rolleyes: Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-14 23:24:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China's use of U.S. capital raises security concerns Reuters | 14 July, 2002 | Carol Giacomo WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China has helped fuel its surging economy and military modernization by raising billions of dollars in American capital markets, raising serious concerns about the impact on U.S. national security, according to a Congressional commission. In a 200-page report obtained by Reuters, the U.S.-China Security Review Commission disclosed the findings of a year-long study on Sino-American relations. It recommended a tougher policy toward China, including possible limits on Beijing's access to U.S. capital markets, restrictions on its U.S. imports and increased reporting requirements for American companies doing business in China. The report was made available as the Pentagon also released a long-delayed assessment of Chinese military trends, which concluded Beijing planned to bring Taiwan to its knees rapidly if it uses force to unite the island with the mainland. A Bush administration official played down both reports as "a dime a dozen." Some of the commission's concerns repeat fears voiced previously by American hard-liners toward China. But together the two documents suggest that while usually volatile U.S.-China relations have stabilized, scepticism about Chinese intentions runs deep in some quarters of Washington. The commission report -- to be formally released on Monday -- is expected to be controversial, especially among U.S. firms heavily invested in propelling China's economic growth. CAPITAL ACCESS The United States has its largest trade deficit with China, is a premier investor in its markets and has permitted Chinese companies to raise more than $14 billion in U.S. capital markets through initial public offerings in the past three years, the commission said. "The presence of Chinese debt and equity offerings in the U.S. capital markets raises U.S. national security concerns that have not been adequately examined to date." The commission expressed concern about the identities and nature of Chinese companies accessing U.S. capital markets, including the extent to which they have ties to China's army, defence industry and intelligence services, and may be involved in the spread of weapons of mass destruction. "U.S. investors, including sophisticated pension and mutual funds, may be unknowingly funding Chinese companies that pose a security risk to the United States through their purchases of overseas listed securities," the report suggested. It said in "egregious cases" denying Chinese entities access to U.S. markets may be warranted, and recommended creation of a federally mandated corporate reporting system to try to better understand the U.S.-China trade and investment relationship. The commission said China is attempting to acquire a vast array of advanced western technology. "The increasing transfers of U.S. research and manufacturing facilities to China could have a negative impact on the strength of our technological and industrial base as well as the relative military strengths of the two countries," it said. In particular, the commission said the U.S. defence industrial base may be becoming dependent on Chinese imports or Chinese-owned companies and urged monitoring of this issue. Policymakers "should prepare for all contingencies" in the complex U.S. relationship with China, the report said. But the government is "poorly organized" to manage this and does not dedicate enough resources to understanding China. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-14 23:28:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat In addition to the last post.... This is from Washington: REPORT TO CONGRESS OF THE U.S. - CHINA SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION - The National Security Implications of the Economic Relationship Between the United States and China Report Al C. (Member) 2002-07-15 17:40:00 208.193.163.201 Re: The China Threat Three or four years ago on another forum, an Australian thought that the U.S. was 'nuts', because once in the door, China will take over the economy! News with commentary: http://www.newaus.com.au/ Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-17 10:54:00 24.221.202.151 Re: The China Threat Summarizing the Great Threat Dr. Alexandr Nemets and Dr. Thomas Torda Tuesday, July 16, 2002 In the article "New Great Leap Forward in Chinese-Russian Military and Defense Cooperation?" published by the authors on July 3, it was stated that by 2002, with primarily Russian technology and with minimal use of imported components, China had mastered the production of all small-size and mid-size weapon platforms. And in the article "Chinese Multi-Level Air Defense Network," published on July 9, it was claimed that, in 2002-2003, China will master – or has mastered already – serial production of air defense missile (ADM) systems HQ-15, HQ-16, HQ-17 and HQ-18, and that this will make China's air defense network almost impenetrable. Report in Shijie Ribao Confirmation of these claims came even earlier than the authors expected. Look at the following report. New York-based Shijie Ribao (World Journal) newspaper, June 24, 2002, p.A7 – "China Serially Produces Hongqi-15 Missile [System] – the King of Air Defense" (with insignificant omissions): (Information from the newspaper's correspondent in Hong Kong): China earlier imported from Russia the S-300 ADM system, which received the Chinese name Hongqi (HQ)-15. These systems are deployed mostly near the Taiwan Strait and turned into the factor of psychological pressure on Taiwanese military pilots. According to reliable sources, China has already started serial production of the HQ-15, which has become the "king weapon" of Chinese air defense. Russia's "Military survey" (probably the authoritative "Independent Military Survey" weekly newspaper) recently published the following report: In 1992 China imported from Russia three systems (battalions) of S-300 PMU missile launchers and 144 missiles for them. Later (in 1992-93) seven more improved S-300 systems were imported. Very rapidly, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) mastered these systems and began missile-launching training. After several training-maneuvers of this kind, in 1994, the PLA became satisfied [with the S-300's performance] and decided to import the production line for S-300 "guochanhua" (serial production from Chinese components). According to reports available, presently China managed to increase the "guochanhua level" (share of Chinese components) up to 70 percent in the Chinese-made HQ-15 system, i.e., a copy of the S-300 PMU-1. These systems are capable of launching a missile every three seconds and of attacking six different targets at once; the response time of this system is as little as 15 seconds. The reports of Rosoboronexport corp. (the Russian state-owned weapon export monopoly) indicate that China is producing a renovated variety of the S-300, with improved space characteristics and software; moreover, the modular principle of S-300 design allows the Chinese side to upgrade these systems significantly by substituting a small number of key components. Presently, S-300 systems (both Russian-made and Chinese-made) deployed near the Taiwan Strait are engaged in tracking Taiwanese Mirage (Mirage-2000) fighters. According to the insiders' information, the introduction of S-300 systems greatly increases China's air defense safety. After the Kosovo War, the PLA did its best to upgrade its air defense. PLA experts believe that if the Yugoslav army had had S-300 systems, it would have been capable of hitting U.S. military aircraft. Presently, China and Russia are jointly developing several new ADM systems, particularly the HQ-16. Researchers on both sides jointly worked out the tactical-technological characteristics of this system and are moving ahead with its development. (end of summary from Russian "military survey" and Shijie Ribao article) The most evident conclusions They are as follows: 1) China is now capable of annually producing at least 10 battalions of HQ-15 or S-300 PMU1 ADM systems or maybe an even greater number. Each battalion includes 12 mobile launching platforms with four mobile launchers on a single platform and is capable of launching 48 missiles simultaneously. It also includes several mobile platforms with radars and controlling devices. Each battalion of this kind effectively protects an airspace inside a circle with about 120-km radius, with an altitude of up to 25 km. The cost of such a battalion, for the PLA, evidently has fallen to about $30 million, while the Russian export price for an S-300 battalion reaches $300 million. The PLA will be capable, in 2002-2004, of obtaining several dozen HQ-15/S-300 battalions and, consequently, of protecting the entire highly developed eastern coastal zone (which produces up to 60 percent of China's GDP) plus the most important eastern regions of the country. According to several unconfirmed reports, in 2001 the PLA acquired from Russia several Triumph S-400 ADM launchers, with a range up to 250 km. Evidently, it won't be very difficult for the Chinese side to upgrade the HQ-15/S-300 systems to the S-400 level ("by substituting a small number of key components"), thus greatly expanding the combat potential of the already constructed multi-level air defense network. An item of particular importance: China is acquiring some components for HQ-15/S-300 systems through the "back door" – the same as components for J-11/SU-27 fighters – from Russian defense plants and army units. For example, at the end of 2001, some sophisticated parts of S-300 systems were stolen in Birobidzhan garrison (about 150 km east of Khabarovsk city), very close to the Chinese border. So, if necessary, China will upgrade its HQ-15/S-300 systems or increase their production volume even without an official agreement with Moscow. 2) Now one can claim that, very probably, China – by mid-2002 – also started serial production of Tor-M1/HQ-17 systems – very effective mid-range, mid-altitude ADM systems, although their technological level doesn't surpass that of the HQ-15 systems. Each company of these systems includes four mobile platforms with two missile launchers on a single platform plus an additional radar/command and control platform. How many such companies could the PLA obtain in 2002-2004? Probably hundreds, taking into account their comparatively low cost. Mid-range, mid-altitude HQ-17 systems are supplementing long-range high-altitude HQ-15 systems and supporting them on the lower level. If an enemy's fighter or cruise missile escapes the HQ-15 missile, then – almost certainly – an HQ-17 missile will hit it. As mentioned in an earlier article, the "super Tor-M1"/HQ-16 is under joint Chinese-Russian development, probably a rapid one. When this system's development is completed, it would be comparatively easy to upgrade HQ-17 systems in the PLA inventory up to the HQ-16 level. That's because the Tor-M1 design – just like the S-300 one – is based on a modular principle, so the change of a small number of key components will provide a high rise in combat capacity. 3) Finally, let's look to the grimmest part of the picture (after Sept. 11, there is no way to "hide one's head in the sand" and ignore unpleasant realities). In the case of "high-tech limited conflict" around Taiwan – and the PLA during the last several years has actively prepared specifically for this – the losses of U.S. tactical aviation (F-15, F-16, F-18 fighters) could be very high. This would be the result of joint actions of long-range HQ-15/S-300 ADM systems, mid-range HQ-17/Tor-M1 ADM systems and low range missile-artillery Feimeng/Tunguska systems etc. Let's be "grateful" for all of this to the Kremlin and Moscow. Let's think what forms our gratitude could take. Some additional conclusions Exact information, given in the last several articles, about recent acceleration of modern fighters and ADM systems development and production in China drives us to the upgrading of estimates regarding other small-size and mid-size weapon platform manufacturing. China's defense industry, capitalizing on the newly acquired economic and technological potential of this country, indeed reached a new qualitative-technological level in 2002. So it is possible to now claim that the following weapon systems – close enough to advanced world levels – are in serial production already or will be put into serial production in the nearest future: Advanced weapons for ground force: tanks, armored vehicles, self-propelled guns, grenade launchers, etc. (in particular, there is precise information about some advanced tank models, based on "Russian design, Ukrainian engines, Belarus chassis"). By 2004, PLA could get a number of perfectly equipped and trained ground force divisions. Land attack cruise missiles (LACMs) with a range between 1,000 and 3,000 km: At least several brigades of such ground-based LACMs could be equipped soon. The air-launching and naval varieties of the same LACMs could be installed, a little later, on PLA long-range bombers and nuclear attack submarines of the new generation (these belong to large-size platforms, and China's defense industry has some difficulties here). Road-mobile solid-fuel DF-31 ICBMs, with a range surpassing 9,000 km. All these items, including the "pleasantest" last one, are mostly based on Russian technology. Let's be "grateful" to Moscow and the Kremlin for this also. And it is not excluded that North Korea, Iran and some other Middle Eastern "nations of concern" will gain access to this sophisticated weaponry – if not via Russian channels, then via Chinese ones. Of course, China still has a lot to learn from Russia in the weapons area. Traditionally, China has problems in manufacturing so-called "da dongxi (large things). Indeed, China's defense industry is unable, at the present moment, to develop and manufacture independently advanced "large weapon platforms" – primarily, nuclear submarines of strategic and attack type, diesel-electric submarines, destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers – with characteristics close to world levels. However, Russian assistance to China is now concentrated precisely in this sector. Dr. Alexandr V. Nemets is co-author of "Chinese-Russian Military Relations, Fate of Taiwan and New Geopolitics." Dr. Thomas J. Torda has been a Chinese linguist specializing in science and technology with FBIS, and a Chinese/Russian defense technology consultant with the Office of Naval Intelligence. You may contact Dr. Torda at ThomasJTorda@cs.com. Original Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-17 10:56:00 24.221.202.151 Re: The China Threat Monday, July 15, 2002 News Flash: Arming China Isn't a Good Idea America's longtime policy of "constructive engagement" with communist China is destructive for the United States, a new report by a congressionally appointed commission admits. "According to the U.S.-China Security Review Commission appointed by Congress in October 2000, the Chinese government has taken advantage of American friendliness to become a bigger threat than ever," Fox News Channel reported today. Building the Enemy's Military C. Richard D'Amato, chairman of the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, said, "It needs to be corrected, particularly today as China grows in economic and military strength, and the United States plays a very substantial role in contributing to that rise in military and economic strength." China has the ability to hit the U.S. mainland with intercontinental ballistic missiles, the report noted. The Asian giant can strike as far inland as Mississippi. The commission was formed to "monitor, investigate and report to Congress on the national security impacts of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the U.S. and China." It concluded, "U.S. policy toward China has lacked consistency and depth and has often been driven by narrow commercial interests, specific human rights issues or particular military and security concerns." 'You'd Have to Be an Idiot' Michael Ledeen, vice chairman of the panel, said: "We are concerned when we see constant rhetorical attacks on the United States, constant warnings to the United States, that if push comes to shove, China is perfectly happy to fight a war against us, and then to see a strategic doctrine from the Chinese military that lays out the ways in which they propose to win that war. "That's very bothersome. You'd have to be an idiot not to take that seriously." Secretary of State Colin Powell, however, does not take that seriously. On Friday, the Pentagon warned Congress that China's military modernization threatened Taiwan - and America. "The Chinese doctrine is moving toward the goal of surprise, deception and shock effect in the opening phase of a [military] campaign," the Pentagon asserted in a report to Congress submitted Friday. "The People's Republic of China's ambitious military modernization casts a cloud over its declared preference for resolving differences over Taiwan through peaceful means," the report said. 'Focusing More on America' The Associated Press reported, "On a broader front, the report casts China as intent on developing a vastly more potent military, with its training focusing more on America as an enemy." It also estimated that Beijing is spending about $65 billion this year on the military rather than the $20 billion the dictatorship reported publicly in March. Kurt Campbell, an Asia specialist at Center for Strategic and International Studies and an Asia policy adviser at the Pentagon during Bill Clinton's exceeedingly cozy-with-China administration, told AP the Bush administration was right to worry about the missile buildup. "It's clearly the biggest area of concern," Campbell said Thursday. Yet here's what Powell had to say about the Pentagon's warning. He claimed he saw no cause for concern about China's military modernization as long as it did not "reflect any kind of new strategic purpose." Original Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-17 11:03:00 24.221.202.151 Re: The China Threat U.S. 'Asleep' While China Builds Military Jim Burns, CNSNews.com Saturday, July 6, 2002 ARLINGTON, Va. – While the United States pursues its war on terrorism, it is "asleep at the switch" in planning for a possible conflict with China, according to retired U.S. Army Maj. Andy Messing. China's communist government is "making great strides" in building up its military and plotting ways to "take out [U.S.] intelligence and commercial satellites," he said. Messing, executive director of the National Defense Foundation, said a war with China would involve a whole new level of technology. "We're going to have a different type of war with China," said Messing. "It will be a space and air and cyber war and naval war." And actually, the U.S. and China are already at war, Messing said. 'Over the Barrel on Economic Issues' "Mainland China is bending us over the barrel on economic issues right now, and so we're in a warfare that we are not even comprehending," Messing said. "At some point, when they feel they are strong enough, they will segue into declaring that all the space over China is their space. If we fly over it without their permission, they will take out our satellites and thus thousands of jobs." Messing believes America should spend more money on its space program to head off any Chinese hostilities in space. He says conservatives should be more enthusiastic in their support for the space program. "The SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative] programs have already developed 3,500 patents that have translated into jobs, which has gotten us closer into space," Messing said. The government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) says NASA should change its priorities and become more financially efficient if it stands to gain taxpayer support. In a statement on its Web site, TCS states that "while the space program yielded many successes in years past, taxpayers are no longer getting their money's worth from a space program that focuses on repeating the deeds of yesterday." According to TCS, "current priorities allow the scientifically and financially bankrupt $100 billion Space Station to absorb a larger and larger share of the NASA budget." TCS called for the cancellation of the International Space Station program and said Space Shuttles should continue to be launched only for "short duration, human space flights as needed." Original Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-17 11:08:00 24.221.202.151 Re: The China Threat Friday, June 21, 2002 9:51 a.m. EDT China Continues to Arm Al-Qaeda Despite their own concerns about Islamic terrorism, Communist Chinese military officials have continued to arm Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda commandos with sophisticated surface-to-air missiles even after the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., according to U.S. intelligence reports. "Late last month, U.S. Army Special Forces troops discovered 30 HN-5s, the designation for Chinese-made SA-7s surface-to-air missiles, in southeastern Afghanistan," reports the Washington Times in Friday editions. "Other intelligence reports indicated the Chinese shipped missiles to the Taliban after September 11." Just last week a captured al-Qaeda operative told interrogators that he had fired a surface-to-air missile at a U.S. military plane from a position just outside Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. The missile was a Chinese made SA-7, according to Pentagon sources. Before Sept. 11, the People's Liberation Army provided training for Afghanistan's Taliban militia and its al-Qaeda supporters, the Times added. "It was carried out in cooperation with Pakistan's ISI intelligence service," defense officials told the paper. Though Beijing has denied supporting al-Qaeda forces, reports indicate that Chinese dictator Jiang Zemin was so impressed with bin Laden's 9-11 attack that he sanctioned a domestic propaganda effort suggesting the U.S. got what it deserved. "In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, workers at Beijing Television worked round-the-clock to produce a documentary they called 'Attack America,'" reported the London Telegraph in November. In the video, Chinese film editors mixed real news footage of the two commercial jetliners slamming into the World Trade Center with scenes from a 1998 remake of "Godzilla" where the monster wreaks havoc on New York. As carnage fills the screen, the film's narrator proclaims that the city had reaped the consequences of decades of America bullying weaker nations. The anti-U.S. entertainment bears the imprimatur of the Communist Party-controlled media, the Telegraph said, with the most popular offerings produced by the Xinhua information agency, Beijing Television and China Central Television. "Communist Party officials say President Jiang Zemin has obsessively watched and re-watched pictures of the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center," the Telegraph said. Original Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-17 11:09:00 24.221.202.151 Re: The China Threat Oh and for whatever IDIOT told me "China is not a threat" - this one is for you, jackass. Monday, Nov. 5, 2001 4:09 p.m. EST Chinese Propaganda Machine Celebrates Twin Towers Attack While Chinese leaders tepidly back America's war on terrorism in public, Beijing's state propaganda machine has been enthusiastically cranking out dozens of movies, books and video games celebrating the Sept. 11 kamikaze attacks on New York City's Twin Towers as something the U.S. deserved. "In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, workers at Beijing Television worked round-the-clock to produce a documentary they called 'Attack America,'" the London Telegraph reported Sunday. In the video, Chinese film editors mixed real news footage of the two commercial jetliners slamming into the World Trade Center with scenes from a 1998 remake of "Godzilla" where the monster wreaks havoc on New York. As U.S. rescue workers search for survivors at Ground Zero, a narrator proclaims that the city had reaped the consequences of decades of America bullying weaker nations. The anti-U.S. entertainment bears the imprimatur of the Communist Party-controlled media, the Telegraph said, with the most popular offerings produced by the Xinhua information agency, Beijing Television and China Central Television. The impetus for Beijing's new wave of anti-U.S. propaganda apparently comes straight from the top. "Communist Party officials say President Jiang Zemin has obsessively watched and re-watched pictures of the aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center," the paper said. The outrageous celebration of American suffering comes as the ink is barely dry on a whole host of trade agreements between the U.S. and China, and just months after the Bush administration offered its tacit support for Beijing's bid to host the 2008 Olympics. Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-07-24 14:58:00 216.68.35.35 Re: The China Threat Well, I’ve just finished reading Bill Gertz’s “The China Threatâ€� and I must say that I found it highly enlightening. This is a book that everyone monitoring/contributing/etc. in this series of threads should read. I do have one thing I would like to add to the message that Mr. Gertz’s presents. His premise is that China is building its power to deter us from getting involved in Taiwan and to simply become the dominant power in Asia. I, personally, feel that China’s motives are far more sinister. Those motives involve the demise of the United States of America. This is demonstrated by their influence in various countries listed further down in this post. This isn’t just expansion to deter us from getting involved in a conflict over Taiwan. No, this is far too extensive and hints more at a plan to surround and isolate us in preparation for an attack. Much the same way as the US is surrounding most of the Mid-East with bases to conduct operations out of in its preparations to attack Iraq. I’d also like to post some interesting points the book brings up. These are in no particular order: - An interesting quote given in the book from General Chi Haotian, vice chairman of the Communist Party Central Military Commission: quote: Seen from the changes in the world situation and the United States’ hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable. We cannot avoid it. The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative of this war. We must make sure that we win this local high-tech war against aggression and interference; win this modern high-tech war that [the] military bloc, headed by U.S. hegemonists, may launch to interfere in our affairs militarily; and win this war ignited by aggressor countries’ sudden offensives against China. We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, three years, or even longer. That doesn’t sound like simple deterrence… - Because of technology proliferation to China due to Hughes Electronics and Loral, China is rapidly building its ability to integrate command of air, sea, and land forces into one fighting group. In 2000 China via the state owned ChinaSat launched the first of several military communications satellites called Feng Huo-1. This new system called Qu Dian will provide China with a high-speed and real-time battlefield view that will allow faster and more efficient force management. - China has threatened to MIRV its new ICBMs if the US deploys an NMD system. They have the ability to MIRV due to their theft of the US’s small-sized and highly efficient W-88 nuclear warhead. Their new missile, the Dong Feng-31, which will be their mainstay long-range ICBM (until the DF-41 is put in service) also has the ability to be equipped with dummy warheads to aid in the defeat of a Ballistic Missile Defense System. It’s also truck-mounted and therefore highly difficult to kill while on the ground and extremely easy to hide. - This ability to easily hide the DF-31 brings me to an interesting fact. The DF-31 can be broken down and be shipped via containers. This certainly brings new light to why the Chinese have established ports in the Bahamas and Panama that handle shipping containers!! Another interesting fact is that China has sought to make the assembly of the DF-31 and subsequent DF-41 as simple as possible. Their older generation of missiles had to be shipped to Nanjing Guided Missile Plant 307 for assembly and then onto another location for final completion. The new DF-31 and 41s do not have to be shipped to the Nanjing plant for construction. The report in the back of “The China Threatâ€� from which this information was obtained states that “the reason for this change is uncertain at present.â€� I surmise that this was done to facilitate rapid re-construction after shipment where the proper missile assembly facilities may not be available and to do so in the shortest amount of time possible (i.e. at a container shipping port in either the Bahamas or Panama). Add to this their vast arsenal of short and medium range missiles that are small enough to not need to be disassembled to be shipped in containers. Interestingly enough there is a short, fictional account in “The China Threatâ€� of the Chinese shipping and basing missiles at their shipping ports. - Speaking of Panama and the Panama Canal… It turns out that we lost more than just the Panama Canal when we let the Chinese have it. According to a former intelligence officer quoted by Bill Gertz, we also lost the following: * the former U.S. Southern Command – An underground “mini-Cheyenne Mountainâ€� * Albrook Air Field – How tough would it be to ship unassembled aircraft to the location and assemble them there? * Rodman Naval Air Station – Yet another airfield… * the Special Forces Jungle Training Center – No explanation necessary. * and various military and intelligence facilities in Corozal, Corundu, Fort Clayton, and Fort Sherman. Letting the Chinese control the Canal is a huge mistake but allowing them to have and use this infrastructure is an even greater mistake. In fact, that same intelligence official goes on to say, “We will pay dearly for this as surely as the sun rises.â€� The same chapter that mentions this also mentions how China is positioning itself at strategic choke points. They include the following: * the Indian Ocean (their bases in Burma) and the South China Sea (Hong Kong) * the Straits of Malacca (the Spratly Islands and a growing role in Cambodia) * the Central Pacific (a major land satellite tracking station on Tarawa) * the coast of Hawaii (a major ocean mining tract) * the Caribbean (Cuba and the Bahamas) * Central and Southern America (Panama and their spreading influence in Brazil, Venezuela, and other countries with enclaves of Marxist rebels) This list doesn’t include those Axis of Evil countries that China is constantly lending support to. Nor does this include our theorized involvement of China in Mexico or areas in the US and the rest of North America. I know I posted this once before over in the Ground War thread but this diagram shows how they are tightening the noose around us… - The book gives some interesting facts on the US’s W-70 nuclear warhead. That would be the enhanced radiation nuclear warhead (a.k.a. neutron bomb). For instance, the designs were stolen from the US in the late 1970s. And China tested it in 1988. The Chinese stole information on the W-70 as recently as 1996. They have presumably perfected their version of the W-70 warhead with all this information and time. - China doesn’t need a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, like that of the Soviet Union, to destroy the US. It simply needs accurate and survivable weapons. They have the accuracy part down thanks to tech transfers under Clinton. And they have the survivable part down since China is only the second country to utilize a road-mobile ICBM force (Russia being the first). The Cold War arsenals were based largely on the assumption that a number might be taken out in their silos in the event of a nuclear first strike by an enemy. With a road-mobile ICBM force this is impossible to do. The road-mobile forces’ survivability is increased by China’s use of an interesting method of what is basically smoke to confuse laser guided munitions. These particulate clouds cause lasers to bounce off inaccurately and therefore direct laser-guided munitions off course. Also the fact that their new generation of missiles will be MIRVed makes their nuclear arsenal even more deadly. - The book also makes an interesting point on a quote from a Chinese military document about the US being largely untested in large-scale, modern warfare. They feel that the U.S. military will become “exhaustedâ€�. To a large extent, they are right. The US military is currently facing a shortage on grenades and various other large arms; a shortage of parts for tanks, support vehicles, aircraft, and ships; and our military underwent 8 years of dismantlement. It has been postulated that the attack on Iraq has been put off due in part to these shortages. What would happen in the event of a large-scale war? In closing, two things: 1) Definitely check out “The China Threatâ€� but keep in mind that there is a good chance there is more to the Chinese buildup than simple deterrence. I’m also have and am going to read “Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to Americaâ€� by Edward Timberlake and William C. Triplett III and “The Coming Conflict with Chinaâ€� by Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro. I have yet to obtain Bill Gertz’s previous book “Betrayalâ€� or Edward Timberlake and William Triplett’s “Year of the Ratâ€� both dealing with Bill Clinton’s sellout of America to China. I will advise on these once I read them. 2) Again I know I also posted this previously in the Ground War thread but I think I shall post it once again. It is a list of Chinese/Russian war preparations compared to those of the US (the original list can be found here . It’s worth reading over.): quote: Russian War Preparations: * Moscow has outfitted hundreds of fighter-bombers with additional fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability, augmenting Russia's intercontinental strike capability. * Russia has been constructing large numbers of military transport aircraft for foreign customers who do not exist. * Russia has been building and accumulating dry docks even though, at the moment, no foreign customers for them exist. * Russia has recently fielded a new battle tank; a new state-of-the-art fighter; super-quiet submarines which can engage sea, land and air targets simultaneously; a new attack helicopter and sniper rifle. * Russia has developed a revolutionary new rifle-fired infantry weapon, the so-called vacuum grenade, which can give a single Russian soldier the firepower of a 155mm howitzer. Russia has begun joint production of this weapon with the Chinese. * Russia now emphasizes the production of mobile ICBMs like the Topol-M, which are designed to evade satellite detection, permitting the Russians to cheat on arms control agreements. * Russia continues to develop biological and chemical weapons, sometimes with the use of U.S. funds. According to recent defectors, Russia is now working on a super-plague weapon. * Russian diplomacy is clearly attempting to build an anti-American alliance which includes countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran and India. * Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets. * Russia is hoarding strategic metals which are vital for keeping up war production through the first months of a nuclear world war. * Russia is importing more food than needed for domestic consumption. At the same time, Russia has constructed huge underground nuclear-proof food storage facilities. * Russia has developed an impressive engineering rescue capability, organized into special military formations positioned outside large cities, for rescuing citizens trapped beneath rubble in the event of a nuclear attack. * Recent Russian movies and pop songs depict Americans as stupid animals who deserve to die. In keeping with this theme, NATO is depicted as an aggressive alliance, sometimes likened to Hitler's Third Reich. * Russia is building huge underground cities, like the one at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. These cities are built more than a thousand feet into the earth and are able to withstand direct nuclear attack. * Russia has been modernizing nuclear bunkers located beneath Moscow. * Russia has erected a system of national missile defense far beyond that allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty. Deploying approximately 10,000 dual-purpose mobile SAM/ABMs, Russia has used a loophole in the treaty to provide a powerful missile shield. Using a common-sense approach to ABM defense, Russia's interceptor missiles employ special nuclear warheads that can destroy incoming warheads without having to score a direct head-on hit. * Russia is also ahead of the United States in directed energy weapons that could be used to blind or destroy U.S. early warning satellites. * Many of Russia's mafia organizations operate in collaboration with, or under the supervision of, military intelligence and the state security services. Organized crime is used to penetrate Western banks, technology companies, law enforcement and government. Routes used for smuggling drugs and other contraband are reserved in wartime for bringing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons into the U.S. Chinese war preparations: * Civil defense drills began in major Chinese cities last summer. * Chinese military commanders have been told that nuclear war with America could begin at any time. * China has been developing and deploying new road-mobile long range missiles like the DF-31 and DF-41. * China is modernizing its navy, purchasing advanced Russian warships and missiles capable of sinking U.S. carriers. * China has been rapidly building a large store of advanced nuclear warheads. * China has positioned bases to block the main western entry point into the Pacific, and has acquired indirect control of the Panama Canal through front companies. * China has formed military ties with Cuba and Venezuela. * China has also penetrated Sudan, and is spreading missile and nuclear technology to rogue states in Africa and the Middle East. * China has massed troops, aircraft, ships and missiles opposite Taiwan. * China has engaged in war exercises during which U.S. forces in the Pacific were targeted by Chinese forces. USA War Preparations: * No civil defense. * No national missile defense. * No road or rail-mobile ICBMs. * Abandonment of the Panama Canal. * U.S. officials have allowed nuclear warhead secrets to leak out to China. * The U.S. pays Russia billions of dollars to encourage disarmament measures, but these billions are diverted to Russian war preparations. * The U.S. Navy is short of fuel. * The U.S. Army is short of recruits and officers, and has only 10 divisions, with 8 of them unfit for combat. * The U.S. Air Force is facing pilot shortages, and many aircraft remain grounded for lack of spare parts. * Only 18 ballistic missile submarines remain in the U.S. Navy, with only 9 at sea on any given day. Many of the missile tubes on these boats are loaded with ballast instead of missiles, due to the START Treaty. * America's ballistic missile submarine commanders no longer have the launch codes to fire their nuclear weapons, but must rely on the president to send them the launch codes in the event of a war emergency. * Shop until you drop. * Wave good-bye to your country. * Say hello to your new landlord, Mr. Wang. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-07-25 02:30:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat BRAVO Ryan!!!!!!!!!! BRAVO. That is the BEST book report I've ever read in my entire life. Thank you. I started reading it about 2 weeks ago. I usually read a couple of books per DAY, but lately, things have been busy on other fronts, including my recent illness. I'm getting better. I highly recommend the book as well (even though I have not completed it). I'm also working on one called "Beyond Terrorism", by Ralph Phillips, and one called "Inside Delta Force" - which actually tells the history, from an Army Command Sgt. Major's point of view. (I was involved from the AF side as a lower ranking NCO, and helped to feed the service with folks as a job). Anyway - The China Threat is one of the better books I've seen on the subject so far. Ra (Member) 2002-07-25 05:05:00 67.96.38.5 Re: The China Threat I agree 100% with Rick. Great report! I plan to purchase this book tonight. It's a sad state we are in people. I love my country, but it needs some work. Ra (Member) 2002-07-26 07:41:00 67.96.38.5 Re: The China Threat I have the book now...will read it over the weekend. Thanks again! Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-07-28 07:55:00 216.68.35.79 Re: The China Threat Well, thanks for the praise! I guess my Jesuit high school English teachers would be proud! LOL! I’m just calling it like I see it though. Based on the information I have gathered, this is the conclusion I have reached. I’m now in the beginning pages of “Red Dragon Risingâ€�. I would be further into it but I decided to read a couple other books for fun. You know all work and no play… One thing I have been pondering… We have continually shipped numerous amounts of arms, some of them a bit advanced, to Taiwan. What if the Chinese are successful in taking the island (which I believe they will be) and as a result seizing at least some of the arms we have sold to Taiwan? Having some of those F-16s, AV-8B Harriers, P-3 Orions, AWACS, Patriot missiles, and other arms we have sold to Taiwan fall into ChiCom hands would not be a good thing. I want Taiwan to be able to repel any ChiCom attack but, I really want to try to keep as much of our tech out of the Chinese’ hands as possible (despite Bill Clinton’s efforts to the opposite effect). Just some food for thought. Also, a few other articles on reluctance in the Mid-East to assist the US in an attack on Iraq: - Jordan\'s King Says it\'s `Somewhat Ludicrous\' to Intervene in Iraq While Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Rages – Sounds like someone is fishing for an excuse. -I had an article from the Tehran Times about how Bahrain was opposed to a US attack on Iraq but, it appears that the link is expired. - Qatar in Dilemma Over U.S. Threat to Iraq As I said, these nations neighboring Iraq are vital in a long term assault. They provide areas to base aircraft, store supplies, and quarter troops. Unfortunately we are seeing some divisiveness among these countries. As a result we will not have as many land based places to stage attacks from. This will increase our reliance of aircraft carriers and as a result their accompanying support ships. All of this takes assets away from other parts of the world. Less assets in the Pacific and Indian Oceans means less assets to protect Taiwan and less assets to provide support to the ships permanently there, leaving them more open to defeat by the Chinese military forces. I say look for a move on Taiwan when we make a move on Iraq. This will interestingly fall at a time when Jiang is supposed to turn over power to Hu Jintao (signs are pointing to a US attack sometime in early-mid fall), the Chinese are engaged in war games opposite Taiwan, and a lot of the US’s assets are tied up in Iraq (and most possibly all of the Mid-East). This would only be the beginning of Chinese aggression… spacecatfish (Member) 2002-08-01 13:41:00 63.49.182.6 Re: The China Threat I just returned from the book store with my copy of The China Threat, I cant wait to start reading it. Unfortunately none of the books by former Soviets were available and had to be ordered, will be here in two weeks at the earliest, sigh. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-08-02 07:38:00 198.26.130.36 Re: The China Threat From Newsmax: Chinese-Russian Military Exercise Targets U.S. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-08-02 08:26:00 198.26.130.36 Re: The China Threat Are all those missiles currently targeted against Taiwan really targeting Taiwan? Read this... China Preparing A Pearl Harbor Style Attack Ra (Member) 2002-08-04 02:35:00 24.234.48.202 Re: The China Threat By Willy Wo-Lap Lam CNN Senior China Analyst HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- In a stern reaction to provocative statements by Taiwan's leader, China's foreign ministry says Beijing will not tolerate any move towards independence by the island. The response from Beijing comes a day after Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian said he might support a referendum on the island's independence. China regards Taiwan as a renegade province, and has threatened war if the island moves toward independence. The reaction did not make any specific reference to Chen's proposal, made in a televised address to Taiwanese groups in Japan, that Taiwan residents should seriously consider legislation on holding a referendum to decide the island's future. But in typical fashion from the Chinese foreign ministry, the reaction was very terse and to the point, with a spokesperson saying there was zero tolerance for independence for Taiwan or anything that moves in that direction More.... aaahz (Member) 2002-08-05 01:38:00 216.148.246.134 Re: The China Threat More of the same, China Says Chen Leading Taiwan to Disaster Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-08-06 08:55:00 198.26.130.36 Re: The China Threat Here is the greatest resource I have found yet. If it concerns Red China and its war prep against US, this is THE compendium of information, bar none. Chinese Miltary Power The Chinese military view is that NOTHING is outside of their arsenal of weaponry, especially in the inevtiable war with the US. Here is one article from the above site which immediately grabbed my eye...and although penned in April 2001, it is even more relevent today. China Explores Ways To Defeat Superior U.S. Forces In Fight When China goes to war in the not-to-distant future... they will annihilate fully 1/3 of the worlds population. They are the "Kings of the East." Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-08-06 23:40:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China's army warns Taiwan of use of force if referendum called Agence France-Presse | 8/07/02 Taiwan risks attack from China if President Chen Shui-bian presses ahead with a referendum on the island's future, Beijing's military warned through state-run media. In the first direct reference to possible military action since Chen's call for a referendum at the weekend sparked a crisis between the rivals, an unidentified "senior military source" told the China Daily that force always remained a possibility. Chen's comments underscored the growing possibility that "peace will have to be safeguarded and won through the use of force", the source was quoted as saying. "If we want to strive for peace, we have to be fully prepared for military actions," the source said. "We have enough confidence and determination to settle the question." The source reiterated Beijing's long-held stance that it would continue to work for peaceful reunification with the island, while also stressing that the Taiwan issue was purely an internal affair of China. However, he emphasized "the need for the mainland to proceed with military preparations as a backup to encourage a peaceful reunification". "We must not delude ourselves that the separatists will abandon their pro-independence pursuit overnight," the source warned. Over the past two days Chinese officials and state-run media have reacted angrily to Chen's remarks on Saturday that the island's "future and destiny" could only be decided by its people through a referendum. Beijing said Monday that Chen's comments, in which he also strongly suggested Taiwan's status as a country, were leading his people to "disaster". Officials in Taipei have sought to play down the comments' significance. China and Taiwan have been separated since the end of a civil war in 1949, but Beijing still considers the island part of its territory, awaiting reunification, by force if necessary. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-08-07 02:54:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China-Taiwan militaries take different tack August 7, 2002 Posted: 1:35 AM EDT (0535 GMT) TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Political posturing across the Taiwan Strait has taken another twist, with Taiwan canceling naval exercises just as China is hardening its aggressive military stance toward the island. Amid rising tensions with China, Taiwan's military canceled a submarine-hunting exercise scheduled for next week, a military spokesman said Wednesday. Although the military would not say whether the decision was directly related to the recent friction with China, the military spokesman said that Taiwan called off the drills to avoid creating new "misunderstandings." "It was a routine drill, but we were afraid that the public and the media would read too much into it," said the spokesman, speaking on customary condition of anonymity. But as Taiwan attempted to downplay the war of words sparked by President Chen Shui-bian calling for a referendum on independence, China was hardening its stance, enhancing its summer exercises. "The People's Liberation Army (PLA) has conducted annual coastal maneuvers from April to October for more than a decade," an Asian military attaché told CNN. "It has made some modifications to the exercise routines in response to Chen's recent remarks -- and the purpose is psychological warfare." He added examples included more emphasis on invasion of beaches and islands as well as staging naval blockades; deployment of more recently imported jet fighters and submarines; and deployment of more reservists, particularly in the "front-line" Fujian province. However, according to foreign military attaches based in Beijing, there are no indications the PLA are about to stage new war games, such as missile drills. Comments 'oversimplified' Chen has said comments he made over the weekend describing the island as a country on equal footing with China and calling for a referendum on independence had been "oversimplified." On Saturday Chen said that such a referendum was "a basic human right" as, in reality, there was "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait. His comments sparked a furious reaction from Beijing, which has repeatedly threatened to use force if Taiwan made any moves towards formal independence. On Monday, officials warned that Chen's comments showed he was trying to split China, and said that formally declaring independence would "bring Taiwan into disaster." Taiwan and mainland China split in 1949 following the communist takeover on the mainland, but Beijing insists the island is part of "One China" and is merely a renegade province. Media campaign The Chinese leadership has since embarked on a campaign in the official media and through interviews with pro-Beijing figures overseas to put pressure on Chen and his pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). While the official media had kept quiet on coastal exercises that begun last April, it was expected selected maneuvers would be given prominent treatment in the press as part of an anti-Taipei campaign. The official China News Service on Wednesday ran several pictures of different army and naval units conducting exercises, including amphibious troops taking over beaches. Also on Wednesday, most papers in Beijing ran a joint commentary by the Xinhua News Agency and the People's Daily denouncing Chen's separatist moves. The commentary said Chen had "bound the future and safety of 23 million Taiwan people together with the 'Taiwan independence' powder keg." The commentary, however, did not mention specific retaliatory measures. Chinese television and the print media have also run numerous interviews with anti-separatist public figures and scholars in Hong Kong, Macau, Thailand and the U.S. U.S. conflict A Chinese source familiar with Beijing's Taiwan policy said President Jiang Zemin would not order any tough retaliatory actions unless Chen were to say or do something even more inflammatory. "Jiang is putting a lot of store by his summit with [U.S. President George W.] Bush in October," the source said. "Beijing is satisfied the U.S. was not behind Chen's separatist remarks last Saturday. Jiang will bring up this latest example of 'trouble-making' by Chen to urge the U.S. to rein in the pro-independence movement on the island." The source added Beijing would try to drive a wedge between Washington and Taipei by playing up the fact that Chen's remarks could result in the U.S. being dragged into a military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. -- CNN Senior China Analyst Willy Wo-Lap Lam contributed to this report Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-08-10 09:02:00 198.26.130.36 Re: The China Threat Red China has completed all preparations for "preserving national unification". That means the PLA (Army,Navy,Air Force)could launch an invasion of Taiwan AT WILL. When it happens not only will the Reds be attacking Taiwan, but defending against an American response, or even pre-emptively taking action to prevent a US response. A joint Sino-Russian military exercise will kick-off this week. Ra (Member) 2002-08-22 03:11:00 67.96.38.5 Re: The China Threat Arming China Makes U.S. Nervous quote:This year alone, China has ordered two new Project 956EM Sovremenny destroyers for $1.4 billion, eight Kilo submarines for $1.5 billion and S-300F naval air defense systems for $200 million, according to media reports. Also on the table are some 30 Su-30MK2 fighters equipped with X-31A anti-ship missiles. And just this week, Russia delivered the first 10 of 40 Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighters that China ordered last summer and offered China a license to assemble military helicopters, news agencies said. more.... Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-08-25 23:15:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Well, well, well.............. Yemen confirms it bought Scuds from North Korea Dubai Gulf News via WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, August 26, 2002 | Nasser Arrabyee Original Article Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh yesterday confirmed that his country possessed Scud missiles bought from North Korea. Addressing more than 60,000 members of his People's General Congress (PGC) at its annual meeting, President Saleh said: "We have bought those missiles and this is a legitimate right of Yemen." He said the U.S. penalised North Korea but it has not imposed a military ban on Yemen as Sanaa was cooperating with Washington in its war against terrorism. The New York Times quoted the U.S. officials last Friday as saying that the Bush administration has imposed sanctions on North Korea after being sure that the latter sold components of Scud missiles to Yemen before Bush took office. Saleh criticised the U.S. campaign against Saudi Arabia as unjustified. "We declare our solidarity with Saudi Arabia," he said. He expressed his country's rejection of the U.S. threats against Iraq saying: "We totally refuse the threats against Iraq. It is a dangerous initiative that a state changes the system of another. "This is an affair concerning only the people of that state, and interference in the internal affairs of any state is not at all acceptable. "The region as a whole is passing through political turmoil, and all Arab states will meet the same fate. No Arab country should think it is safe from the U.S. threats," Saleh warned, adding what is happening to Iraq can happen to the neighbouring countries. "We wish the Arab League and the Arab leadership achieve the minimum solidarity to confront the threats and challenges facing them," Saleh said. aaahz (Member) 2002-08-27 02:44:00 64.0.99.233 Re: The China Threat US Envoy Leaves China as War on Terror Brings Sides Closer US Welcomes New China Missile Rules but Wants Enforcement Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-09-09 18:15:00 216.68.45.12 Re: The China Threat Some news on the China Threat. - Watching Comrade Collector – Unbelievable!! (Written by one of the authors of Red Dragon Rising) - Chen Links China\'s Threat to Terrorism - China and Pakistan to Strengthen Military Ties - Advanced China Fighter Aircraft to Debut at Airshow I’ve long since finished my other books detailing China’s threat to us, “Red Dragon Risingâ€� and “The Coming Conflict with Chinaâ€�, as well as a book detailing our diplomatic relations with China since the Nixon era, “About Faceâ€�. Expect summaries of these books soon. And a final interesting link – Real-Time Testing of Internet Filtering in China . The Chinese can indeed read the Anomalies forum. Have fun! Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-09-19 19:35:00 216.68.45.253 Re: The China Threat BREAKING NEWS! U.S., China in New Naval Dispute quote: U.S., China in New Naval Dispute U.S. survey vessel in Yellow Sea accused of ‘criminal activity’ By Tammy Kupperman NBC News Producer WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — The Chinese and U.S. military are engaged in a high-stakes game of cat and mouse just off the coast of China, NBC News has learned. China is accusing a U.S. survey vessel off its coast of “criminal activityâ€� in its waters, while the United States says the ship is operating in international waters, Pentagon officials revealed. CHINA HAS PROTESTED the presence of the USNS Bowditch, an unarmed United States hydrographic survey ship, some 60 miles off China’s coast in the Yellow Sea. While the Bowditch does map the ocean floor, it also listens underwater with its towed sonar system. Pentagon officials said that last week Chinese reconnaissance aircraft began flying over the Bowditch, and a Chinese intelligence ship began trailing the U.S. survey ship. Territorial waters are generally recognized to extend 12 miles from the shoreline. U.S. officials say the ship is clearly in international waters and has a right to be there. China, however, says the ship is in its “exclusive economic zoneâ€� — a maritime term that claims exclusive rights to economic exploitation to an area extending beyond territorial waters. While officials say that none of the actions by the Chinese is considered dangerous, they say that the Y8 and Y12 reconnaissance aircraft are flying 100 to 500 feet above the Bowditch and that the Chinese have warned the Bowditch that it is “engaging in criminal activityâ€� in bridge-to-bridge communications, to which the Bowditch has not responded. A Chinese fishing vessel damaged the towed sonar equipment, knocking off a hydrophone. It remains unclear, defense officials say, whether the fishing vessel hit the sonar deliberately. U.S. officials say they are watching this situation, but at this point no one is “too spun upâ€� over it. According to one Pentagon official, “we’ve got a right to be there, and so do they — and to check us out.â€� The last time this happened with the Bowditch was in June 2001, according to a defense official. Unlike this time, last year a Chinese frigate “locked and loaded,â€� so the unarmed Bowditch departed the area. This time, officials say that so far there aren’t any armed Chinese warships or aircraft involved. On April 1, 2001, a Chinese fighter jet collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 spy plane, forcing the EP-3 to make an emergency landing on China’s Hainan island. In the episode, leading to a low point in recent Sino-U.S. relations, the fighter crashed into the sea, killing the pilot. The 24-member crew of the U.S. plane was detained for 11 days before being released, leading the Bush administration to call a virtual halt to military cooperation with China. U.S. military figures have said that China’s surveillance of U.S. aircraft has since been less aggressive. NBC’s Tammy Kupperman is a news producer in Washington. MSNBC.com’s Kari Huus contributed to this report. Also see this thread from Free Republic – U.S., China in New Naval Dispute ExpandedMInd (Member) 2002-09-23 06:48:00 198.81.26.209 Re: The China Threat Hi Rick: Congrats on your awareness of a formidible enemy, China. I confess I have not read all your posts, but I am up on this subject somewhat. No, war with them is not near, but it is inevitable, unless we stay strong enoug to deter them as we did the Soviets. We will not run them into the ground economically as we did the USSR, however. Their social structure, unlike the Soviet's, is so strong it can withstand crushing poverty. China's young people and growing middle class are our only hope. There is another good book on this subject, don't know if you referenced it already. The title is "Hegemon" and I will post the author after my next trip to the library, assuming I remember to look it up. Steve D Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-10-22 06:08:00 216.68.66.220 Re: The China Threat Jiang Zemin will soon be visiting with President Bush in Crawford, Texas. This should be Jiang’s last official dealings with President bush as President of China. There is a chance that Jiang won’t step down as he is supposed to in March. It will be interesting to see what happens with all of this… - Bush and Jiang\'s Crucial Hour Alone - China Hopes for Military Ties on Jiang\'s US Visit - China Sends Heavy Message Before Jiang Meets Bush - China\'s President Jiang Zemin Coming to America - North Korea Spoils Jiang\'s Party – Someone over on Free Republic picked up on something interesting: quote: Qian struck a positive note ahead of the Jiang -Bush summit: "When [Sino-US] relations experience setbacks and hardships, we have to cope stoically and remain confident of victory". "Victory" not success, not "a mutual agreement". I think WE know what he means. And other articles on China: - Bruce Herschensohn on China, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Israel - ChevronTexaco and China Petroleum And Chemical Corporation Announce Agreement on Technology License - China & Russia Deploy New Missile - CHINA: A Strategic Enemy of the United States - China Denies Helping North Korean Nuclear Program - China Predicts War in 5 Years - \'China to Keep US Cities in Striking Distance\' - China Weighs Battle With U.S. - China\'s Balance of International Payments (trade) Strong - China\'s Cheating (On WTO) Hurting US Farmers - China\'s Priority - and America\'s - China\'s Strategic Deception - Chinese Airshow a Hit With the Military - Chinese Airshow, Part Two - Chinese Companies With Ties to Military Encircle U.S. [COSCO] - Chinese Navy Threatens Asia - Chinese Official on Sino-US Ties: Old Friends to Trust – Yeah, trust as far as I can throw a piano! :rolleyes: - Clinton-Approved Computer Exports Help China Build Atomic Bombs - COSCO Chooses CPR Service into U.S. Heartland - Economic and Geopolitical Realities in China and Russia - GAO-Commerce Exports Could Help Chinese Military - Interview with Chinese Dissident Harry Wu - Made-in-China Boosting Chinese Economy - New Chinese Nuclear Submarine Can Strike US - New Submarine Deployment Sends Message – I think that this is too little, too late. It may solve anything coming from China to attack the US but, it won’t solve the problem of any Chinese assets already in South America, Canada, or the Caribbean. - Nuclear Arms Race in Asia - Pakistan and China are Co-Producing Supersonic Fighter Aircraft - People\'s Republic of Products - PRC Espionage Leads to \'Terf\' War - Report China Test Fires Sunburn Missiles in War Games - China’s Great Wall Project - US Provision for (US – Taiwan) Cooperation Dies - War with China - China Denies Helping North Korean Nuclear Program - CHINA: A Strategic Enemy of the United States A couple news stories on something curious… - Report Says Hundreds Of Navy Computers Missing - Large-Scale Theft in US Navy Does anyone else find it interesting that these computers went missing from the Pacific Fleet? Can you say espionage? I also have a few other articles that I feel are of extreme importance. I will put those in posts of their own with the full text. Always keep this in mind: quote: The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife. --49th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition (Yes, I am a bit of a Star Trek fan! :p ) Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-10-22 06:17:00 216.68.66.220 Re: The China Threat China\'s Silent Invasion quote: J.R. Nyquist August 19, 1999 Mexico's top drug trafficking cartel, run by the Arellano Felix brothers in Tijuana, is working closely with the Chinese. According to Jamie Dettmer, writing in the August 23 issue of Insight magazine, ships arriving in Mexico from China may contain "more than illegal immigrants." The Chinese are pumping people and supplies into Mexico, and the cargo is considered so sensitive that it is "often under the apparent protection of Chinese and Mexican naval vessels." American authorities are helpless, as usual, to block this strategic smuggling operation on our southwest border. America is helpless because President Clinton will not support improved border controls, and he won't get tough with the Mexican government. Clinton's immigration policy can be characterized as appeasement of the Mexicans, appeasement of the Chinese and a "who cares?" attitude. But why should Americans worry about large Chinese smuggling operations on our southwest border? After all, it's probably only drugs and illegal immigrants. And if people want to destroy their lives with heroin or cocaine, why waste money trying to stop them? And if immigrants want to come here, why not welcome them? Setting aside the issue of dangerous drugs and illegal immigration, the reason we should worry about drug and alien smuggling into this country, and the reason that no effort should be spared in making our borders impenetrable, is because nuclear and biological weapons can be smuggled into the country by the same routes that illegal narcotics are smuggled. According to Colonel Stanislav Lunev, highest ranking defector from the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian General Staff, narcotics trafficking is a way of establishing secure pathways into the United States. If there is a hole in our border due to corruption by drug traffickers, that hole can be used to ship more than narcotics. It can be used to ship suitcase nuclear bombs. With illegal immigration there is an additional concern. The Russian and Chinese general staffs have long been fascinated by Hitler's invasion of Norway. In that invasion German combat units entered Norway disguised as civilians. Once on Norwegian soil they deployed to sites where uniforms and weapons were waiting. Entire German combat units were able to invade Norway without having to fight their way up beaches. The country was penetrated in depth at the outset. Laugh if you like, but the United States is not invincible. If an alliance of relatively weak countries intended to defeat the United States in a war, they would have to take advantage of every potential avenue of attack. The open U.S. border to the south is an obvious weak point. In a typical war scenario, after a general nuclear exchange, thousands of Chinese soldiers pre-deployed to Mexico could move across the border and grab key points. Therefore, Chinese and Mexican warships escorting Chinese shipments to Baja California should raise a red flag. OK, perhaps it is only narcotics trafficking today. But some day it could be turned into something more. And that fact makes the problem absolutely intolerable from a national security standpoint. Ironically, Clinton has declared a state of national emergency because of the threat of nuclear and biological terrorism on American soil. Executive Order 12938 was issued on Nov. 14, 1994. Unfortunately this laughable "state of emergency" -- which hardly anyone knows about -- cannot do much as long as our borders are easily penetrated. A few years ago I happened to interview a Mexican gun runner. He bragged about his contacts in the Mexican underworld. With a loaded gun lying on the table, he philosophized in broad Marxist generalities, hinting at the liberation of Mexico, the liberation of the poor and downtrodden peoples of the Southwest. He also mentioned his Cuban "friends" and contacts. He spoke of the day when suburban America would be exterminated. "These people are living in a dream world," he told me. He laughed at America's politicians and bureaucrats. There is a pattern in all of this. Gun running and drug smuggling along America's southern border is not merely criminal. There is a political and ideological component which has long been ignored. There should be little doubt: when terrorism overtakes us, drug traffickers and gun runners will have played a key role. From a strategic standpoint, Mexico sits at our soft underbelly. Any country waging war with the United States would covet a secret alliance with Mexico. Such an alliance would open an avenue of attack. For this reason alone the participation of Mexican warships in Chinese smuggling operations should put us on guard. But the president will not do anything. He will not act. Meanwhile, China is actively attempting to secure control of the Panama Canal. According to Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "If we proceed along our present course, by the end of this year, on December 31st, Communist China will become the de facto new owners and rulers of the Panama Canal." They are weeping with laughter in Beijing at our shopping mall society and its flabby reflexes. One can only guess the jokes that pass between officials of the People's Liberation Army. The Americans are pathetic. They are weak. They are decadent. Ha, ha, ha. Why has there been no reaction in Congress? Why hasn't anybody launched a campaign to force the government to defend the national security? As President Coolidge once said, "The business of America is business." Behind our Congress there exists huge financial interests. And the People's Republic of China (PRC) and its agents of influence have neutralized our national security by directly appealing to American big business. According to the Cox Report: "The PRC's massive consumer market is the key factor behind the willingness of some U.S. businesses to risk and tolerate technology transfers." The logic of this applies to both our big corporations and the national government in Washington. The linkages are clear. According to the Cox report, "The People's Republic of China (PRC) has stolen classified information on all of the United States' most advanced thermonuclear warheads." This is no lucky hit. The methods for penetrating U.S. institutions have been well worked about by the Chinese. They have found a way into us. They merely exploit our greed. The Chinese have demonstrated, time and time again, that they will stop at nothing to turn the tables on us. If anyone doubts the threat they represent, consider the success they have enjoyed in stealing everything that is nailed down. This type of success proves that the U.S. is actually much weaker than it appears. This weakness can be found in the White House and in Congress. If we had real leaders, strong and decisive steps would have been taken long ago. Instead, we get weak words and ineffectual actions. Perhaps Chairman Mao was right when he said that "America is a paper tiger." ------------------------------------------------------------ J.R. Nyquist is a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and author of 'Origins of the Fourth World War.' email: jnyquist@northcoast.com Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-10-22 06:22:00 216.68.66.220 Re: The China Threat The Mexican Authorities May Not Have Been Alone (Scroll Down) quote: In the assault at San Ysidro, CA, the Mexicans allegedly had some assistance. Scott Gulbransen, a writer for an Internet-based publication, The Strategic Jungle Syndicate, reported that men of Asian origin were witnessed among the attackers. Furthermore, his report indicated the presence of non-English speaking Caucasian males. A skirmish between U.S. Border Patrol agents and armed soldiers in Mexico has raised several disturbing questions related to the security of America's borders. The incident, which occurred on October 24 near the Otay Mesa border-crossing southeast of San Diego, has received little attention in the mainstream media but local law enforcement circles are a buzz at reports that Mexican soldiers were not the only ones in the area. Several eyewitness accounts stated soldiers of Asian and Caucasian origin were also firing from Mexico on the Border Patrol agents in the unprovoked attack. A Border Patrol agent, speaking to the Strategic Jungle Syndicate on the condition of anonymity, stated the attack was more than Mexican soldiers firing upon what they thought might be drug dealers. “Everything happened so fast but I know not all of them were Mexican nationals,â€� the agent said. “More than two of us saw what appeared to be an Asian soldier. I didn't get a real clean look at his eyes but he certainly looked Asian to me. The bottom line here is this was planned and not some random event. The government might not want to admit that but it's the damn truth.â€� The agent also stated several Mexican nationals, attempting to cross the border illegally, also told of “chinos,â€� a slang term in Spanish for Chinese, soldiers dressed in fatigues. “There were a few people in the brush trying to get into the United States and after the shooting ended, they were apprehended and being processed to return to Mexico,â€� the Border Patrol agent said. “Two or three of them were close enough and said they heard men speaking what they described as Chinese. They were scared and said they had seen the men before, including some white men driving military type vehicles.â€� Local law enforcement officials have also confirmed the movement of unidentified military vehicles. A deputy with the San Diego County Sheriff's office confirmed officers have encountered unknown vehicles in and near the border area. "We're all law enforcement officers and we talk a lot about what we see," the deputy with nine years in the department said. "There's been strange things going on. Even homeowners have been calling about automatic weapons fire in the canyons near Otay Mesa. I know my friends with the San Diego Police Department also hear about it. There's something going on and most of us feel like we're not being told everything." Increased activity along the U.S.-Mexican border has yielded strange events over the past three months. In addition to the powerful Mexican drug cartels, and the ever-profitable smuggling of illegal immigrants to better working wages in California, many in border towns report strange activity. "You know, I've lived here for many years," said Domingo Sanez of San Ysidro, "but never have I heard so many strange noises and lots of traffic. I always say it must be a war because I hear trucks all the time and they wake me and my wife." Sanez works as a parking lot attendant near the border crossing at San Ysidro and lives on the eastern outskirts of Tijuana. He said many believe there are things going on in the night but he believes drug cartels are the culprit. "There is so much money and they are so powerful," he said. "I think they are getting ready to go to war with the Americans. I don't know why but people want those drugs and it's big money.â€� Still others feel more international forces may be working within Mexico. "You have to sit there and ask yourself why are there Chinese soldiers in Mexico and why have people reported seeing other blond soldiers not speaking English," the Border Patrol agent said. "It scares me to think some enemy army may be closer than we think. People out there need to demand the truth and find out what our government knows." Keith Weeks, president of NBPCL 1613, said he's not sure why the Border Patrol has side stepped the issue and watered down it's story on the incident. "What the agents told us directly and what the Border Patrol said in their statement don't match completely," Weeks said Wednesday. "For whatever reason they're more concerned about keeping it quiet and we don't know why." Weeks said his organization had contacted Congressman Duncan Hunter about the agent's concerns and that the congressman was supportive of their concerns. "Maybe this has something to do with the election next week," Weeks said. "I can tell you when the agency called me they told me they were very disappointed we issued our press release. That's not right.â€� Weeks also questioned why highly skilled military personnel would be stationed on the border directly in violation of current treaties with the United States. Weeks was not aware of the eyewitness reports related to Asian soldiers being part of the group that fired on his fellow agents. "I'm going to check again with the agents but I have not heard that yet," he said. The only official word concerning the incident came three days after the skirmish from National Border Patrol Council Local 1613 who called for an investigation by the U.S. and Mexican governments. The union represents Border Patrol agents and is a division of the American Federation Of Government Employees. NBPCL 1613 stated the incident was the second confirmed incident this year in which Border Patrol Agents have been shot at by what they believe to be Mexican military. The other occurred on March 14 in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The press release stated not only stray soldiers had fired upon the agents, but also that two of them had taken sniper positions as well. The agents identified themselves in Spanish but the soldiers kept on firing and pursuing the Americans. "I don't think they understood Spanish," the Border Patrol agent speaking to the Strategic Jungle Syndicate said. "A few did and they moved more into a rear position while the others fired. The rest were in a van near the western most part of the canyon." Both law enforcement officials are disappointed, the media, in particular, hasn't noticed the story. "Can you imagine if a bunch of soldiers fired on police officers in downtown San Diego what coverage that would get," the Border Patrol agent said. "We were involved in an international incident and there's not a damn thing anyone is doing about it." The questions remain and no answers appear to be in sight. Kundalini-Rising (Member) 2002-10-31 02:44:00 24.107.32.246 Re: The China Threat Another good book on the subject is Seeds of Fire by Gordon Thomas. Seeds of Fire It details a lot of the industrial espionage that went on at Los Alamos and the theft of the Promis software along with many of the subjects touched upon in this thread. Frankly, this whole subject scares the **** out of me. Specially Huchison-Whampo and that recent tour of South America by China's leader. It seems to me that we will be spread very thin when we attack Iraq and in perfect position for a joint Russian-Chinese counter-attack, justified by our unilateral bullying. Friction along the US-Mexico border is at an all time high, with the "Reconquisa" movement, the IMF raping of Argentina, Venzuala..we could be in some deep trouble. Good thing those Texans have all those guns Jools (Member) 2002-10-31 06:07:00 195.92.198.74 Re: The China Threat I agree, Kundalini. Throw in a bit of domestic "terrorism", declare martial law and it will be the UN with Russia and China arriving to restore "order". And all done with full compliance by those who covertly control the US government. However, it's old chestnut time: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-11-01 06:25:00 192.172.8.11 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by Jools: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Thus is the life of a soldier. Beats getting old; alzheimers; hospitals; elderly care nursing homes; or HORROR OF HORRORS rotting away in a VA facility. Push comes to shove I'm taking MORE than my fair share of enemy out. Stone Cold. Jools (Member) 2002-11-01 08:41:00 195.92.198.74 Re: The China Threat Just an opinion, but I think your talents would be far better suited attempting to make America truly free once the inevitable take over has happened. Why go out with a bunch of drones when you can stick around and face the real scum orchestrating it? WeGrok (Member) 2002-11-02 12:12:00 198.81.26.209 Re: The China Threat Ryan 7/28/02 "I say look for a move on Taiwan when we make a move on Iraq." You hit that one on the head. It's looking more everyday like Boy George is going to trade Taiwan for the oil rights in Iraq Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-11-05 23:13:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Actually, somewhere along the way, I said that long ago. China is waiting, biding it's time to do just that. I figured Iraq though, would have pushed us to the point where they would have forced an attack on them back a few months ago. If they'd done that, we'd have been fighting them, and Al Qaeda in Afghanastan. At that point, I thought Pakistant and India would start lobbing weapons back and forth, and North Korea might even act up and go after South Korea. THAT would be a sincere "world war". Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-11-06 19:15:00 216.68.37.205 Re: The China Threat WeGrok, I sure hope none of us have hit the nail on the head. I am a little disappointed in the stance that President Bush took in his recent meeting with Jiang Zemin. He basically said that the US doesn’t support independence for Taiwan . But, I’m hoping it is all lip service as our actions seem to belie what he said… See, we recently said we are indeed going to sell Taiwan the Aegis cruisers they have wanted . I just wish we would come right out in the open and say, “We support independence for Taiwan, now what are you going to do about it?!?â€� This wishy-washiness is only making us look like weak fools in the eyes of the Chinese. They only respect force and we are showing the exact opposite in an effort to “play niceâ€�. We Americans seem to have a fatal flaw of being too nice and trusting with everyone! We did the same thing with the EP-3 incident. I’d also like to point out how it’s interesting that a “fireâ€� has sprung up with North Korea declaring it has nuclear weapons. As I said over in the Ground War thread, there is talk about using military action to solve the problem in North Korea. That would tie up our military even more. The North Korean military is nothing to sneeze at like the Iraqi military. Especially considering how the Chinese backed their North Korean brothers up in the Korean War. I’d also like to point out that they are getting ready to test their newest long-range ICBM that is capable of hitting most, if not all, of the US. Everything is happening just like it has been theorized here… Rick said: quote: I figured Iraq though, would have pushed us to the point where they would have forced an attack on them back a few months ago. I’m a little surprised about that too. I guess, though, that everything is being drug out as long as possible to wear us down bit by bit. And in other Chinese news… - China to Buy More Advanced Russian Warships - China to Unveil Top Secret Warplane - Chinese Spy Ship in Taiwan Waters - China Maneuver Raises Stakes - China Makes Spying A Company Policy - Gainesville Company Gets Chinese Owner - The Sino-Saudi Connection - Pentagon Prepared To Restart Frozen U.S.-China Military Talks - Jiang Zemin Is Not Santa Claus - China Leader Bypasses Local Critics - The Bush-Jiang Summit: A New Chapter in U.S.-Chinese Relations - China May Overtake The United States As Top Destination For Foreign Investment- - Jiang Gets Invitation To Visit Taiwan - North Korea Nukes Loom Over Bush-Jiang Meeting - U.S. And China Still At Odds Over Arms Transfers - U.S. Opens New FBI Office... In China - Hong Kong Warily Watches China Leadership Shift - China Launches New Photo-Reconnaissance Satellite And, I’m sure everyone remembers the recent attack against the internet root servers. Now, isn’t it a bit odd that the attacks were traced to both South Korea and America at the same time ? China has said in their “Unrestricted Warfareâ€� that they see an internet attack as a force multiplier. Now, here’s something that everyone should read… Has China Become An Ally? This is the tripe that most people read and actually believe! Sad… While the next article doesn’t directly relate to the threat that China poses, it does indeed show just what type of a government they are – China Executes Dozens Ahead of Congress . I’d like to know where in the hell is the international outrage over this!! Everyone gets their knickers in a knot because the US wants to remove a murderous lunatic with weapons of mass destruction from the face of the Earth but, no one says a ******* word about dozens of people being summarily executed by a Communist government!! Good lord this ****** me off to no end! Jools, quote: And all done with full compliance by those who covertly control the US government. I have to disagree with you… I don’t see it as a conspiracy. We are being maneuvered into the position that others want us to be in. As I mentioned above, we Americans are often too nice and trusting with other nations. Just look at WWII… We utterly destroyed Germany and Japan only to rebuild them bigger and better than before WWII. Regrettably, many others out there aren’t as nice as we are. Take for example the various arms control treaties the US has signed with Russia in good faith. We sign an arms control treaty to cut nuclear warheads, dismantle ICBMs, etc. The US complies with the treaty by gradually destroying our most potent ICBM (the Peacekeeper), cutting our SSBN fleet, and numerous other nuclear arms control measures. All the while Russia builds a new generation of more potent, highly survivable, road-mobile, MIRVed ICBMs – The Topol-M. The last US ICBM was built in ’89 yet the Russians are building newer and better ones. Ones that are even able to maneuver past our ABM system we are working on (although this new laser technology gives me some glimmer of hope). Another example… We agree to give North Korea foreign aid, food and medicine, free oil, and build them safe and modern nuclear reactors on condition that they stop their nuclear weapons programs. They agree. We start bringing in the oil, food, medicine, and money yet they continue their weapons programs and even build an ICBM (although not as advanced as Russia’s) that can target nearly all of the United States! What ******* type of thanks is this?!?! Hell, North Korea has been the largest recipient of foreign aid in the entire Asian region! On top of that they take the food and medicine meant to help the starving people of North Korea and hoard it for the government and military. That same scenario happens with Iraq in regards to food and medicine. We let Iraq sell oil for food and medical supplies. We give the food and medicine to the Iraqi government thinking that it will surely be given to all those ailing Iraqi children that Saddam claims the sanctions are hurting. But no. Just like with North Korea, the needed supplies are hoarded by the government and military. We are trusting of others to the point of it being dangerous… We also believe that we are the strongest nation in the world while their militaries are small and weak. Therefore, individually, we don’t think of them as a credible threat. In light of that, it is important to remember that a pack of hyenas can take down a strong and healthy lion. The task is even more simple when that lion has been weakened by minute, constant attacks (terrorism, peacekeeping, military reductions, etc.). Notice that Russia is building its nuclear forces while China is the one focusing on its manpower. Other smaller countries such as those of the Axis of Evil are being equipped by both Russia and China in an effort to bring even more “hyenasâ€� into the fight. Again, I don’t see it as a conspiracy. I see it more as a vast game of chess. Unfortunately, we are still playing checkers. Diane (Member) 2002-11-14 08:34:00 205.188.209.104 Re: The China Threat Look at all these pseudo milidroids rubbing their weapons and pumpin their mega.POWER hyper-rifle bolts. I'll bet when they are out in public and they pass an Asian person, they flash back to Rambo mowin down a million commies. I'll bet whenever they see an I.ran.ian they simply freak out and can hardly function as real human beings. By the way the correct pronunciation of the name of the country of a million very sweet and good people, is Eir.Raaaaan, if you ever bother to speak to one, thats what they will tell you. Love, Diane Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-11-14 13:52:00 216.68.44.83 Re: The China Threat **DONOTDELETE** () 2002-11-19 23:54:00 24.150.41.165 Re: The China Threat Chinese missile has twice the range U.S. anticipated China recently test-fired a new cruise missile with twice the range U.S. intelligence agencies initially estimated, intelligence officials say. The test comes as Chinese Communist officials last week appointed a top general in charge of China's missile buildup to a new post within the leadership that runs the military. China fired a YJ-83 anti-ship cruise missile from a JH-7 fighter-bomber earlier this month over Bohai Bay, off northern China. The test results surprised U.S. intelligence officials. Until recently, the estimated range of the YJ-83 had been assessed to be about 75 miles. The new missile test showed that its range is about 155 miles. The last time the missile was tested was July 4, when the People's Daily, the official Communist Party newspaper, announced the testing of a beyond-visual-range anti-ship missile. This weapon is believed by Pentagon officials to be part of Beijing's efforts to develop a long-range strike capability against U.S. aircraft carriers and ships. Officials say the missile represents a new capability for the Chinese military in conducting "over-the-horizon" attacks on U.S. or allied ships in any conflict with China. The YJ-83 is believed to be a derivative of the C-801 anti-ship cruise missile but can travel at supersonic speeds, making it very difficult for ships to stop. Defense specialists say the YJ-83, sometimes called the C-803, also has the capability to receive target information in flight Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military with the Jamestown Foundation, said the new YJ-83 will probably be outfitted on the upgraded JH-7a fighter-bomber. "With a range of 250 km [155 miles], it gives the PLA and its export clients a new anti-ship missile that can fire beyond the reach of U.S. Naval anti-aircraft missiles like the Standard SM-2, which will soon equip Taiwan's Kidd-class destroyers," Mr. Fisher said. "This test also indicates that longer-range land-attack cruise missiles are just around the corner," he noted. China announced major leadership changes last week that elevated new leaders to many Communist Party posts. However, outgoing Chinese President Jiang Zemin stayed on as chairman of the Party's Central Military Commission, the powerful organ that controls the military. The commission was used by the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in 1989 to bypass deadlocked government and party structures in ordering Chinese military forces to attack unarmed civilian protesters who had occupied Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Hu Jintao, who was named the new Chinese party leader, was reappointed last week as a vice chairman of the military commission. Additionally, two generals were named commission vice chairmen: Gen. Guo Boxiong and Gen. Cao Gangchuan. Both generals are proteges of Mr. Jiang, who promoted them when he was party leader. Gen. Cao is expected to become China's defense minister, replacing Gen. Chi Haotian, in the next several months. His appointment is viewed by U.S. intelligence analysts as a sign that China's major military buildup will increase under his leadership. Officials said Gen. Cao's promotion within the commission is significant; as head of the General Armament Department he was the official in charge of China's missile development and other weapons-modernization programs. Gen. Guo was an aide to Gen. Fu Quanyou, the chief of the Chinese general staff, who lost his post on the Central Military Commission. Gen. Guo is expected to replace Gen. Zhang Wannian, who ran the military commission until the recent leadership changes. Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. Original article. ddodd777@yahoo.com (Member) 2002-11-20 01:53:00 208.161.136.146 Re: The China Threat Americans, Hyphenated- Americans, do not take any s**t! China, Russia, and the rest of the hyenas are in for a big ole' red white and blue surprise. When the "blue helmets" NATO troops seem to be moving in, we'll be waiting. Our citizens are armed, and we will make them wish they stayed home. Here's another angle. Everyone and their mother has a copy of The Art of War by Sun Tzu. EVERYONE. Imagine a war between gangs. Gangs that have survived by following the actions of their leadership, and observing the mistakes made by others that lost and died. Each gang has a similar strategy and is prepaired to do damage. Each gang knows it can win. Each gang thinks it can play The Art of War on the others. Now the fighting is fair all the way around. Someone throws the first "sunday-punch" and all hell breaks loose. "ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!" If you think WWIII is going to be monday night football. You're not going to survive. Arm yourselves. Phsyically, mentally, spiritually. You'll need all of it when all hell breaks loose. ddodd777@yahoo.com (Member) 2002-11-20 02:01:00 208.161.136.146 Re: The China Threat I fear nothing. I have faith in my King. The King of the kingdom of Earth. I am prepaired to follow his instructions. How'bout you? Snafuun (Member) 2002-11-30 12:38:00 217.215.121.254 Re: The China Threat Thread Originator: quote:However, in recent days I've come into some information that caused me to start doing some hard research on China. In doing so, I've found some things that scared me a bit. I'm not easily scared about anything, cautious, yes, scared no. Think about it. The poster isn't scared about anything. Just cautious. What a relief! China, the next big military threat against the US? Gee, that sounds even more convincing than Iraq. Jeezus. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: "Mr President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!" Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-12-01 00:47:00 216.68.39.53 Re: The China Threat Someone has obviously not done ANY reading in the Ground War thread or this thread, nor done any research on their own! If you had, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are. Ignorance is bliss I suppose... :rolleyes: **DONOTDELETE** () 2002-12-03 08:55:00 24.150.41.165 Re: The China Threat The recent unveiling (sort of) of China's first domestically designed (sort of) fighter jet was the culmination of a long saga of international military-hardware wheeling and dealing that has seen US-designed or -funded high-tech weaponry fall into the hands of potential military rivals. The showpiece of many years' work, dating back to the late 1980s, recently happened - albeit unobserved - when China confirmed the existence of, but did not unveil, the Jian-10 fighter jet. It had been reported that the J-10 (F-10 being the export version, using North Atlantic Treaty Organization designation) would be shown in public for the first time during the fourth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition (Airshow China 2002) held in Zhuhai in southern Guangdong province from November 4-10, but the plane did not appear... Full article. Copyright Asia Times Online Seems like the Chinese have been "Obtaining" more than just U.S. nuclear missile technology, and this from some of America's allies to boot. Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-12-03 15:46:00 216.68.39.156 Re: The China Threat Dejitaru, Yes, I’ve been reading up on the J-10 for a little while now. It appears that they have gotten technology from the canceled Israeli Lavi project as well as an F-16 we sold to Pakistan. Fortunately it is on par with the F-16. I say fortunately because the F-16 will begin to be replaced in 10 years by the JSF F-35. This will effectively put China a generation of aircraft behind us barring that they acquire Su-32s, Su-35s, and Su-39s from Russia. Unfortunately, it looks like there is a very good chance they will though – From Bad to Worse . Here’s some other news articles on the J-10: - China\'s New High-Tech Fighter, The F-10 Based On American F-16 Technology – Note the machinery the US sold to China under the Clinton government that allows the manufacture of advanced aircraft parts and even cruise missiles. Also don’t forget that China paid al-Qaeda for unexploded Tomahawk missiles after the Clinton raids on the medicine factories. So now that they have the design and the machines, they can begin making Tomahawk clones! - Chinese Air Force Gets New Jet Also, here are a few other China related articles: - Will Iraqi War Tempt China to Invade Taiwan? – Gee, isn’t this what we have been saying for quite some time here at Anomalies?!? Just add in a move by North Korea on South and several Mid-East Countries on Israel and you have the scenario painted here. - Beijing waiting for U.S.-Iraq war? - When US Is Plagued by the Mid-east Situation, China Can Get a Relatively Relaxed World Environment – Straight from the horse’s mouth no less! - Australian Group Warns Of Sino-US War Over Taiwan - Communist Chinese Heavily Penetrating Canada - China Fighter Jets Fly Near US Spy Plane – How many times has this happened now? - China Denies Selling Radars To Iraq - China Revs Up Its I2R Missile Efforts - PLA Navy Obtains New-Generation Submarines - Russia Reports Missile Launch In China - GAO: U.S. Satellites Vulnerable to Cyber Attack – I guess China can indeed do some damage with its cyber-warfare division. If our satellites are crippled we loose a HUGE edge in battle and the Chinese know this. This is also why they are focusing so much on anti-satellite technology (micro-satellites, lasers, etc.) - Losing the Info-War – Some more info on how the US is lagging behind in computer security despite our extremely large reliance on technology. - Lonely China Looks To NATO – Looks like Anatoly Golitsyn is being proven right. “Former Communistâ€� and current Communist countries are trying to infiltrate NATO and render it useless. Just look how we recently admitted several Soviet Bloc countries and have partially let Russia in!!! - China Seeks Dialogue With NATO - Ukraine Peddles Its Arms In China - Ukraine Probe\'s Focus Shifts To China - Beijing Supplying Iraq? - Preemption Takes Aim At Ukraine And China - Beijing To Construct Seven Missile Brigades Facing Taiwan By 2005 - Facing China\'s Fifth Column - Beijing\'s Goodwill Is An Illusion - Chinese Missile Has Twice The Range U.S. Anticipated - (Taiwanese) Military Unfazed By New Missile - End to the Sham Over Taiwan - Editorial: Be Wary Of Chinese Gestures - Elite PRC Generals Take Charge Of Taiwan Front - (Communist) Party Retains Its Grip On Changing China - 2 Of Missing (Los Alamos) Printers Assigned To \'Wen Lee\' - American Businesses Flock To China - Asia Worries About Growth of China\'s Economic Power - China Eyes Flat Tax - China, Hub Of The World\'s Next Bloc - China To Give More \'Oomph\' To Its Silicon Valley In Beijing - China Urges US to Stick with 1994 North Korea Arms Control Agreement - China\'s Engagement In Afghanistan Shows New Diplomatic Assertiveness - China\'s Exports: How Low Can Prices Go? - China\'s New Peace Strategy - Chinese Oil Diplomacy Focuses On Middle East - China, US, Saudi Arabia, And The Future - Downed EP-3 Is Flying Again - Hu Jintao Pledges to Keep China on Marxist Path - Rumsfeld Says U.S. Anger Toward China Subsides – Not for me it hasn’t! - SEC Aide Quits After Leak To Chinese - The Ominous Subtext To US-China Relations - US Semiconductor Maker to Produce Chips in China - Where\'s Hu? Chinese See Little Of Their Heir Apparent - White House Congratulates New Chinese Leader; Former U.S. Ambassador Calls Shift Depressing - Woken Giant Is A World-Beater (China’s Economy Should Overtake US In Size By The 2020s) - How To Improve U.S.-China Relations And, one last thing that has recently occurred that is highly interesting… Russia and China have been holding some very high level, strategic talks within the last few days. I will post two of the several articles I have dug up on the talks here but will post the others over in the Ground War thread. - Beijing Courts Putin With Defense Links - Jiang And Putin Hold Summit Talks With Iraq, Nkorea On Agenda **DONOTDELETE** () 2002-12-03 16:08:00 24.150.41.165 Re: The China Threat Thanks for the links Ryan, I've got some light evening reading to catch up on now. You don't have to tell me twice about the threat China poses to North America(I don't live in the USA though I am just across a lake from y'all) and the most unsettling aspect of it is that very few people here will admit that it actually exists. I can count on one hand all the people that I personally know that think China is anything but a backwater nation of rice growers. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-12-06 05:42:00 192.172.8.11 Re: The China Threat I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but I found this article fascinating and enlightening in the extreme. Comments? Panama Canal Treaty is Null and Void ddodd777@yahoo.com (Member) 2002-12-09 04:53:00 208.161.136.169 Re: The China Threat After reading Sean's last posted link. I have imagined 101 new conspiracies. I can see all this coming down hard in the next ten years. Heavy. Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-12-09 07:12:00 216.196.173.127 Re: The China Threat Dejitaru, quote: I can count on one hand all the people that I personally know that think China is anything but a backwater nation of rice growers. Yes, this seems to be quite a popular misconception. I just wish people wouldn’t look at me like I have two heads when I tell them otherwise! People of today’s fast-food, disposable society fail to look to the future. They only live for the moment. The Chinese and Russians are doing the exact opposite. They are biding their time. Sean, While the treaties shouldn’t have allowed the transfer to happen, I don’t think that there is anything short of military action that would reverse the current situation. And can you imagine the ruckus that would be raised if the US wanted to militarily retake the Canal! “Oooh, the big evil US is attacking a country that hardly even has a standing military just to further its imperialistic goals!â€� and “Show us proof that China is in control!â€� The fact is that although it shouldn’t legally be in the hands of the Chinese, it will unfortunately continue to be. I just wish that people would get themselves informed and realize the deadly situation that is brewing. ddodd, Ten years is about when it indeed looks like things will be going down. I just hope that it is enough time to prepare ourselves thoroughly. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-12-15 01:05:00 68.84.99.121 Re: The China Threat New from JR Nyquist. Weekly Column - Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2002 "China Prepares to Invade Taiwan" by J. R. Nyquist On Nov. 26 a Pravda headline asked, [is] “Beijing Waiting for U.S.-Iraq War?â€� The article is about U.S. concerns that China might strike Taiwan if the U.S. attacks Saddam Hussein in the Middle East. (1) Is this a realistic possibility? The future remains uncertain, but an invasion of Taiwan remains high on Beijing’s list of “things to do.â€� The Communists in the Far East are restless. In late October several warships from China’s North Sea Fleet sailed east of Taiwan. The move was part of an ongoing and complex military exercise in the South China Sea. Taiwan’s defense minister, Tang Yao-ming, said the exercises were “unprecedented.â€� Addressing the Taiwanese (Republic of China) legislature, Defense Minister Tang begged legislators to purchase four U.S. Kidd-class destroyers. In late November the Chinese used bad weather to mask amphibious exercises in the South China Sea. This was the fourth straight year the Chinese military practiced a coastal invasion, and it was the second year Chinese commanders succeeded in hiding their amphibious capabilities and new combined arms tactics from U.S. intelligence. As for human spies and infiltrators getting a look at Chinese capabilities, the Washington Times alleges that U.S. government policy “limits conducting human spying operations in China to avoid upsetting Beijing.â€� (2) On its side, China is aggressively scouting the waters around Taiwan. Since March Chinese spy boats have been spotted along Taiwan’s eastern shore on several occasions. Hong Kong’s Ming Bao newspaper reported that Beijing’s navy is following a special directive to “make preparations for military struggle against Taiwan.â€� This directive was issued last March by President Jiang Zemin. On Monday the People’s Liberation Army “rebuffedâ€� U.S. questions about Chinese arms sales to rogue states during high-level strategic talks. The Chinese refused to renounce the use of force against Taiwan; they also refused to limit the export of missile and nuclear technology to “axis of evilâ€� countries by denying that such exports are taking place. According to the Washington Times, one U.S. official said: “The continued proliferation by China of nuclear, chemical and missile-related materials and technologies remains a problem.â€� (3) In violation of its international commitments, China has long been exporting weapons of mass destruction to terrorist regimes. U.S. officials are often too timid, perhaps too sensitive to U.S. economic interests to consistently enforce laws that would activate sanctions against Chinese companies. The Clinton administration briefly imposed sanctions on Chinese companies on two occasions in the 1990s. The first occasion involved missile sales to Pakistan and the second occasion involved chemical weapon sales to Iran. At the time no sanctions were imposed on for China’s exporting germ warfare equipment and cruise missiles to Iran. (4) Is there a connection between China’s military buildup and its exports to rogue states? There may be a strategic connection. It is no mean coincidence that Iraq’s new air defense system was installed with Chinese assistance. Meanwhile, China’s military buildup opposite Taiwan has continued for four years. This buildup involves the deployment of hundreds of short and medium range ballistic missiles. According to USAF Major Mark A. Stokes, an air attaché at the U.S. embassy in Beijing from 1992 to 1995, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is preparing a powerful first strike against Taiwan. In a report issued in 1999, Stokes wrote: “The People’s Republic of China, is developing one of the most daunting conventional theater missile challenges in the world.â€� He further stated: “A large arsenal of highly accurate and lethal theater missiles serves as a ‘trump card,’ a revolutionary departure from the PLA of the past. The PLA’s theater missiles and a supporting space-based surveillance network are emerging not only as a tool of psychological warfare, but as a potentially devastating weapon of military utility.â€� (5) Surprise attack is part of the Chinese war plan against Taiwan. Stokes’ 1999 report said the PLA was planning to use 400 missiles in an opening volley that would decapitate Taiwan’s political and military leadership, forestalling any effort to preemptively disrupt China’s missile forces with air strikes. Targets would include Taiwan’s defense ministry and the presidential palace. In terms of its plan, Beijing is respectful but not fearful of U.S. military intervention. In a 1999 strategic directive from China’s Central Military Commission to all corps-level commands, China’s strategic leadership stated that nuclear war with America was an option because America would recoil in horror after the loss of one city while China had the toughness to prevail despite much heavier losses. It is in this context that North Korea’s war preparations and Russia’s friendly overtures to China must be viewed. A regional war in the Middle East involving U.S. forces might tempt China to launch an attack. The North Korean military buildup is significant in this regard as well. On Dec. 5 the U.S. government reminded the North Koreans that they had promised not to develop nuclear weapons. But the North Koreans, backed and supplied by China, have thrown defiance in the face of the Americans. After 1994 the United States gave a great deal of aid (especially food and fuel aid) to North Korea on the basis of Pyongyang’s promises. Now that North Korea has broken those promises, true to Communist form, tensions are on the rise. Last week the United States government described the situation in North Korea as “very serious.â€� As if to make matters worse, the North Koreans recently admitted to having operational nuclear weapons. In October they admitted to secretly enriching their uranium stockpile for the construction of additional nuclear weapons. Sino-Russian relations lie at the core of the emerging Far East crisis. Conventional analysts may think this an odd fact, but nothing seems to have changed in the region since the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, except that China and North Korea are stronger than ever and armed with mass destruction weapons – and Russia is working closely to build up China’s military potential. According to Dr. Alexandr Nemets, writing in Newsmax, Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided “to use all means and tools for the expansion of weapon exports to China.â€� Russia’s defense industry is now tied to China’s military, and is China’s leading supplier of advanced weapons. Last month the Chinese and Russian foreign ministers, along with President Putin, decided to transform the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into a military bloc. (This organization combines the former Soviet states of Central Asia with China and Russia.) Russia is absolutely committed to modernizing the Chinese armed forces, and has promised to deliver shipments of SU-30 MKK fourth generation Russian fighters to China. The list of Russian military items being shipped to China is very large, and very worrisome. (6) (1) Pravda, “Beijing Waiting for U.S.-Iraq War?â€� http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/11/26/39994.html (2) Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, “Inside the Ring,â€� http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021129-7413878.htm (3) Bill Gertz, Washington Times, “China's Arms Sales, Stance on Taiwan Chill Talks With U.S." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021210-81002548.htm (4) Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II, Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1999 ), p. 117. (5) Bill Gertz, The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000), p. 189. (6) Alexandr Nemets, “From Bad to Worse,â€� http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/27/163850.shtml © 2002 Jeffrey R. Nyquist December 10, 2002 I have placed in bold key portions of the text which require emphasis. China Prepares to Invade Taiwan Now let me pose a question. In light of all the anti-war sentiment coming from the usual suspect...WHY IS IT THAT THERE IS NOT ONE PEEP OF DISCOMFORT COMING FROM THESE SAME INDIVIDUALS CONCERNING THE CHINESE ACTIONS, NOR THE RUSSIAN ACTIVITES OF PROVIDING THEM ARMS, NOR THE APPARENT NORTH KOREAN'S ACTING IN CONCERT WITH CHINA???!!! You mean to tell me that America is the only "war-mongerer" on the planet? Or is it that I am correct in my inital assessment that these people are decidedly anti-American to their boney core? That by being silent on these issues of Chinese preparations for war, nuclear war with the US, they have exposed themselves for what they truely are...haters of America, and enemy sympathizers. **DONOTDELETE** () 2002-12-15 05:24:00 24.150.41.165 Re: The China Threat How can you call China a War-Mongering state? Don't you realize that they are OUR ally? They supply a lot of vital components to the North American markets through Wal-Mart and COSCO, without which the average shopper would have to pay much more for similar products. They also are willing to sacrifice themselves and work for a lower wage, thus increasing our status as having the higher paid workforce. They are just helping us all realize a higher standard of living by keeping prices on comsumer goods down. They also have an exemplary record of helping the war on drugs by executing those caught smuggling contraband substances, thus helping to ebb the flow of heroine into North America and Europe. They also fought a battle in the war on terrorism long before 9/11. They eliminated thousands of terrorists that had threatened the stability of the country and those that had supported them back in 1989. The P.R.C. cannot invade Taiwan, as it is already part of their empire, they are just preparing to remove the rebels that have infiltrated the Gov't of that province to restore Law and Order. P.S. If you can't tell by the tone of my text, I am being SARCASTIC. Btw, Great Post Sean. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-16 02:41:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat quote: Originally posted by Jools: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Yes indeed. I fully expect to "die by the sword". As Sean so succiently put it, "such is the life of a soldier". There are things in life, and our futures we should never be privy to, and one of those things is the vision of our own death. Some of us know and understand what death is, and have seen it in several forms, and in several faces, whether in the face of loved ones or friends, or enemies - we have seen it, and in it, we've seen our own mortality. I have seen people die. I saw my own daughter die as a baby, 19 years ago. A poor, innocent child who did nothing to no one, and yet, medical science could not save. I saw some people die in the jungles of central america, many moons ago. I heard of some of my own, best friends dying on an airplane in the Sahara Desert in 1980 on Operation Bright Star when a C-141 crashed in to the very same desert, not far from where we'd all been stationed for the atempted rescue attempt in Iran - where yet others of my "ilk" (the soldier) died. Of all of those, not even the enemy in the jungle deserved to die, except that he tried to take the lives of others around me. And yet, die they did. Soldiers chose the life they chose for many reasons, NOT ONE OF which is "for the money". Soldiers chose the life they live because they BELIEVE in what they are doing, the protection of innocent people. This attitude that soldiers are just "evil people in uniform" or "warmongers" is simply wrong. I can't change anyone's minds about that, but it's a fact that NO soldier actually WANTS to go to war. That's in the movies, it is not reality. quote: Just an opinion, but I think your talents would be far better suited attempting to make America truly free once the inevitable take over has happened. Jools, there is no 'inevitable takeover'. The fact is, you simply are blinded by all this misinformation out there. Besides, tell me truthfully, why do you care? You don't live here. If I were you, I'd be worrying more about your own country and the fact that this "take over" already took place in your own country. Look at the attitudes of your own people and guns, as an example. The brainwashing in your country is so bad that there have been those (who I might add are good friends of mine most of time) believe that "guns are evil". That's their BELIEF! They tell me "America should disarm". And "we don't have guns here, and that's a good thing". Methinks your own country has already suffered that "inevitable takeover" and perhaps your own efforts at "freeing the free" should be directed inward, instead of outward. quote: Look at all these pseudo milidroids rubbing their weapons and pumpin their mega.POWER hyper-rifle bolts. I'll bet when they are out in public and they pass an Asian person, they flash back to Rambo mowin down a million commies. I'll bet whenever they see an I.ran.ian they simply freak out and can hardly function as real human beings. By the way the correct pronunciation of the name of the country of a million very sweet and good people, is Eir.Raaaaan, if you ever bother to speak to one, thats what they will tell you. You're a laugh every time you write something, Meta.. er... I mean "Diane". You ARE a commie, which is what makes this whole smart assed comment so damned funny! You think military people are like Rambo, because you watch too much television. In reality, they are nothing like that. We are all good people who do (or did) what we do, because we believe in our country. While you might find that laughable, hard to believe or simply sickening - that's reality, friend. Your racist remarks are just that, racist. You think we are racist, but your TRUE colors have finally shown through your yet-another-ignorant-alias. Why don't you quit hiding behind lies and step into the light "Diane" and tell us your "real name" and stand up for what you really believe in? In fact, I challenge you ALL to do so. I stand behind what *I* say with MY real name. Why can't the rest of you cowards do so? quote: by Snafuun: Think about it. The poster isn't scared about anything. Just cautious. What a relief! China, the next big military threat against the US? Gee, that sounds even more convincing than Iraq. Jeezus. Being the "thread orginator" let me point out that I just posted something in another thread about this. We're not in this to promote fear, ignorance, nor disinformation. We're ALL in this TOGETHER to remove doubts, fear, suspicions and disinformation - not to mention ignorance, which somehow seems to rise it's ugly head every few days on these forums from someone or another. One thing we all need to understand is that no matter how "pat" something seems, it isn't always like that. In fact, when someone is out there prattling about this or that conspiracy, and they simply do not put down the proof, then they simply do not know what they are talking about. One thing we've tried very hard to do in the Survival Forum is to NOT place information here that is simply unproven, or lies. We seem to have a resurgence these days of the basic "NWO conspiracies" (Jools?) and other such things. This forum, this thread and other threads of this forum are NOT the place for you to vent your perceived and so-call "political injustices", "conspiracy theories" nor complaints about your political disagreements with me, the current (or any) administration, nor your simple and to me, distasteful and disingenuious defeatism. As for my "caution", Snafuun, in the original post, it has to do more with the fact that TIME is on our side on this. China is a SERIOUS threat, greater in the long run than North Korean, Pakistan, Cuba and Iraq rolled into one thing. The difference is, we can EXPECT that they WILL develop intercontinential ballist missiles that will rival and exceed our own (America's) capabilities within 12 years. Between now and then we are working on missile shields and other methods that will effectively turn all incoming missile threats to nothing at all. Unfortunately, in the mean time we have to deal with rising nuclear threats, the potential for nuclear terrorism and a host of other petty issues (at least on strategic scale) from other countries. By 2015 the Chinese will our gun us, out number most of the rest of the world, and most importantly, they BELIEVE they WILL be at War with the US before they can advance any further. They are growing in numbers, in hatred for the US and other western civilizations, and I personally believe they will invade the United States by land and sea within the next 20 years, perhaps less. They can't afford to do it too soon, but at the same time, they can't afford to allow us to be able to completely negate ballistic missiles - which we will do soon enough. Thus, the time line is set in stone, and we can predict with some accuracy their moves, our moves and the outcome of both. One false step on the part of either side and absolute annilation exists. If the balance is kept, then peace will eventually come. But, understand this, I do NOT forsee the latter as the ultimate outcome. I see a war between the US and China coming "home" to us. I see North Korea, Cuba and some of the Middle Eastern countries allying with the Chinese in an attempt to cause the final fall of the United States of America. I see it coming, and if you're smart, you will to. I'm here to do what I can to stop it, in whatever time I have left in this world. If I can even convince ONE person to pay attention to world affairs and stop listening to the doomsayers and conspiracy theorists and LOOK AT THE FACTS of REALITY, then I've won a piece of the war. If not, then only you can be responsible for yourselves. quote: Ignorance is bliss I suppose... [/quote Yes, Ryan, it is. And apparently you addressed this to the same person I addressed the above paragraphs. Perhaps enlightenment is at hand, if he/she bothers to spend time reading. Perhaps not. Sean... about the Carter fiasco.... [quote] Carter’s greatest blunder, giving away the Panama Canal, has so far gone unmentioned here. But if he is indeed the moral man he purports to be, why did he perpetrate fraud on America in order to be able to give away the Canal? According to international law, both countries party to a bilateral treaty must agree to the same treaty. The Senate in 1977 ratified the Carter-Torrijos Panama Canal Treaty with a key amendment, the DeConcini Reservation whereby the U.S. reserved the right to intervene unilaterally and militarily without Panama’s permission in order to keep the canal open, should it be closed to American ships by Panama or any other foreign power. However, Omar Torrijos, the Marxist dictator of Panama at that time, rejected the DeConcini Reservation. Carter knew that without the Reservation the treaty never would be ratified, for several Senators had told him so. Nevertheless, in his diary for 4/7/78 he wrote, “If Torrijos wants to, he can issue a reservation about his understanding of what the treaties [note his admission that there are different treaties] mean on intervention in the internal affairs of Panama.â€� The Panama Canal has been mentioned HERE many times, in the ground war thread, and I think in this thread. If not, I WILL mention it here. It was the most unforntunate thing Carter or any President could have done, which was to allow the Panama Canal to be handed over to the Chinese. In fact, ALL countries in the western hemisphere WILL suffer, suddenly, one day because of this. China has an inroad to the mainlands of North and South America because of the Panama Canal. It would allow them to bring in entire Navies from one ocean to another, but more importantly, it is a place where by night ships can easily unload their "cargo" of "humans" into the jungles of Central America to make their way up to the borders in Mexico and the US. Eventually, when enough have "sneaked in" they can use their sheer numbers to overwhelm unsuspecting border patrols and raid along the borders, seizing militay installations, homes, businesses, whole towns if they chose to do so. That is, I believe one weakness we have now, granted to us by the "Great Jimmy Carter, peanut farmer and nuclear engineer".... Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-12-16 04:27:00 192.172.8.11 Re: The China Threat Good to see you back Rick. Iposted somewhere in here an op ed piece/article where the author was saying the Canal deal is null and void because the ratified treaties are different treaties. What ever happened to oversight committees on National Security. I was reminded recently by something Thunderstruck posted. It was a reference to "Jimma Carter". I remember very well seeing him on TV for the first time. His first words were: "Ha, mah name is Jimma Carter. Ah am runnin' for President." I fell over laughing. Fast forward....Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...Iran hostage crisis...I stopped laughing. CLARK CHITWOOD (Member) 2002-12-16 04:28:00 216.128.171.60 Re: The China Threat Rick, Your post sure got my attention! Do you have a scenario in mind for how the Chinese could accomplish an invasion of the US? How would they neutralize the Navy? Would a fifth collumn initiate the attack from those port facilities in the US, as mentioned in other threads? Would they land in Mexico and Canada and split the US in a pincers movement? How would they degrade our defenses to the point an invasion would have a reasonable chance of success? I agree with your assessment of their intentions. I would appreciate your thoughts on how it might happen. Sean Osborne (Member) 2002-12-16 04:32:00 192.172.8.11 Re: The China Threat Lemme guess, Rick will suggest you read the "Groundwar in the US" thread. I would agree, that's the place to start. It is an excellent read. CLARK CHITWOOD (Member) 2002-12-16 05:05:00 216.128.171.60 Re: The China Threat Sean, Thanks. I should have looked harder before asking all those questions. There's enough material in these threads to keep me busy for a while! Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-16 05:17:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat (Chuckles)... Sean, thanks. He beat me too it Clark. At least I know you're not the "other ClarK" now. LOL. I KNOW HE knows where the stuff is located, as you will see as you read through it. Hahaha. quote: Fast forward....Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...Iran hostage crisis...I stopped laughing. Don't remind me. That's some thing I have tried to forget. Remember, "I was there". I hate to say this, but it was thanks to "Jimma Carter" that I changed parties. HAhahaha CLARK CHITWOOD (Member) 2002-12-17 05:52:00 216.128.178.214 Re: The China Threat Rick, Sean, I spent 3 hours yesterday and 6 hours today reading the "Ground War" thread. It is not only a remarkable chronological archive of events but also a great tool for identifying trends and discarding erroneous assumptions. I think I have a better appreciation of what you mean by "connecting the dots". Thanks P.S. I'm DEFINITELY not that other Clark. Finlay (Member) 2002-12-17 07:37:00 194.109.246.37 Re: The China Threat Impressive post, Rick, I think you said it all... ----------------------------------------- quote:Originally posted by CLARK CHITWOOD: How would they degrade our defenses to the point an invasion would have a reasonable chance of success? In my humble opinion, American armed forces are already spread quite thin, though I don't see how such an invasion could be succesful in the long run unless 'they' bring in a horrendous ammount of troops fast. **DONOTDELETE** () 2002-12-17 10:53:00 24.150.41.165 Re: The China Threat Report forecasts a more assertive Beijing by 2010 CLOCK TICKING: China's rising economic power could result in problems for Taiwan within the next eight years, a study by the government says By Ko Shu-Ling STAFF REPORTER Tuesday, Dec 17, 2002,Page 1 By 2010, China might have set its own timetable for reunification with Taiwan and may even have employed direct military threats, according to a study to be released by the Cabinet's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission today. According to the 20-page report, internal pressures in China might cause it to become aggressive with its neighbors as it becomes one of the world's superpowers. This aggression could include attempts to expand its boundaries, the report says. "Taiwan shouldn't rule out the possibility that China will set the timetable to unify with -- or stage military intimidation against -- Taiwan by 2010," the study says. Taiwan should therefore streng-then and elevate the functions of the National Security Council. "The Presidential Office and the Executive Yuan should work together to integrate the resources and elevate the functions of agencies responsible for public safety in response to China's increasing threat," the report says. To raise global awareness of the cross-strait situation, the report says that Taiwan should step up its efforts to promote the idea that peace in the Taiwan Strait is beneficial to peace in the rest of East Asia. The government should also earmark more money for intelligence agencies to buy state-of-art intelligence gathering equipment, to train intelligence personnel and to cooperate with other countries, the report recommends. According to the report, Taiwan's national security strategy and foreign diplomacy in 2010 will be influenced by various factors, both international and domestic. "US President George W. Bush's re-election bid in 2004 and China's new leadership lineup in 2007 will have an impact on Taiwan-US relations," the report says. "Taiwan's legislative and presidential elections in 2004 will also affect the formulation of foreign policy here," it says. However, Taiwan can remain stable if the number of its political allies remains steady and the public continues to support the government's bid to join international organizations. Original article. Copyright © 1999-2002 The Taipei Times. Pretty optimistic view of the situation, thinking that they have up to 8 years to prepare. I wonder if the Party leaders in Beijing will indulge them that long a reprieve? Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-18 00:42:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat My hope is that Hilary Clinton will NOT be President in 2008 (or 2004 for that matter) - but specifically in 2008 because if she is, or anyone of her ilk, there will be serious changes in the way we do things in relation to China. Already we're 'waking up' to that threat, and putting her or someone like her in office before China can get their missiles up to par with ours, will simply advance the Chinese timeline by YEARS. 2015 will be here in 2012, or even 2010 in that case. Rick CLARK CHITWOOD (Member) 2002-12-18 03:38:00 216.128.178.214 Re: The China Threat China can only be dealt with in one way, counter every move they make, resist, with force, every act of aggression, annihilate them if they attack us directly and, most importantly, make sure they have no doubts about our will and ability to do so. Chinese apply a cost/benefit analysis to everything they do. I can think of few things that might tip the balance of that equation in favor of an expansionist China like Hillary Clinton as President. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:16:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Drudge: RUSSIA, FRANCE, CHINA NOT CONVINCED OF NEED TO ATTACK IRAQ LA Times via DrudgeReport ^ | 24 Dec. 2002 Three key members of the U.N. Security Council Russia, France and China are not yet convinced an Iraqi declaration this month failed to fully disclose any weapons of mass destruction, an sign that the United States might face an uphill battle building the case for war against Baghdad, the LOS ANGELES TIMES is reporting in Tuesday editions... Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:17:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Russia and China 'broke Iraq embargo' BBC ^ | 19 December, 2002 Russian and Chinese firms exported military equipment and know-how to Iraq despite a United Nations ban on arms sales, a German newspaper has reported. The Tageszeitung (Taz) says parts of the Iraqi arms declaration which it has obtained show that three Russian and one Chinese company broke the embargo imposed after the end of the 1991 Gulf War. The paper lists almost 60 companies from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the United States, United Kingdom and France, as well as China and Russia - which it says were involved in arming Iraq since the mid-1970s. These companies assisted atomic, biological and chemical weapons development as well as aiding Iraq's missile and conventional arms programmes, according to Taz. They too may have continued to supply Iraq after the embargo came into force, the paper alleges. US indirect help Documents from the UN inspections team (Unscom) show the Russian firm Livinvest, prepared to export equipment and parts for M-17 helicopters to Iraq, Taz reports. However, the documents do not make it clear whether the equipment was in fact delivered. Two other Russian companies, Mars Rotor and Niikhism sold parts for long-distance missiles to Iraq. These were transported to Baghdad by a Palestinian middleman in July 1995, the paper reports. The Chinese firm Huawei Technologies Co broke the embargo in 2000 and 2001 by supplying hi-tech fibreglass parts for air defence installations, according to Taz. The paper suggests that contracts signed between Huawei Technologies Co and the US firms IBM and AT&T may mean that US know-how could have found its way into Iraqi technology. The latest revelations come after a Taz article earlier in the week, which said that more than 80 German companies were listed in the Iraqi declaration - several of which were still involved in Iraq last year. Thursday's article also says companies from Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden are named in the declaration. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:18:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Analysis: The Rise of China -- a Threat or an Opportunity? The Peoples Daily ^ | 12.22.02 Beijing's successful bid to host the 2008 Olympic games is widely regarded as recognition by the international community of the success of China's reform and opening up policies of the past two decades, while Shanghai's successful bid to host the 2010 World Expo is more a reflection of the world's expectations with regard to China's encouraging economic prospect. To world leaders and business giants, China is considered more as an opportunity than a threat, and is an ideal place for the rest of the world to showcase their products and expand their markets, according to government officials and academicians. The once-notorious idea of "the China threat" is giving way to a new concept -- "the China opportunity". "Engine" of World Economic Recovery? The "China opportunity" theory is based on the fact that China's economic growth helps accelerate the recovery of the world economy, said Hu Angang, a Chinese economist. In July 2002, China launched a 140 billion yuan (17 billion US dollar) natural gas pipeline project to transport gas from Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region to Shanghai. The largest joint venture with foreign enterprises in Chinese history now involves partners from the Royal Dutch & Shell Group, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Russia's gas monopoly, Gazprom. For the planing and construction of the 2008 Olympic venues, Beijing has promised to invite public bidding from across the world and has even adopted legislation to ensure a smooth bidding process. China's other massive project, which include diverting water from the Yangtze River to North China, developing its vast western regions and building a number of airports, railways and highways, are also interesting opportunities from the perspective of overseas enterprises, said Hu. China's neighbors appear to be benefiting from its economic development due to their geographic proximity. In October 2002, Australia was awarded a 30-year deal on a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) project in Guangdong Province worth billions of US dollars. The gas project's economic outlook has since improved considerably. Immediately thereafter, Indonesia secured a 25-year agreement on the sale of 2.6 million tons of LNDper year to Fujian Province. Experts predict that the country's combined imports in the next five years will reach 150 billion to 200 billion US dollars. In fact, members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) saw a 27 percent increase in exports to China in the first 10 months of this year. China has become the fastest-growing source of international tourists. Statistics show that, during the first three quarters of this year, Chinese citizens registered 12 million overseas trips, up 40 percent year-on-year. To the delight of many tourist destination countries, Chinese are spending more than Japanese tourists. An average Chinese tourist in Australia currently spends 2,300 US dollars, more than the average Japanese, while in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, Chinese tourists are welcomed as the "pillar" of their respective tourist industries, and as the "engine of their economic recoveries". Neil Andrew, speaker of the House of Representatives of the Australian Federal Parliament, told his counterpart, Li Peng, during the latter's visit to Australia in September, that everyday there is a jumbo jet full of Chinese people landing at the Sydney Airport, so that there is no reason for Australia not to welcome an ever more prosperous China. Among the passengers aboard these planes are not only heavy-spending sight-seeing tourists, but also Chinese students. Every year, about 250,000 Chinese students go abroad to study. In Britain, where annual living expenditures are as high as 150,000 yuan, the number of Chinese students who traveled there to study in 2002 rose 70 percent compared with the figure for 2001. While improving its internal business environment to attract foreign investors, China is also encouraging its business people to go abroad. To date, more than 6,800 Chinese enterprises have established branch companies overseas. Analysts say that the steady growth of the Chinese economy will lure further overseas investment. According to Hu Angang, calculations based on the 2002 World Bank Database indicate that during the period from 1980 to 2000, when China recorded fourfold economic growth, its contribution to world economic growth ranked second behind the United States. Its contribution to the growth of global trade and services ranked third behind the United States and Japan. In view of the progress of the past 20 years, the Chinese people apparently have higher expectations for the next twenty. The recently-concluded 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) set a goal of quadrupling the 2000 GDP figure by the year 2020. This 20 year period has been described by Chinese President Jiang Zemin as "a period of important strategic opportunities, which China must seize and which offers bright prospects." It can therefore be predicted that the powerful Chinese engine will continue to accelerate and inject more energy into the world economy in the next 20 years, said Hu. "To some extent, the two decades also represent an important strategic opportunity to the rest of the world," he said. A Trustworthy country with mature Leadership The subdued cries of "the China threat," says Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, are ultimately the result of the country's performance on the world stage over the past several years. "The world has come to see that China is an important, mature, trustworthy and responsible country," he said in an interview. While visiting war-torn Afghanistan earlier this year, Tang said that he was greeted with thumbs-up and smiles from people on the street. He later learned that they were expressing their gratitude for China's generous assistance in the immediate post-war period. They were especially grateful for two cargo planes full of emergency aid which arrived shortly after a severe earthquake, Tang was told. "The Chinese mean what they say," an Afghan official said. As a matter of fact, China's "mean-what-they-say" style has long been acknowledged by its neighbors, especially following the Asian Economic Crisis in 1997, Tang said. During the crisis, the Chinese government maintained the value of its currency despite strong pressure from slumping exports and sweeping competitive devaluations in the rest of the region. The strong yuan proved to be a tangible source of stability in the regional and the world economy. While many leaders of these crisis-stricken countries are still praising China for its courage and for other assistance during the crisis, Chinese leaders emphasize that, in addition to consideration of China's overall national interests, its decision to maintain the stability of the yuan was made based on the cultural tradition "never hit others when they are down." During the past years, China has shown itself to be an important, mature and trustworthy country by properly handling a series of international crises, including the nuclear crisis in South Asia and the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11 of last year. China has also built stronger relations with neighboring countries and is actively involved in multilateral activities within the framework of the United Nations. Its proposal for a newsecurity concept based on mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation won high praise from the international community. Over the past year, China has fulfilled its commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all the major members of the organization say they are pleased with the "overall performance of China" thus far. "China is no threat because it's trustworthy and mature," Tang said. "China Opportunity" Concept Increasingly Popular The cries of "the China threat" have long been manipulated by anti-China elements to contain the growth of the most populous country. The assumption that China will pursue military expansion when it becomes strong has been negated by many scholars because it contradicts China's history and the goodwill it has shown to the world throughout the years. Although some detractors still remain, there number is declining. In November, China and the 10 ASEAN countries signed a framework agreement on comprehensive economic cooperation and on a code of conduct for the South China Sea. By cooperating with China,the ASEAN leaders have shown that they are ready to share the prosperity of their giant neighbor, observers say. In Japan, the concept of "the China opportunities" has won more and more support. Politicians and business leaders seem to be rather optimistic about the rise of China. Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro has been saying that the growth of China constitutes both an opportunity and a challenge to Japan, and Japan must seize the opportunity for common development with China. In Singapore, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has said that China's growth will have a positive impact on Singapore and on the region at large, saying "China offers immense opportunities provided we restructure our economy and encourage entrepreneurship to take advantage of them." The international business community has already shown its support for the "the China opportunity" concept by continuing to invest in the country. Among the top 500 companies across the globe, 400 have engaged themselves with China. A survey by "Fortune" magazine of the United States says that 92 percent of multinational corporations are considering establishing branch offices in China in the near future. Estimates show that, in view of the fact that about 50 billion US dollars of foreign direct investment is utilized this year, China will probably rank first in attracting foreign investment for the year 2002. The concept of China opportunity was coined by Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji in April 1999, during a speech given in Washington D.C.He called on the American people to transform their thinking from "China threat" to "China opportunity." His speech was a big success. Three years later, the "China opportunity" concept is increasingly acknowledged and accepted throughout the world. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:19:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China arrests US resident as terrorist Vanguard (Nigeria) ^ | 12-21-02 China arrests US resident for espionage Saturday, December 21, 2002 China yesterday said it had arrested missing exiled democracy activist Wang Bingzhang, a permanent US resident, for espionage, six months after he disappeared. A spokesman for the Ministry of Public Security was quoted as saying Wang was also facing charges of engaging in "violent terrorist activities" in southern Guangdong province. He was formally arrested in Guangdong on December 5, Xinhua said. "The state security department had verified that Wang, starting in the early 1980s, had struck up contact with Taiwan’s espionage organization, which paid him as he collected and stole state secrets," it said. Wang, 54, and two other democracy activists, French resident Yue Wu and US resident Zhang Qi, were reported missing on June 26. Xinhua said Yue and Zhang, a woman, had been cleared of all charges and released, although their whereabouts remain unclear. China’s admission Friday comes just days after a top US human rights and democracy official handed over a list of 298 prisoners in Chinese jails that Washington believes are being held as political prisoners and urged Beijing to review their cases. It was not immediately clear whether they were on the list. The three entered Vietnam on June 16 with valid visas and last communicated with their families on June 26 when they were near Vietnam’s border with southern China, family members have said. The China Democracy Party (CDP) has previously said it received intelligence that the trio were kidnapped at or near the Vietnam-China border, possibly by Chinese agents, the Free China Movement said in a statement. The Movement is a coalition of more than 30 Chinese pro-democracy organizations from around the world, including the CDP, an outlawed party many of whose members are either jailed in China or exiled overseas. Vietnam said in July it had no record of them entering the country. Wang, who has lived in Canada and the United States since 1982, and Yue are longtime democracy advocates. Zhang is a leader of the Zhonggong spiritual group, which is also outlawed along with the Falungong group. They all have connections with exiled Chinese opposition groups, including the CDJP, the China Labor Party and the China Democracy Party. Xinhua said the three were found tied up in Bohu Temple in the suburbs of Fangchenggang city, in south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous region by local police on July 3. It said they had been kidnapped by unspecified people on June 27 in Vietnam’s Tinh Quang Ninh and were being blackmailed for 10 million dollars. It was not clear why it took so long for Chinese security officials to work out who they were and arrest them, nor where they were held since being found. Wang earlier entered China in 1998, but was expelled after two weeks. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:20:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China Expresses Concern at Missile Defense Plan UK ^ BEIJING (AP) - China expressed cautious concern Thursday at the United States' announcement that it would develop a missile-defense program, saying the deployment of any such system ``should not undermine the security and stability of the world.'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said the Chinese government is evaluating the Bush administration's announcement. ``We worry about the possible negative impact on regional stability of a missile-defense system. We hope the relevant parties will act prudently,'' Liu said at a regular briefing, answering a question raised by a reporter for China's government-run Xinhua News Agency. ``Only through the good cooperation of the international community can we effectively solve the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,'' Liu said. ``The missile-defense system should not undermine the security and stability of the world. Neither should it undermine global and regional security.'' President Bush ordered the Pentagon on Tuesday to have ready within two years a basic system to defend American territory, troops and allies against attack by ballistic missiles. Development of missile defense systems was severely limited under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which expired in June, six months after Bush announced that Washington would withdraw from the 30-year-old agreement. Liu wouldn't say whether China would add missiles to its arsenal or change its military deployments in response to the news. ``China, in accordance with its national defense needs, will make the appropriate deployments,'' he said. Russia's Foreign Ministry issued a blistering response Wednesday to the U.S. plan, saying it would destabilize the world and lead to a ``new senseless arms race.'' Beijing is wary of any U.S. military plans that would change the region's strategic outlook, but it is loath to criticize Washington of late. Both sides have taken pains to characterize their relationship as on the upswing, and recent high-level military visits - including two in the past week - have restored defense ties cut back after a collision between a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet over the South China Sea early last year. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:21:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China hits out at U.S. missile plans cnn asia ^ | Willy Wo-Lap Lam (CNN) -- Beijing has reiterated opposition to Washington's deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, saying it will upset the "global strategic balance." China's representative at the Geneva Office of the United Nations Sha Zukang also indicated Beijing had put into place a rigorous management and control mechanism over the export of nuclear-related material. The state media on Thursday quoted Sha, a top expert on disarmament, as saying in a public function in London that "China does not approve of the development and deployment of missile defense systems that will disrupt global strategic balance and stability." In remarks apparently aimed at U.S. President George W. Bush's announcement earlier this week to deploy NMD by 2004, Sha said it was not good for certain countries to have double standards on nuclear proliferation. The senior diplomat added nuclear weapons, no matter whose, should be "comprehensively banned and thoroughly destroyed." "China has all along opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, " Sha said, adding that Beijing's policy was not to help other countries develop nuclear capacities. The comments follow Russia's "regret" at the NMD decision, saying the move could lead to a new arms race. The U.S. argues that a missile defence system is necessary to protect the country against possible attack, primarily from rogue states that could possess ballistic missiles. Development of missile defence systems was severely limited under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which expired in June, six months after Bush announced that Washington would withdraw from the 30-year old agreement. Extend defense Diplomatic analysts in Beijing said the Chinese leadership was afraid Washington would use Pyongyang's nuclear program as a pretext to extend its missile defense system to Asian allies including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Bush had cited the growing threat of North Korean missiles as a reason to expedite the deployment of the multi-billion dollar NMD system. And politicians in Japan and Taiwan have already indicated keen interest in building a joint missile-defense system with the U.S. The analysts said Sha was also countering charges carried in the American and Western media that Beijing had played a role in the nuclear weapons program of North Korea, China's traditional ally. Sources close to China's foreign-policy establishment said Chinese diplomats had in private urged Pyongyang to rein in its nuclear development program. The sources said, however, Beijing had not decided on whether to increase pressure on North Korea by threatening to cut down economic and other kinds of aid to the Kim Jong Il regime. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:21:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat (China) Subversion law to impact Taiwan Taipei Times | 12.21.02 By Cheng An-Kuo à Â�°²‡ø and Andy Hu ºúÈ«Ã�þ Saturday, Dec 21, 2002,Page 8 More than 60,000 people took to the streets of Hong Kong on Monday to protest against a planned anti-subversion law, which falls under the territory's Basic Law. Before Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule, the diplomatic wrestling between the British and Chinese governments resulted in a compromise to the effect that the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) should be responsible for legislation regulating treason, secession, sedition and subversion (as stipulated in Article 23 of the Basic Law). Just as is the case with a Constitution, therefore, implementation of the Basic Law requires additional legislation and administrative orders. However, the motives behind this piece of legislation are being questioned. The process has been met with distrust, and there are disputes over essential points in the law. This is what has caused such a strong reaction among the citizens of Hong Kong. As for motives, the question of whether Article 23 should be implemented through additional legislation or through amendments to relevant existing legislation has been disputed ever since the SAR government was created five years ago. On Sept. 24, the SAR government published a "Consultation Document on Proposals to Implement Article 23 of the Basic Law" (also known as "the blue bill"). It is generally believed that the main reason an implementation draft was proposed at that time was that Beijing demanded it. In June this year, one of China's vice premiers, Qian Qichen (Ã¥XÆäè¡), requested that the SAR government implement Article 23 as soon as possible. In a speech in July, China's president, Jiang Zemin (½­Â�ÉÃñ), stressed Hong Kong's importance for China's security and stability. The reason for this is that China worries that Hong Kong will become a place where Falun Gong and Tibetan separatists can freely express their opinions and cause instability in the Chinese interior. China also worries that dissemination of statements by Taiwanese independence forces in the Hong Kong media may be detrimental to its unification efforts. The motives for legislation, therefore, are not to be found among the needs of the Hong Kong Semi-Autonomous Region itself, but they come from central government pressure. Second, looking at the process, the Hong Kong SAR government follows the example of the British colonial government by issuing a public consultative document (the essential points of legislation) or a public white draft (the actual legislative text) three months prior to legislation to consult with the people of Hong Kong. The consultative document issued by the SAR government this time around does not include the legislative text. Democratic parties and people concerned about Article 23 legislation cannot obtain the exact meaning and implementation of terms and criminal charges from the consultative document. They are therefore suggesting that the SAR government, after completing consultation via the blue bill, once again consult with the people of Hong Kong regarding the draft text of the law using the white document. The SAR government, however, still refuses to publish a white consultative document, an attitude which causes further worries among Hong Kong's democratic parties and citizens. Taking a look at the essential points of legislation in the blue bill, the following criticisms have been raised by Hong Kong media and the public: One, the definitions of "sedition" and "subversion" are not clear: its inability to clearly define what kind of behavior or statements constitute sedition and subversion could easily lead to abuse. Two, it punches a hole in Hong Kong's Common Law: Hong Kong civil organizations proscribed by the central Chinese leadership may also be banned in the territory, which means that orders by the central Chinese leadership can extend to Hong Kong. Three, the media's freedom to report will be circumscribed: reports about Tibetan separatists and Taiwanese independence proponents may be deemed illegal "seditious" behavior, and would lead to the media being silenced. Four, it diminishes the regulations in the Basic Law: Article 23 of the Basic Law only mentions regulations restricting Hong Kong and foreign political organizations and groups, but the blue bill adds regulations regarding Taiwanese political organizations, thus expanding the extent of restrictions. If the SAR government really does go against public opinion and forces the passage of legislation related to Article 23 of the Basic Law (laid down according to the current set of main legislative guidelines), not only would freedom of speech within Hong Kong be restricted, but it would also have an effect on Taiwan: First, to avoid sensitive issues, even fewer statements by Taiwanese government officials would make it into the Hong Kong media. Second, the operations of Taiwan's representative organization in Hong Kong could at any time be in violation of Hong Kong law. Third, exchanges between Taiwan and Hong Kong would be restricted, and the freedom of exchange between social organizations and political groups in Hong Kong and Taiwan would shrink. Most importantly, in the past, Hong Kong always filled the function of initiating democratic opening in China. The implementation of the Basic Law would further weaken democracy in Hong Kong. In the Chinese world, Taiwan would become lonely in its pursuit of liberal democracy for China. Cheng An-kuo is a former general manager of the Chung Hwa Travel Service in Hong Kong. Andy Hu is an assistant research fellow with the National Policy Foundation. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:22:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Reunification = war Taipei: China wants to reunify by 2010: Cabinet redicts aggression, military threats from Beijing WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, December 18, 2002 | By Jon Dougherty China is likely to become more aggressive and may even employ military threats in a bid to reunify with Taiwan by 2010, says a study released by the Taiwanese Cabinet's Research, Development and Evaluation Commission. "Taiwan shouldn't rule out the possibility that China will set the timetable to unify with – or stage military intimidation against – Taiwan by 2010," said the 20-page report, according to the Taipei Times. The report said internal struggles within China could cause Beijing to become more aggressive as it works to become one of the world's superpowers. That tension, the report said, may also include attempts to expand its boundaries. In response, the commission recommended expanding and strengthening the functions of the national security council. Taiwan government offices "should work together to integrate the resources and elevate the functions of agencies responsible for public safety in response to China's increasing threat," said the report. Also, the panel said Taipei should spend more money to beef up intelligence-gathering capabilities, such as investing in new technologies and stepping up training of intelligence personnel. Chinese President Jiang Zemin refused to rule out the use of force to reunify with Taiwan in remarks to the Communist Party's 16th Congress, which opened Nov. 8. But he stressed the threat is aimed at "foreign forces" seeking to interfere over the status of the island. "Our position of never undertaking to renounce the use of force is not directed at our Taiwan compatriots," Jiang said. "It is aimed at the foreign forces' attempts to interfere in China's reunification and the Taiwan separatist forces' schemes for Taiwan independence." National unification is one of three "major historical tasks" of the Communist Party and the Chinese people, said Jiang. "No one is more eager than we are to resolve the Taiwan question through peaceful means ... (but) the Taiwan question must not be allowed to drag on indefinitely," said the Chinese leader. As WorldNetDaily reported last year, Beijing's military leaders also have predicted war with Taiwan by 2006. Chinese army Gen. Zhang Wannian, vice chairman of China's Central Military Command, told attendees at the Year 2000 PLA Equipment Conference in Guangzhou that "during the period of [China's] 10th five-year plan, it is certain that war will break out in the Taiwan Strait." That five-year plan began in 2001. Beijing has also been stepping up its military modernization plans by acquiring new fighters, warships, submarines and ballistic missiles. Also, China's Central Military Command has requested and received budget increases several times since the mid-1990s. Despite China's technological deficit, CIA Director George Tenet told Congress Feb. 6 that Beijing still poses a threat to the U.S. and Taiwan. "Over the past year, Beijing's military training exercises have taken on an increasingly real-world focus, emphasizing rigorous practice in operational capabilities and improving the military's actual ability to use force," Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Noting that Taiwan was still the focus of China's military buildup and modernization, Tenet said his agency believes that while the Sept. 11 attacks "changed the context of China's approach" to Washington, it didn't change Beijing's overall goal of achieving military superiority over its smaller neighbor. China also seeks to build enough military power to at least be able to prevent the U.S. from successfully defending Taiwan in the event of a future conflict. China has repeatedly said it would reunify with Taiwan by force if necessary, he said. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:24:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China Prepares to Invade Taiwan Geopolitical Global Analysis ^ | 12/10/02 | J.R. Nyquist On Nov. 26 a Pravda headline asked, [is] “Beijing Waiting for U.S.-Iraq War?â€� The article is about U.S. concerns that China might strike Taiwan if the U.S. attacks Saddam Hussein in the Middle East. (1) Is this a realistic possibility? The future remains uncertain, but an invasion of Taiwan remains high on Beijing’s list of “things to do.â€� The Communists in the Far East are restless. In late October several warships from China’s North Sea Fleet sailed east of Taiwan. The move was part of an ongoing and complex military exercise in the South China Sea. Taiwan’s defense minister, Tang Yao-ming, said the exercises were “unprecedented.â€� Addressing the Taiwanese (Republic of China) legislature, Defense Minister Tang begged legislators to purchase four U.S. Kidd-class destroyers. In late November the Chinese used bad weather to mask amphibious exercises in the South China Sea. This was the fourth straight year the Chinese military practiced a coastal invasion, and it was the second year Chinese commanders succeeded in hiding their amphibious capabilities and new combined arms tactics from U.S. intelligence. As for human spies and infiltrators getting a look at Chinese capabilities, the Washington Times alleges that U.S. government policy “limits conducting human spying operations in China to avoid upsetting Beijing.â€� (2) On its side, China is aggressively scouting the waters around Taiwan. Since March Chinese spy boats have been spotted along Taiwan’s eastern shore on several occasions. Hong Kong’s Ming Bao newspaper reported that Beijing’s navy is following a special directive to “make preparations for military struggle against Taiwan.â€� This directive was issued last March by President Jiang Zemin. On Monday the People’s Liberation Army “rebuffedâ€� U.S. questions about Chinese arms sales to rogue states during high-level strategic talks. The Chinese refused to renounce the use of force against Taiwan; they also refused to limit the export of missile and nuclear technology to “axis of evilâ€� countries by denying that such exports are taking place. According to the Washington Times, one U.S. official said: “The continued proliferation by China of nuclear, chemical and missile-related materials and technologies remains a problem.â€� (3) In violation of its international commitments, China has long been exporting weapons of mass destruction to terrorist regimes. U.S. officials are often too timid, perhaps too sensitive to U.S. economic interests to consistently enforce laws that would activate sanctions against Chinese companies. The Clinton administration briefly imposed sanctions on Chinese companies on two occasions in the 1990s. The first occasion involved missile sales to Pakistan and the second occasion involved chemical weapon sales to Iran. At the time no sanctions were imposed on for China’s exporting germ warfare equipment and cruise missiles to Iran. (4) Is there a connection between China’s military buildup and its exports to rogue states? There may be a strategic connection. It is no mean coincidence that Iraq’s new air defense system was installed with Chinese assistance. Meanwhile, China’s military buildup opposite Taiwan has continued for four years. This buildup involves the deployment of hundreds of short and medium range ballistic missiles. According to USAF Major Mark A. Stokes, an air attaché at the U.S. embassy in Beijing from 1992 to 1995, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is preparing a powerful first strike against Taiwan. In a report issued in 1999, Stokes wrote: “The People’s Republic of China, is developing one of the most daunting conventional theater missile challenges in the world.â€� He further stated: “A large arsenal of highly accurate and lethal theater missiles serves as a ‘trump card,’ a revolutionary departure from the PLA of the past. The PLA’s theater missiles and a supporting space-based surveillance network are emerging not only as a tool of psychological warfare, but as a potentially devastating weapon of military utility.â€� (5) Surprise attack is part of the Chinese war plan against Taiwan. Stokes’ 1999 report said the PLA was planning to use 400 missiles in an opening volley that would decapitate Taiwan’s political and military leadership, forestalling any effort to preemptively disrupt China’s missile forces with air strikes. Targets would include Taiwan’s defense ministry and the presidential palace. In terms of its plan, Beijing is respectful but not fearful of U.S. military intervention. In a 1999 strategic directive from China’s Central Military Commission to all corps-level commands, China’s strategic leadership stated that nuclear war with America was an option because America would recoil in horror after the loss of one city while China had the toughness to prevail despite much heavier losses. It is in this context that North Korea’s war preparations and Russia’s friendly overtures to China must be viewed. A regional war in the Middle East involving U.S. forces might tempt China to launch an attack. The North Korean military buildup is significant in this regard as well. On Dec. 5 the U.S. government reminded the North Koreans that they had promised not to develop nuclear weapons. But the North Koreans, backed and supplied by China, have thrown defiance in the face of the Americans. After 1994 the United States gave a great deal of aid (especially food and fuel aid) to North Korea on the basis of Pyongyang’s promises. Now that North Korea has broken those promises, true to Communist form, tensions are on the rise. Last week the United States government described the situation in North Korea as “very serious.â€� As if to make matters worse, the North Koreans recently admitted to having operational nuclear weapons. In October they admitted to secretly enriching their uranium stockpile for the construction of additional nuclear weapons. Sino-Russian relations lie at the core of the emerging Far East crisis. Conventional analysts may think this an odd fact, but nothing seems to have changed in the region since the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, except that China and North Korea are stronger than ever and armed with mass destruction weapons – and Russia is working closely to build up China’s military potential. According to Dr. Alexandr Nemets, writing in Newsmax, Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided “to use all means and tools for the expansion of weapon exports to China.â€� Russia’s defense industry is now tied to China’s military, and is China’s leading supplier of advanced weapons. Last month the Chinese and Russian foreign ministers, along with President Putin, decided to transform the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into a military bloc. (This organization combines the former Soviet states of Central Asia with China and Russia.) Russia is absolutely committed to modernizing the Chinese armed forces, and has promised to deliver shipments of SU-30 MKK fourth generation Russian fighters to China. The list of Russian military items being shipped to China is very large, and very worrisome. (6) (1) Pravda, “Beijing Waiting for U.S.-Iraq War?â€� http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/11/26/39994.html (2) Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, “Inside the Ring,â€� http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021129-7413878.htm (3) Bill Gertz, Washington Times, “China's Arms Sales, Stance on Taiwan Chill Talks With U.S." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021210-81002548.htm (4) Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II, Red Dragon Rising: Communist China’s Military Threat to America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1999 ), p. 117. (5) Bill Gertz, The China Threat: How the People’s Republic Targets America (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2000), p. 189. (6) Alexandr Nemets, “From Bad to Worse,â€� http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/27/163850.shtml Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:25:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China donates $2.5m to Palestinians Jang ^ | 12-12/2002 BEIJING: China has donated US$2.5 million to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian National Authority to repair houses destroyed by Israeli forces, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Wednesday. Xinhua said the agreement was signed in Gaza city on Tuesday by Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath and China's representative to the Palestinian authority, Wu Jiuhong. "China has been supporting the Palestinians economically and politically since the early 1960s," Wu was quoted as saying. He said China will exert "every possible effort to help improve the life of the Palestinian people." China has traditionally backed Palestinian calls for a homeland and criticized Israeli military operations against Palestinian civilian and political targets. However, Beijing also tries to appear evenhanded in its dealings with the region, calling on both sides to abandon violence and negotiate a peace settlement. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:26:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat CHINA OPENS PANDORA'S NUCLEAR BOX The Jamestown Foundation ^ | December 10, 2002 | Thomas Woodrow The transfer and sale of Chinese-origin nuclear weapons and missile technologies has started a spiraling cycle of proliferation with grave consequences for security in South and East Asia. Beijing has made nuclear and missile transfers directly and indirectly through proxy states such as Pakistan and North Korea, disseminating through them to other nations including Syria, Iran and Libya. This Chinese-led proliferation has kick-started a nuclear arms race involving India, Pakistan and North Korea. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will soon join in, to be inevitably followed by Iran, Syria and others. China's direct and indirect assistance to North Korea is especially worrying, as Pyongyang is designing an intercontinental-range ballistic missile with a nuclear mission to target the United States. In October 2002, North Korea revealed that it was continuing to secretly develop nuclear weapons despite promising not to do so as part of its 1994 agreement with the United States. The nuclear weapons technology involved--including large numbers of centrifuge machines to produce weapons-grade uranium--has its origins in Chinese assistance to Pakistan's nuclear programs. It seems most unlikely that Islamabad would have passed on Chinese-origin nuclear technology in such quantities to North Korea without Beijing's knowledge and consent. Chinese technicians working in Pakistan's nuclear and missile facilities would have notified Beijing in any event. China has long historical links with North Korea's missile programs. The Chinese themselves have typified their relationship with North Korea as "closer than gums and teeth." In the 1970s, North Korea received Chinese missile technology of Soviet design. This assistance was furthered by the joint development of the Chinese DF-61, a 1,000 km-range nuclear missile that was to be turned over to Pyongyang. Although this program ended in 1978 when its Chinese sponsor fell from favor, by that time North Korea had acquired valuable design assistance from the Chinese. This assistance helped Pyongyang reverse-engineer a version of the Scud missile it had purchased from Egypt in 1976. North Korea arranged for Iranian funding of its indigenous Scud B missile program in the mid-1980s; these links with Tehran have continued to the present day. North Korea also served as a conduit for Chinese transfers of Silkworm anti-ship missiles to Iran in the late 1980s to avoid U.S. censure of Beijing. One 1988 transfer reportedly included eighty Chinese Silkworms and forty North Korean Scud-Bs as part of the same shipment. Although Beijing has stepped up its political and economic relations with South Korea, there is evidence of ongoing military cooperation with North Korean missile and nuclear programs. In 1997, a "joint team" of Chinese and North Korean technicians was reportedly sent to Iran to assist in Tehran's ballistic missile efforts. The Iranian Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles are direct beneficiaries of North Korean and Chinese missile programs. North Korea likely has used the Iranian missile tests for its own missile program development to circumvent Pyongyang's "promise" not to conduct missile launches (the Shahab-3 is the No Dong; the planned Shahab-5 is the Taepodong-2). There is other evidence of Chinese assistance to North Korean missile programs. A 1993 test launch of the 1,000-km range No Dong missile from North Korea evidently involved no telemetry, reportedly a signature of some Chinese missile tests. In 1994, a missile mockup of the long-range Taepodong-2 appeared to resemble the Chinese CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missile. A 1995 press report claimed that some U.S. intelligence officials believed China was both assisting North Korea to develop a family of long-range ballistic missiles and training some 200 Korean missile engineers in China. That family of long-range missiles is, of course, the Taepodong, which Pyongyang successfully launched in August 1998--ten years before the CIA believed possible--on a trajectory that carried it over Japan to impact near the Hawaiian Islands. The miniaturization of a nuclear package, advanced guidance components and stage separation mechanisms are critical to North Korea's efforts to develop a nuclear-capable Taepodong-class missile with a range to target the United States. These are the areas where Chinese assistance is likely occurring, possibly under the guise of satellite-launch assistance. Beijing's willingness to sell and transfer critical components of WMD technology makes China directly or indirectly a key component of the global proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. While Beijing may have had its political reasons for assisting Pakistan and North Korea, in doing so it has opened the Pandora's box of a regional nuclear arms race. The Indian Defense Ministry has publicly stated it sees China as India's primary strategic threat; New Delhi is designing its longer-range Agni missiles specifically for nuclear deterrence of China. Faced with ongoing North Korean and Chinese nuclear and missile efforts, Japan will undoubtedly activate its own nascent nuclear weapons program and start to devote some of its launches from Kagashima for military purposes. South Korea already has a half-hidden missile program underway. Taiwan developed medium-range missiles in the 1980s and was well on its way towards a nuclear capability when the United States pressured it to stop some twenty years ago. Taipei, too, likely will rethink its need for a nuclear deterrent. The nuclear race is also spreading to Iran, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may be funding much of Pakistan's missile and nuclear efforts and could become a nuclear power literally overnight through an airlift of missiles. Why has China continued to proliferate in the face of such obviously negative consequences? By spreading WMD technology throughout Asia, Beijing is only helping to create the regional instability it claims it wants to avoid, and is fulfilling its own paranoia of encirclement as Asia becomes increasingly wary of Beijing's willingness to throw its economic and military weight around. China's mistakes can be partly attributed to simple Han hubris, especially in its relations with India, which Beijing regards as an inferior culture. Mostly, however, it is political blundering, spurred on by shortsighted greed, which has led China to start an arms race it did not want. China armed Pakistan to the nuclear teeth without considering the Indian response. It assisted North Korea, either directly or indirectly, seemingly without concern that this might cause Japan to rethink its nuclear option and more fully embrace the U.S. NMD initiative. Perhaps Beijing plans to use Pyongyang as a lever against Washington in the event of a decision to launch an attack against Taipei. In any event, China's rampant proliferation of WMD has created an arms race that cannot now be stopped. Beijing will soon reap the rewards of its ill-considered policies as India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan accelerate or reactivate indigenous missile and nuclear weapons programs. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:27:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat US at odds with China over Taiwan SECURITY: In high-level military talks, the US said China's missiles were a destabilizing force in the Taiwan Strait, while China blamed US weapons sales By Charles Snyder STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON WITH AP Wednesday, Dec 11, 2002,Page 1 The US complained to China on Monday about Beijing's military buildup across the Taiwan Strait during a day-long military consultative meeting in Washington, the first such meeting since the EP-3 incident in April last year, and the highest-level military-to-military exchange between the two countries since George W. Bush became president. The two sides apparently did not discuss Chinese President Jiang Zemin's reported recent offer to reduce the number of missiles targeting Taiwan if the US scaled back its arms sales to the country. The talks resulted from the October summit between Bush and Jiang and represent an effort to improve bilateral relations in the wake of Sept. 11. "They were real discussions. They were not just stilted set pieces," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith told reporters after the talks. "We came away with some additional understanding of the personalities on the other side and the ideas on the other side." On Taiwan, however, the talks were not so harmonious. "We said that we thought the [Chinese missile buildup across from Taiwan] is threatening and appears to be designed to, you know, coerce and intimidate, and that is not the right approach to reducing risks and tensions regarding Taiwan," Feith said. But Feith refused to comment on reports of a possible US-China deal to reduce arms on both sides of the Strait. He also said that the US plan to sell Taiwan diesel submarines and other advanced weapons systems "didn't come up." There have been reports that during the summit Jiang suggested the missiles-for-arms-sales exchange, reports apparently confirmed recently by Chen Chien-jen, the head of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in Washington. "There is no damage done to the Taiwan people by missile deployment," Liu said at a regular briefing, answering a Taiwanese reporter's question. "The Chinese side has the right to military deployment in its own territory. What we need to fend off is Taiwan's independence forces, Liu said. "The Chinese side's position on US arms sales to Taiwan is consistent: We oppose it under any pretext. It is a violation of China's `one China' policy and damages bilateral relations," Liu said. In Washington, Feith said that the proposal itself had not come up, "but the topic of China's missile buildup across from Taiwan did. We raised it." He said the topic came up "in the context of discussing actions that do not contribute to the stability of the area." While no sort of quid pro quo came up, Feith said, "The Chinese commented about the US defense relationship with Taiwan when we commented about the Chinese missile build-up across from Taiwan. That's fairly standard." Feith headed the US side in the day-long discussions. The Chinese side was headed by General Xiong Guangkai, the deputy chief of the Chinese general staff, and the man who several years ago was quoted as threatening to take out Los Angeles if the US came to Taiwan's defense against China. Feith said that Taiwan "headed" the issues of disagreement between the two sides in the talks. "On Taiwan," he said, "the US reaffirmed our position on Taiwan. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, China did not renounce the use of force to resolve the Taiwan conflict," he said. He made the comment a day after Beijing released its latest biannual report on its defense structure and policies, in which it again refused to renounce the use of force. The report, titled "China's National Defense in 2002," stridently condemned Taiwan independence forces and said China "will not forswear the use of force." "China's armed forces will unswervingly defend the country's sovereignty and unity, and have the resolve as well as the capability to check any separatist act," the report said. Feith declined to respond to that statement. Holding up a copy of the report, he said that he had been handed the document only a few hours earlier by the Chinese delegation, and had not had a chance to read it. The talks covered a range of issues including North Korea's nuclear buildup, Iraq, weapons proliferation, China's military modernization and regional stability. Chinese officials also presented a detailed proposal for military-to-military contacts with the US, Feith said. He said it was too soon to offer a US reaction to the Chinese proposals. The Pentagon wants the exchanges to be more than just port calls and photo opportunities, Feith said. "If the exchanges are structured properly, they will serve our interests, our common interests, providing insights, to reduce the possibility of mistakes, of misunderstanding." Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:28:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China begins stealth fighter project Space Daily ^ | 12-10-2002 | LONDON (AFP) China begins stealth fighter project: report LONDON (AFP) Dec 10, 2002 China is developing a "heavyweight" fighter aircraft with stealth characteristics, the current issue of Jane's Defence Weekly reported Tuesday, citing a senior Chinese aviation source. Shenyang Aircraft Co. has been selected to head research and development of the fourth-generation fighter, the industry news magazine said, quoting the source from the China Aviation Industry Corp. I. The development of engines and weapon sub-systems for the fighter -- tentatively dubbed the J-X, and with some of the design traits of the stealthy US F/A-22 warplane -- has been underway for some time. China Aviation Industry sources would not speculate on when the fighter might make its first test flight, but Jane's said a debut could be expected around the end of the decade. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-24 01:28:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat N. Korea seeks aid from China on nukes THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | December 9, 2002 | Bill Gertz North Korea is trying to buy a chemical from China used in the production of nuclear-weapons fuel that U.S. intelligence officials say is a sign the communist government in Pyongyang is continuing to secretly develop nuclear arms, The Washington Times has learned. North Korean government agents were tracked by U.S. intelligence to several Chinese companies that make the chemical, known as tributyl phosphate, or TBP, said officials familiar with classified intelligence reports. "This shows they are moving ahead with their uranium [nuclear-weapons] program," an intelligence official said. The chemical has commercial uses, but U.S. intelligence agencies believe the North Koreans want the TBP as part of the uranium-based nuclear-arms development program, which the CIA estimates is about two years away from being able to produce fuel for nuclear bombs. The TBP "will be used to turn spent [nuclear] fuel into weapons-grade uranium," the official said. A CIA spokesman declined to comment. The Chinese companies involved in the North Korean chemical deal were not identified. However, Chinese companies have been sanctioned by the Bush administration at least three times in the past year for similar weapons-related sales to Iran and Pakistan. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence agencies also have detected recent activity at North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear facility that may signal the communist government in Pyongyang is preparing to restart the reactor, which was shut as part of a 1994 agreement, an intelligence official said. A State Department intelligence bureau report made public last month stated that North Korea has not reloaded the 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon and had stopped construction of larger 50-megawatt and 200-megawatt reactors at the site. "It is not producing fuel at the fuel fabrication facility at Yongbyon, and it has forgone reprocessing spent fuel," the bureau said in written answers to questions from the Senate intelligence committee. North Korean government officials in October confirmed U.S. intelligence reports that the government is developing uranium-based nuclear arms, despite promises to freeze nuclear-weapons development under the 1994 agreement. The disclosure led the United States to cut off fuel oil shipments last month. The oil was meant to help North Korean energy shortfalls until the electrical-power-generating reactors are built during the next several years. North Korea responded to the cutoff by announcing that the 1994 accord was nullified. Asked about the North Korean nuclear-arms program on Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he discussed the issue with South Korean Defense Minister Lee Jun during meetings at the Pentagon. North Korea's continuing efforts to build nuclear weapons in violation of arms agreements will be a topic of discussion in talks in the region by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who is visiting the South Pacific this week. Mr. Armitage will make stops in South Korea, Japan, Australia and China. On Friday, the State Department announced that a year-end meeting of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization would be postponed until next month. The meeting of the organization, which deals with energy issues in North Korea, had been scheduled to discuss how the United States, Japan and South Korea would respond to North Korea's nuclear program. The Bush administration is waiting until after South Korea holds presidential elections, set for Dec. 19, before deciding how to deal with the growing nuclear showdown with the North. The administration is especially concerned that the candidate of the ruling Millennium Democratic Party, which has taken a conciliatory line toward the North Korean nuclear-arms program, will be elected. Diplomatically, the administration is working within the 41-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to curb sales of weapons goods, including TBP, to North Korea. "There's no question but that the situation in North Korea is very serious," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters last week. "They have violated several agreements and proceeded on a very dangerous course." Nuclear-arms specialists say TBP is used in purifying uranium and also can be used for making new plutonium fuel at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. TBP also is used for reprocessing spent plutonium fuel. Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif., said the reported North Korean chemical dealing could mean several things. "Depending on their timing, these activities could signal that, in response to the new confrontation with the United States, North Korea is getting ready to exploit the demise of the Agreed Framework," Mr. Spector said. The 1994 Agreed Framework was supposed to have halted all work on North Korea's nuclear weapons in exchange for the United States, Japan and South Korea providing the North with two nuclear-electrical-power reactors. Mr. Spector said the North Koreans may be sending signals through the attempted purchase of TBP as "a way for Pyongyang to turn up the heat a little, without going to the brink." Mr. Spector said he believes that as long as North Korea allows nuclear inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the Yongbyon nuclear facility, "the North Koreans want a deal, not a blowup." North Korea announced last week that it had rejected a request from the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities, including those at Yongbyon. The international nuclear agency announced Nov. 29 that North Korea should immediately permit nuclear inspections and "give up any nuclear-weapons program, expeditiously and in a verifiable manner." "The [North Korean] government cannot accept the Nov. 29 resolution of the IAEA board of governors in any case and there is no change in its principled stand on the nuclear issue," North Korea's central news agency said, citing a Dec. 2 letter from Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun. President Bush had said North Korea is one of three "axis of evil" states. The others are Iraq and Iran. The CIA released an unclassified assessment of the North Korean nuclear-arms program last month. The agency concluded that North Korea could build several plutonium bombs right away and add one bomb every year until 2005 if the Agreed Framework collapses. Beginning in 2005, North Korea could begin large-scale production of nuclear weapons — up to 50 bombs a year. Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2002-12-25 16:18:00 216.196.170.17 Re: The China Threat Clark, Let me just say thanks for actually taking the time to thoroughly read the Ground War thread! It is a bit of a relief to meet a Clark that isn’t stone deaf! LOL. I think you summed it up nicely when you said: quote: China can only be dealt with in one way, counter every move they make, resist, with force, every act of aggression, annihilate them if they attack us directly and, most importantly, make sure they have no doubts about our will and ability to do so. It just doesn’t look like that’s the way things are or will be handled. People are too infatuated with the money market that China supposedly presents. Rick, Thanks for posting all those stories! Saves me a little bit of time. Here’s the latest on China: - A Conversation With Friends, Part I - A Conversation With Friends, Part II - Al Gore\'s Stealth Trip to China - Amnesty Says Two Chinese Internet Users Were Executed - Beijing Cracks Down On Internet Users - Beijing Happy With Increased China-U.S. Military Ties - Book On Chinese Nuke Spying - Bush Must Not Encourage Jiang Zemin - ChiCom General "Nuke The US" Xiong Here For US-China "Defense Talks" - China Has Surveillance Base In Myanmar, India Claims - China Involved In Pakistan-North Korea Nuke Deal: Experts - China Pushes Homegrown (Computer) Chip - China: The World\'s Factory - China To Build Trust In New Security Policy - China To Replace US As World\'s No.1 FDI Recipient - China Welcomes US Proposal To Cut Non-Agricultural Product Tariffs - China, Iran Share Missile Know-How - China\'s PLA Enlists Capitalist Competition - China\'s Security Stance - China\'s Unsuccessful Missile Diplomacy - China\'s War Preparations - Chinese General Told Threat Against U.S. Unacceptable - Chinese Stealth Fighter Plans Revealed - Chinese-Box Approach To International Conflict - Drudge: Chi-Com General Who Threatened Los Angeles Refusing To Meet With Condi Rice - Drudge: Condi Rice Rebukes China\'s Xiong On Nuke Threat To L.A. - God and China - Gold Rush Starts In Beijing - Gore In Funding Flap In Red China: Ambassador Holbrooke Defends Ex-V.P. - Intrigue Surrounds Gore Trip To China - Hawks Press Bush On Hong Kong Security Law - High-Tech Rail Line Key To Shanghai\'s Mega-City Dream - Hong Kong Under Threat - Hour of Delight? Or of Bitterness? - Is China\'s Missile Offer Genuine? - Israel Helping China Build New Fighter Jet - North Korea, Pakistan, China - New Missile Threat to America - Overseas Chinese: How Powerful Are They? - Panel To Probe China\'s Nuclear-Related Sales - Pentagon Study Finds China Preparing For War With U.S - Red General and the First Lady - Shanghai Set To Become Plane Manufacturer - Shenzhou-4 Blastoff Within Fortnight - [Before 1 Jan \'03] - Sino-US Trade Imbalance Should Be Solved Through Development - The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat - The First Cloning Superpower: Inside China\'s Race To Become The Clone Capital Of The World - The US Wants China To Reconsider - U.S. Admiral Due in Beijing for Military Exchange - U.S. and Chinese Sign Agreement on Technology-Based Economic Relations - U.S. Concerned Over China\'s WTO Progress - U.S. Fears China Won’t Live Up To WTO Duties - U.S. Kicks Off Taiwan Submarine Competition - UN Official: China Becoming a \'People Superpower\' - US Activists Boycott Goods Made In China U.S. Refuses Chinese Missile Deal - US Says It Won\'t Sell Out Taiwan For Support - US-Taiwanese Military Relations: Strategic Ambiguity - Warships, Subs Are In The Pipeline For Taiwan - Xiong Guangkai To Attend China-Us Vice-Ministerial Defense Consultation Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-30 02:47:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat 2002 Report # 20 November 20, 2002 THE REAL CHINA SCANDAL The American public first learned in 1999 that the People’s Republic of China had acquired classified data on seven U.S. nuclear warheads plus several intercontinental ballistic missiles. For many, China’s successes recalled the Soviet penetration of the World War II Manhattan Project. A former CIA spy catcher, Paul Redmond, ranked the damage above that caused by FBI agent Robert Hanssen and CIA’s Aldrich Ames, both long-time Soviet spies. Redmond argued that whereas they had severely damaged our intelligence capabilities, Chinese nuclear espionage could enable China to threaten our obliteration. Unlike the Hanssen/Ames cases, however, the elite media have downplayed Chinese nuclear espionage. In a way, it was reminiscent of the efforts of the left to refute the evidence that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and more recently J. Robert Oppenheimer, the top scientist in the Manhattan Project, had helped the Soviet Union get what was supposed to be our most carefully guarded secret-how to build an atomic bomb. In the Chinese spying case, much of the media have downplayed the seriousness of nuclear espionage and have not demanded that those responsible be found and brought to justice. After the Chinese nuclear espionage story broke on March 6, 1999, National Security Advisor Samuel Berger and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson repeatedly confirmed the losses on tele-vision. Berger said on Meet the Press, “There is no question that they’ve [the Chinese] benefitted from this.â€� Richardson said on CNN Crossfire, “Yes, we know for a fact that the missile technology secrets came from the Los Alamos nuclear lab.â€� The CIA published a declassified version of an assessment that confirmed that the Chinese had stolen U.S. secrets on nuclear warheads and missile reentry vehicles. And the “Cox Reportâ€� further expanded these revelations in late May 1999. Yet, by the end of summer, the Clinton White House was celebrating the disappearance of the story from the media. The New York Times had “scoopedâ€� most other media outlets by exposing the Clinton administration’s mishandling of the investigation and the need for security reforms. The White House relied primarily on the Washington Post to knock down the espionage story. While the Times coverage has been harshly criticized, the Post’s reporting has escaped scrutiny altogether even though its reporting shifted the coverage from the spy story to allegations of racism and ethnic profiling. Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb covered the story for the Post. Loeb, the junior partner, was relatively new on that beat. Pincus’s career with the Post stretched back to 1975. Prior to that he had served as an investigator for Senator J. William Fulbright, D-Ark., on the Foreign Relations Committee, and then spent three years as editor of the New Republic. Pincus is part of the “activist media,â€� where opinions and solutions often substitute for facts. He once said at a conference that it was his job to “cure something we find to be wrong.â€� Until the late 1980s, he focused on nuclear arms control; “activismâ€� on this beat generally meant supporting arms control agreements regardless of the impact on U.S. national security. He co-wrote and helped produce anti-nuclear television documentaries in the 1980s at the height of the “nuclear freezeâ€� campaign. His articles consistently warned of dire consequences should the U.S. abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and he has blamed the U.S. for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Cozy With The CIA Pincus has had a long relationship with the CIA. Herbert Romerstein, a veteran investigator of Soviet subversion, disinformation and espionage, says Pincus and Gloria Steinem attended a Communist International Youth Festival in Vienna in 1959, with funds provided by the CIA. The CIA financed at least one more trip for Pincus in 1960. He has said that he rejected a job offer from CIA. During the Clinton years, Pincus enjoyed access to high-ranking CIA officials. He consistently portray-ed the Agency’s leadership in the most favorable light-as long as that leadership came from within the Democratic Party. He has been particularly kind to George Tenet, a Clinton appointee who, has been held over by George W. Bush. In mid-May 2002, in the midst of widespread criticism of the Agency’s performance before 9/11, Pincus portrayed increases to the intelligence community’s budget as indicative of the “growing confidence Congress and Bush have placed in CIA Director George J. Tenet.â€� During the CIA-FBI “leak warâ€� over which agency’s mistakes were most responsible for the 9/11 disaster, Pincus repeatedly portrayed Tenet and the CIA in the most favorable light. The Pincus-Tenet relationship probably dates back to the mid-1980s. Tenet got his start in Washington as a Capitol Hill aide to Senator John Heinz; after Heinz’s death, he moved to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, working for the ranking member, Senator Patrick Leahy. Tenet moved up to become staff director when the Democrats regained control of the Senate and David Boren took over the chairmanship of the committee. Boren and Tenet ran many of the Senate’s Iran-Contra investigations, portrayed as a Republican scandal. Pincus wrote stories about the CIA’s involvement in the scandal, based apparently on a steady stream of leaks from the Democrats. A Friend Of Bill’s Pincus has close personal links to the Clintons. His wife, Ann, is a native of Little Rock and, for a time, his son, Ward, was a reporter for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. He claims an “association with Arkansans over the past 30 years,â€� and says that through these connections, he and his wife befriended the late Vincent Foster. They were among the “family friendsâ€� who gathered at Foster’s home on July 20, 1993 after he was found shot to death in Ft. Marcy Park. Pincus was the first to suggest that Foster had cracked under the pressure of his job as Deputy White House Counsel. None of his co-workers had seen any sign of depression, and President Clinton had said, “we will never knowâ€� why he killed himself. Six days after his death, a forged note suggesting he was depressed was allegedly found in his brief case. It had been searched previously. That same year, Ann Pincus became a high-ranking Clinton political appointee at the U.S. Information Agency. Later, when USIA was folded into the State Department, she became a senior official in State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His other son, Andrew, became General Counsel of the Commerce Department in 1997, just as the campaign finance scandal was unfolding. Beginning that year, Commerce came under increasing fire for liberalizing high-technology exports to China, especially satellites, allegedly in return for contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Pincus wrote a number of articles refuting those allegations that were similar to his later coverage of the Chinese nuclear espionage scandal. An official at the Washington Post described Pincus as “a friend of Bill's.â€� He said that the couple were frequent guests at Camp David and had attended formal White House dinners for visiting foreign dignitaries. In 1995,“Reliable Source,â€� the Post’s gossip column, reported that the Clintons had attended a dinner party at the Pincus home. Despite the obvious conflict of interest, the Post assigned Pincus to cover two of Clinton’s most damaging national security scandals. The President benefited greatly from this friendship. Walter Pincus had written one of the earliest stories on Chinese espionage in 1999. The headline read, “U.S. Cracking Down on Chinese Designs on Nuclear Data.â€� The story had all the basic facts, but Pincus was careful to shield Clinton from any criticism. He would later say that he had considerable difficulty persuading his editors to publish this article. But after the New York Times picked up the story on March 6, 1999, Jackson Diehl, then the Post’s assistant managing editor for national news, pressed Pincus and Loeb to find a different angle on the story. Initially, their coverage stuck to three basic themes. The Three Themes First, they consistently wrote that the Chinese espionage, if indeed any had occurred, was of little value to the PRC nuclear weapons program. Government assessments of the espionage’s contribution to the development of Chinese nuclear forces or the potential impact on U.S. national security were all based on “worse,â€� later changed to “worstâ€� case scenarios. Second, they put the blame on long-standing security vulnerabilities at the Energy Department’s nuclear labs, the scene of many of the Chinese intelligence successes. A White House report issued in mid-summer 1999 had delivered a devastating but deserved critique of the Energy Department’s security record over the past two decades. The report mildly rebuked the Clinton administration for not reacting sooner, but praised its effort to correct the security problems. Pincus and Loeb claimed that the Clinton White House had been the first to mandate reforms of Energy, which was a half-truth at best. Late in the first President Bush’s term, some measures were taken to reform security after an early Chinese espionage case had been uncovered at one of the labs. But these measures were brushed aside when Clinton took over in 1993. Third, they portrayed this as yet another in a string of partisan Republican efforts to “getâ€� Bill Clinton. News of the scandal began to unfold just after the Senate had failed to convict Clinton on impeachment charges. At one point, Pincus wrote that the allegations were only coming from “some members of Congress,â€� whom he blamed for “seriously strained U.S.-Chinese relations. This despite the recent U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, a mistake that was widely attributed to bad CIA intelligence. Convenient Anonymous Sources Throughout, Pincus and Loeb relied almost exclusively on “anonymous sourcesâ€� to debunk the Chinese espionage allegations. Loeb later claimed that he had discovered numerous “people in the Clinton administration who had first-hand knowledge of the case and at Los Alamos who had information on the case were dubiousâ€� about these allegations. Since Sandy Berger and Bill Richardson were both publicly confirming that espionage had occurred, it is not clear who Loeb was talking to, at least in official Washington. They repeatedly cited the doubts and misgivings of “senior officialsâ€� or “senior intelligence officials,â€� who were never quoted on the record or identified by name. They quoted “senior U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials [who] say that they may never solve the mystery of how China learned about miniaturized warheads.â€� A “three-year FBI probe had produced no hard evidence of espionage,â€� according to unnamed officials. The Cox Report: Dead On Arrival In late May, Congress released a declassified version of the Report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China, better known as the Cox Report. The Cox Report provided a devastating indictment of successive administrations for their failures to detect and deter Chinese military espionage. The report was particularly critical of the Clinton administration for failing to act decisively once it learned of Chinese nuclear espionage. Within two days of its publication, however, the Cox Report nearly disappeared from the national media. The White House had successfully employed a media strategy that almost completely deflated the report’s impact. The White House had received a highly classified version of the report in early January. National Security Council officials chaired a series of inter-agency meetings to develop a game plan intended to limit damage to the administration once an unclassified version was released. These officials had government classification experts consume months in endless disputes with the Congress over the public release of information in the report. Meanwhile, the White House was steadily leaking selected details to the press in order to take the steam out of the Cox Report. The White House also had the intelligence community develop its own damage assessment for publication well before the release of the Cox Report. It even issued a press release announcing the assessment without informing CIA Director Tenet. When the assessment was completed in early April, its results were revealed at the National Press Club by Robert Walpole, a CIA national intelligence officer, who spoke on background. At the press briefing, he handed out an unclassified summary that concluded, “China obtained by espionage classified U.S. nuclear weapons information that probably accelerated its program to develop future nuclear weapons. This collection program allowed China to focus successfully down critical paths and avoid less promising approaches to nuclear weapons design.â€� (Emphasis added) But the Post didn’t consider the CIA’s confirmation of Chinese nuclear espionage worthy of front-page treatment. On page A4, Pincus and Loeb repeated the CIA’s judgments, but qualified them by emphasizing that Walpole had said it would be “several yearsâ€� before CIA would know “whether the espionage ‘had a significant impact on [PRC] programs.’â€� And it continued to underscore the “partisanâ€� nature of the controversy by quoting Senator Bob Kerry (D-Neb.) saying that the White House “has not got a bad track record in responding to this problem. They’ve done things to reduce the risk.â€� Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has written that the White House warned reporters not to be too hard on the administration once the Cox Report was released. The White House promised to leak classified data that would discredit any coverage it considered overly critical. Rep. Chris Cox later claimed that 70% of the classified information in the original report had been released to the public, but Pincus and Loeb still dismissed the report as being based on “worse-case (sic) con-clusions.â€� They cited a “senior officialâ€� who said the Cox “panel accepted opinions not shared by the U.S. intelligence community about the use of U.S. designs in a new Chinese warhead.â€� They also reported that the Cox Committee had relied on a single document obtained from the Chinese that came to be known as the “walk-in report.â€� “Senior officialsâ€� told them that the whole case had been predicated on that document. They wrote that “senior intelligence officialsâ€� said that the document had been deliberately leaked to the U.S. by the Chinese. That “debate ragedâ€� on Capitol Hill as “intelligence professionals voiced concernâ€� over the supposed reliance on one document. Predictably, Pincus and Loeb cited former CIA officers, like Ambassadors Donald Gregg and James Lilley, who questioned the reliability of the walk-in document. Neither had reviewed it nor knew anything about its origins. By asserting that the Cox Report had been based on that single intelligence document, they cast suspicions on the overall credibility of the report. The Rebuttals Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) and Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), the chairman and ranking member of the select committee, protest-ed the Post’s coverage in a letter to the editor of the Post. In particular, they questioned Pincus and Loeb’s reliance on “unnamedâ€� sources to challenge the credibility of their report. The congressmen wrote, “There is no question about the authenticity of the U.S. nuclear weapons design dataâ€� in the Chinese “walk-in report.â€� They emphasized that other classified sources supported claims of Chinese acquisitions of U.S. design information. Cox and Dicks concluded, “The People’s Liberation Army has successfully tested its knock-off version of the world’s most sophisticated nuclear design. And it got it right virtually immediately. The debate over whether the PRC stole design information for the W88 is over: it did.â€� The Post published the letter on Memorial Day. Post columnist Jim Hoagland agreed with Cox and Dicks. He had no trouble comprehending China’s intent in providing the document to the U.S. He wrote, “China wants to deter Washington in the event of a Taiwan Straits crisis.â€� Hoagland said, “That may be why China has been so obvious in the way it conducted its nuclear espionage, even as it publicly insists the spying never happened. The Cox report shows it did.â€� After the Cox Report’s publication, Pincus and Loeb returned to the CIA’s mid-April damage assessment report to underscore supposed differences in the two reports. Pincus wrote in mid-June that, in contrast to the Cox Report, the CIA believed that “China’s technical advances could have come not just from espionage, but from a wide range of other unclassified sources and ‘the relative contribution of each cannot be determined.’â€� But Pincus’ assertions were specious. No one involved in the investigations, including the authors of the Cox Report, had argued that China’s advances had come about solely from espionage. All understood that the Chinese collected information from many different sources, all of which were components of PRC intelligence operations. The first paragraph of the Cox Report chapter dealing with PRC nuclear espionage echoed the intelligence community damage assessment. It said, “The PRC intelligence collection program includes espionage, review of unclassified publications and extensive interactions with scientists from the Department of Energy’s national weapons laboratories.â€� No Secrets Stolen? By mid-summer, Congress and the administration began to issue reports documenting the results of several investigations into the scandal. On August 5, for example, Senators Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) of the Government Affairs Committee issued a statement on the administration’s handling of the espionage investigation. In his write-up, Pincus claimed that the statement “notes that it is still unclear whether any secrets really were stolen.â€� Pincus’s August 6 article was titled “China Spy Probe Bungled, Panel Finds, Senators Say U.S. May Never Know if Atomic Secrets Were Lost.â€� Twenty days later, the Post published a letter to the editor from the two Senators rebutting Pincus’s characterization of their conclusions. They rejected his claim that they were uncertain “whether any secrets were really stolen.â€� They wrote, “We did not say this,â€� and “We treated it as a given that U.S. intelligence officials had correctly concluded that Chinese intelligence stole design information on the W-88 warhead.â€� Printing this letter was the only correction or retraction made by the Washington Post. Playing The Race Card In early August, Pincus and Loeb switched tactics. While continuing to denounce the Cox Report and ignore the evidence of Chinese nuclear espionage, they now reported that racism and ethnic profiling had been behind the espionage allegations all along. In short, they launched a good, old-fashioned Washington smear campaign. Pincus became the first reporter in the elite media to allege that ethnicity had played the decisive role in the identification of Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee as an espionage suspect. Pincus reported that the Thompson/Lieberman statement, cited above, had concluded that Lee’s race and ethnicity had led investigators to single him out in 1996. Senators Thompson and Lieberman had identified three factors that had led investigators to Lee. In their letter to the Post, however, they charged that Pincus had “inventedâ€� a fourth: “that the Lees ‘were Chinese American.’â€� They wrote: “Let the record be clear: The evidence we have seen and heard provides no basis for the claim that the initial DOE-FBI inquiry focused on the Lees because of their race. Only much later in the process, once Mr. Lee had already been identified as the chief suspect, did the investigation consider the Lees’ ethnicity-and then only because, according to the FBI’s counterintelligence experts, Beijing’s intelligence actively tries to recruit Chinese American scientists working in sensitive U.S. facilities.â€� Once again the Washington Post printed the letter, but did not make any other effort to correct the misleading article. The Damage Is Done Now the smear campaign was in full bloom. During the month of August, Pincus and Loeb hammered away on the supposed role of racism and ethnic profiling in the case. The Post published two editorials and six Pincus and Loeb articles, all with the same message: Wen Ho Lee was singled out solely because he was of “Chinese descentâ€� and, consequently, this whole case had been driven by racism and ethnicity. To further the campaign, they repeatedly cited two Energy Department “insiders,â€� whose credentials and credibility were highly questionable. One had been disciplined for his failures in the case and told reporters he was trying to clear his reputation. The Post quoted this “sourceâ€� in at least twenty different articles in 1999 and 2000. The other passed a classified memo to the Post. Pincus and Loeb misquoted the memo, deliberately or otherwise, in an effort to show that there had been no basis for investigating Wen Ho Lee. The Post succeeded in burying the Chinese espionage allegations in a flurry of “revelationsâ€� about racism and ethnic profiling. Pincus and Loeb had “reframedâ€� the story and, henceforth, the national media followed their lead and never seriously addressed the espionage allegations again. The White House game plan had worked brilliantly. By this time, even the leftist media had figured out their strategy. Writing for Salon.com, Jake Tapper described it as “spoon-feeding information to the press and controlling which parts of the story get the most ink and air time.â€� But the strategy can’t work without sympathetic, compliant reporters and editors. President Clinton had a ready-made ally in Walter Pincus and the Washington Post. What You Can Do Send the enclosed cards or your own cards or letters to Bo Jones, Publisher of the Washington Post, and FBI Director Robert Mueller , and to Ms. Sibel Edmonds, another FBI employee who has been fired for having the courage to call attention to serious wrongdoing by FBI employees with whom she worked. http://www.aim.org/ Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2002-12-30 02:47:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat newsmax.com Sunday, Dec. 29, 2002 10:35 a.m. EST Powell to Stephie: Your Boss, Not Mine, Let North Korea Have Nukes Appearing on ABC's "This Week" Sunday morning, Secretary of State Colin Powell challenged host George Stephanopoulos over the former Clinton aide's contentions that his old boss had managed to keep the North Korean nuclear crisis in check while the Bush administration had bungled the situation. Discussing the standoff over Pyongyang's decision to reopen old nuclear reactors at the rogue state's Yongbyon nuclear facility, the former White House communications director argued that Clinton forced North Korea to back down. The exchange went like this: STEPHANOPOULOS: In fact, the Clinton administration said that if the spent [nuclear] fuel was reprocessed that would be a red line that couldn't be crossed. POWELL: It was crossed. During the Clinton administration the North Koreans had nuclear weapons. That was our intelligence estimate then, it's our intelligence estimate now. And in fact, the Clinton administration did have a declaratory policy that if anything else happened at [North Korea's nuclear facility at] Yongbyon they would attack it. (End of Excerpt) Moment earlier, Stephanopoulos cited complaints that Bush's hard line toward North Korea had contributed to the crisis. STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to show something that Senator John Kerry said the other day about the administration's policy. What he said [was]: "What happened in North Korea is predictable and totally anticipated based on this administration's complete avoidance of a responsible approach to North Korea in over a year and a half. It is the absence of diplomacy, it is the absence of common sense that has brought this on." How do you respond to Senator Kerry? POWELL: Well, John Kerry is running for office. And I disagree with the senator as much as I respect him. The fact of the matter is that this [nuclear] program was not started during the Bush administration. It was started during the previous administration. Back in 1998 and 1999, the intelligence shows clearly that North Korea had embarked on a program of enriching uranium. And so, we inherited this problem. (End of Excerpt) In fact, a November 1999 congressional report warned that the "Agreed Framework" negotiated with North Korea by the Clinton administration had given Pyongyang the capacity to produce 100 nuclear bombs per year. The study was undertaken by the House North Korea Advisory Group, chaired by Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman, R-N.Y. Members of the panel included Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., then chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Rep. Porter J. Goss, R-Fla., chairman of Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Christopher Cox, R-Calif., then chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. With more than a year left in President Clinton's term, the Advisory Group cautioned that the deal that was supposed to derail Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program had instead backfired. "Through the provision of two light water reactors [LWRs] under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States, through KEDO, will provide North Korea with the capacity to produce annually enough fissile material for nearly 100 nuclear bombs, should the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [DPRK] decide to violate the Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]," the Advisory Group warned. The report explained: "If the 1994 Agreed Framework is implemented and two LWRs are eventually built and operated in North Korea, the reactors could produce close to 500 kilograms of plutonium in spent reactor fuel each year; enough for nearly 100 bombs annually if North Korea decides to break its obligations and reprocess the material." Officials in Pyonyang acknowledged in October that North Korea had indeed broken its obligations under the Clinton accord and are now rapidly proceeding with a full-blown nuclear weapons program. The Advisory Group further cautioned: "Although the 1994 Agreed Framework was essentially aimed at eliminating North Korea's ability to make nuclear weapons, there is significant evidence that nuclear weapons development is continuing, including its efforts to acquire uranium enrichment technologies and its nuclear-related high explosive tests." In one of the Advisory Group's most chilling observations, the report warned that since the implementation of the Clinton accord, North Korea had made significant progress in developing an intercontinental ballistic missile fleet capable of targeting the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction: "In the last five years, North Korea's missile capabilities have improved dramatically. North Korea has produced, deployed and exported missiles to Iran and Pakistan, launched a three-stage missile [Taepo Dong 1], and continues to develop a larger and more powerful missile [Taepo Dong 2]. "Unlike five years ago, North Korea can now strike the United States with a missile that could deliver high explosive, chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons. Currently, the United States is unable to defend against this threat." The report also featured a bar graph that shows a direct correlation between increases in Clinton administration aid and North Korea's enhanced ICBM capacity. The Advisory group also contended that the "Agreed Framework" had made North Korea "the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region." "In an astonishing reversal of nine previous U.S. administrations, the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1994, committed not only to provide foreign aid for North Korea, but to earmark that aid primarily for the construction of nuclear reactors worth up to $6 billion," the House report noted. To read the full Speaker's Report by the House North Korean Advisory Group, go to: http://www.house.gov/international_relations/nkag/report.htm Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-01-06 01:49:00 216.196.170.132 Re: The China Threat China Threat news: - China Says Economy Grew 8.0 Percent in 2002 - China\'s GDP Hit 1.23 Trillion US Dollars in 2002: NBS - China Reports US$620 Billion In Trade For 2002, Rise Of 21 Percent - PLA Navy: Marine Corps - US: Boeing, Hughes Helped China Illegally - Selling Beijing The Rope - U.S. Firms Helped China With Nukes? - Taiwan: U.S. May Join War Games - China Concerned Over Plan For U.S. Officers To Join Taiwan War Games - US To Deliver Advanced Missiles To Taiwan - What If Democracy Fails In Taiwan? - US Reduces Price Of Amphibious Vehicle Contract - Taiwan Report Predicts Rise In Aggression By China - Taiwan Keeping Old Subs Afloat: Island Still Waits For New Vessels Promised By U.S. - Taiwan Chip Companies Make Big Investment In China - Chip Production Moving to China - China Develops Biotechnology And Bioindustry Rapidly - Japan To Pay China Y150 Mil Over N Korean Spy Ship Salvage - Just Another Chinese City [Hong Kong] - Israel Freezes Arms Exports To China - China Criticizes US Request For Israel To Curb Sales Of Military Technology - China Steps Up Protest Over Senkaku Islands - China\'s Cyber Crackdown - Ethan Allen Opens First Store in China - Flying Without Wings: Shanghai\'s High-Tech Maglev Train A Smooth Ride - China To Build Second Transrapid Maglev To Hangzhou - China Aiming To Join Space Club - Final Space Test A Success, Says China - China To Send Man Into Space This Year - China Could Send A Human Into Space In Second Half Of 2003: Official - China Launches Fourth Unmanned Spacecraft - China: \'Sacred Vessel\' Flying Normally - Photos: China Launches Fourth Unmanned Spacecraft Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-01-15 17:16:00 216.196.171.120 Re: The China Threat Some interesting things going on with China… It appears that China has begun some large war games – China Launches Massive War Games . These war games are odd in that they are being carried out at a time when China doesn’t usually hold them. They usually practice in the Spring but oddly they are holding them in the middle of winter. It is also curious how this coincides with Russia sending warships to the Gulf. And no mention of such huge events in the mainstream press… And some other news on China: - Chinese Missile Surprises West (1) - Chinese Missile Surprises West (2) - China’s Rapidly Growing Threat To World Security - Cupertino Man Arrested For Selling Missile System Technology To China – A deadly problem still running rampant. - China\'s "Tsushima" Anticarrier Strategy - Clinton Scandal Returns: Foreign Donor Faces Charges in U.S. – Ties to the PRC - Harry Wu Exposes China\'s Nazi-like Genocide - Fall In Charges And Tariffs Sparks Boom -- In China - China\'s Exports Leap In 2002 - China Scientist Blasts Charges Against U.S. Firms Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-01-24 09:25:00 216.196.174.65 Re: The China Threat Some China Threat news: - President (Of Taiwan/ROC) Reaffirms Sovereignty – This is sure to cause some waves! - Backdrop Hides `Made in China\' Labels - China Plans First Manned Space Launch In October: Official - China Ready To Sign Next Contract For Su-30s - China Says Position Similar To France On Iraq - China Summons Japanese Ambassador Over Disputed Islands - China\'s Military Going Hi-Tech - Illegal Immigrants At Centre Of International Probe - Minister Claims Chinese Nationals Are Part Of International Smuggling Ring - Cisco Accuses China\'s Huawei of Copying Software - Clinton and Chinese Missiles - Clinton\'s China Policy Fattened War Machine - EU/Hutchison/ST Telemedia/Global Crossing -2: $250M Deal - Ex-Los Alamos Scientist Called Spy For China (1) - Ex-Los Alamos Scientist Called Spy For China (2) - Harry Wu: How America Can Tame China - Heads Roll At Los Alamos - Taiwan Invested US$66.8b In China, Says CBC - Taiwan\'s Leak Of Secrets Annoys US - The Road Back To China - Two Silicon Valley Cases Raise Fears of Chinese Espionage - US Troops To See Hankuang (Taiwan Military) Drills Malsua (Moderator) 2003-01-24 09:47:00 216.6.139.106 Re: The China Threat And I will likely have to spend a considerable amount of time in mainland China in 2003. Joy. -Mal Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-02-17 18:13:00 216.196.175.27 Re: The China Threat Alright, I’ve got a lot of news articles for this area! - China Quietly Gets Ultra-Cutting Edge Advanced SU-30MKK Fighter Bombers From Russia – And Russian A-50 AWACS equivalent! - More Russian Weapons Go To China - Beijing Develops New Tactical Aircraft - China Tests Medium-Range Missile (With Mirvs To Foil US Defences) - Chinese MIRV Test Successful - China Ramps Up Missile Capability - Chinese Peacekeeping Mission Heads for Congo – Interestingly, there has been a bit of an Ebola outbreak there recently. - China to Aid U.N. Peace Mission in Congo - A Chinese Puzzle As Everyone\'s A Winner - Arrests Raise Concern Over Tech Spies(China) - Beijing Aims To Be Big Shot In Arms Exports - Beijing Joins Paris, Berlin And Moscow On Iraq Stance - Bush Sees Economic Rebound, Prods China - China Consults Pakistan On Anti-Terrorism - :rolleyes: - China Enacts Law Extending Its Control – They are claiming that the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone is now their property. - China Jails U.S.-Based Dissident For Life - China Outstrips US As Top Exporter To Japan - China Secretly Shipping Cuba Arms – An older article I happened upon. - China Stands Firm On Iraq Action - China Stands With France, Germany, Russia On Continued Inspections In Iraq - China To Send Man Into Space This Fall, With Sights On Moon: Report - China Vows To Push Ahead With Its First Manned Space Flight - China\'s Economy Is No "House of Cards" - China\'s Electronic Strategies - China\'s Military Taking Giant Steps Forward - China\'s naval expansion alarms Taiwan President - Chinese Aliens Flock To O\'Hare - Chinese Computer Chips Closing Technical Gap - Chinese Soldiers In The Panama Canal! LIVE Webcam! – The first in an old but interesting series of threads on Free Republic. VERY long. - Chinese Soldiers In The Panama Canal! LIVE Webcam! - Thread 2 - Chinese Soldiers In The Panama Canal! LIVE Webcam! - Thread 3 - Chinese Soldiers In The Panama Canal! LIVE Webcam! - Thread 4 - Chinese Soldiers In The Panama Canal! LIVE Webcam! - Thread #5 - Chinese-American Political Figure Killed - Chip Industry\'s Roads Lead To China - CIA Bids To Improve Its Chinese - Clinton and China Armed Iraq - Clinton\'s China Scandals - Computer Worm May Be Terrorist Test – Or perhaps a Chinese test… - Corporate China\'s Dollar Diplomacy - F.B.I. Recruits Chinese Students in U.S. - FBI Seeks Data From Chinese At U.S. Schools - ICT Condemns China\'s Execution of Tibetan After Closed Trial, Urges Formal Protest from U.S. - India Taking A More Positive View Of China - Manufacturers Find Themselves Increasingly in the Service Sector – And guess where all those manufacturing jobs are going! - Missile Technology Sent to China (1) - Missile Technology Sent to China (2) - (Zimbabwean President) Mugabe Signs Land Deal With Chinese To Tackle Food Crisis - North of Beijing, California Dreams Come True – First thing that popped into my head was the Taiwanese airfield that China reconstructed to practice attacking and using. Wonder if this is similar… - Relations Between U.S.-Taiwan At Two-Decade High: Top Envoy - Report: China to Continue Manned Space Launch - Retired Los Alamos Lab Deputy Director Dead From Gunshot - Shanghai\'s Pudong Reports 16.7% GDP Growth in 2002 - Taiwan On Alert Against Any Chinese Invasion During Iraq War - China\'s New Space Launcher Is Also Its Newest Strategic Missile - The China Threat: How the People\'s Republic Targets America (Conclusion: An American China Strategy) - U.S. Jury Indicts China Pair In Trade Secret Theft - U.S. Seeks Partnership With Mainland (China) - U.S. Spurns Taiwan Request For Show Of Support - US Defence Industry Pushes For Taiwan Deal (China) - US Trade Rep Zoellick to Press China on WTO Issues - Washington Should Be Wary Of China - Will There Be A Nuclear Space Race Between America And China? Betterman (Member) 2003-02-17 18:31:00 195.92.67.67 Re: The China Threat and I won't be doing any work today Ryan Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-02-17 22:24:00 68.84.219.44 Re: The China Threat Why is there no global anti-war movement against Communist Chinese miltary threats against Taiwan??? Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-03-18 15:38:00 216.196.171.166 Re: The China Threat Here’s the articles I have on China: - Chinese in at Port of Los Angeles - Global Double Crossing - Deal Gives China Access to Top Secret CIA, FBI Communications - Security Concerns Delay Chinese Buy Of Bankrupt Telecommunications Giant Global Crossing – A very faint glimmer of hope remains! - How Beijing Gets U.S. Defense Plants - Arms for China – A Clinton Legacy - Asia Seeks Answer to China\'s Ascent - Beijing Ruins Hong Kong\'s Liberties – What an absolute surprise! - Chasing Chinese Students - China Accuses Californian Of Sabotage - China And Russia Oppose Iraq Attack - China Army Looks To Technology - China Buys Another Piece of Big Caspian Sea Oil Field - China Companies Hutchison Whampoa (Global Crossing) and PCCW Move In On US Telecommunications – Global Crossing Part 2! If it keeps on at this pace, they will have all our communications assets tapped. - China Develops New Type Of Nuclear Reactor - China Fits Into Bush\'s \'Axis Of Evil\' - China Introduces Execution Vans - China: Iraq War Opposition Will Prevail - China Loves The Buena Vista (Castro Provides Chinese Military Spying Stations In Cuba) - China Makes Great Progress in Weaponry Development - China \'Not Giving Promised Access To American Farmers\' – More trade deficit, just what the US needs! - China Plans for World Domination--Taiwan First – Stumbled across this by accident. - China Plans Three-Phase Moon Exploration - China Rejects U.S. Appeal on North Korea - China Sets Sights On Moon Mission - China Urges US to Open Direct Dialogue with North Korea - China Warns Australia Over Joining U.S. Missile Defence Shield - China Warns US Not To Send Wrong Signals To Taiwan - China Works to Put Astronauts in Orbit, the Moon and then Mars - China, North Korea and the Congo - China-Iraq Ties - Military Assistance for Oil - China\'s First Astronaut Revealed - China\'s Jiang Retains Control Of Military Under New President - China\'s New President Long Groomed For Top Post - China\'s Rise In Asia: US Concerns - China\'s Subs Lead the Way - Chinese Dissidents Branded As Terrorists – I’m a little surprised it took this long. - Chinese Scientists Refute US Claims on Rocket Data Transfer - Chinese Sold Iraq \'Dual-Use\' Chemical - Evolving Ground Force Threat to Taiwan - Fidel Castro Expresses Astonishment At China\'s Changes - Fidel Castro Meets With Chinese President In Beijing - Friction Builds Over Beijing\'s Olympic Revamp - Hong Kong Bishop: Vatican Willing To Give Up Taiwan For China - Hu Jintao Becomes China\'s New President - Hu Jintao on Taiwan Issue - India At The Heart Of Chinese Entrapment – Actually, the most interesting part of the article, “The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is building a 1500-mile military railroad that would enable China to destroy strategic targets in the United States, India and Japan the moment it rail-bases its Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), says William C Triplett II in a report published by The Jamestown Foundation.â€� - Iran Seeks WMD Help From China, North Korea - Is The Iraq/North Korea Crises Another China Plot Against USA? - Israeli Arms Exports to China of Growing Concern to U.S. - Latest US Aircraft Harassment by Red Chinese Part of Continuing Pattern – An article from December. - Made In China, Hurting At Home - Microsoft Will Give China Access to Windows Code - Online Discussion with Russian Foreign Minister – Another one of those things that makes you go, “Hmmm…â€� - President Jiang Meets Bill Gates - Red China Uses Similar Tactics To Pyongyang - (Spy Brian Patrick) Regan Convicted of Attempted Espionage – Another candidate for the firing squad or hanging if I had my way… - Seven Charged With Trafficking US Missile, Jet-Fighter Parts To China - Space Official in Beijing Reveals Dual Purpose of Shenzhou - Spook Mountain: How US Spies On China - Super Vision Awarded $41,200,000 In China Technology Theft Case – Yeah, and China is going to pay. :rolleyes: - Taiwan Investments In China At New High - Taiwan Plans Low-Altitude TMD System, Says Minister - Taiwan Wants To Build Subs Ordered From US - The Importance Of Central Asia To China - Top-Level Communist Wen Jiabao Named China\'s Premier, Replacing Zhu Rongji - U.S.-China Relations To The Test - US Fines Space Firms Over China - US May Take Dispute Over $803B ($103B USD) Trade Surplus To WTO - US-China Trade Gap Hits Record, Irks Manufacturers - Wen Jiabao Elected China\'s PM - Yankees Come Back, Panama Says And since our friend China has such a huge fleet of cargo vessels (600+), I believe that this article is certainly relevant: - Ship Ahoy, What Evil Lies in the Cargo Holds Now, if only 3% of the cargo containers entering the US are inspected, what is in that other 97%? Especially those from China? Star*Man (Member) 2003-03-19 03:20:00 192.146.101.11 Re: The China Threat quote:Why is there no global anti-war movement against Communist Chinese miltary threats against Taiwan??? Why don't we invade china to liberate their people from chinese oppression? Why don't we stop buying 90% of our goods from China and thus we are the real ones (each of us) who are arming and building up their Military might. Phil FiordAdministrator (Member) 2003-03-25 06:13:00 68.69.22.209 Re: The China Threat Global Crossing, Iraqi Defenses and the Chinese Connection http://www.newsmax.com ^ | March 25, 2003 | Charles R. Smith There is one Iraqi weapon system with U.S.A. stamped on it; the NATO code-named Tiger Song air defense system. Much of Tiger Song is U.S. made fiber-optic network systems sold to China by the Clinton administration. The fiber-optic Tiger Song air defense network was installed in Iraq during the 1990s by China in violation of the U.N. ban on weapons sales to Baghdad. Tiger Song is a distributed network and it is similar to the Internet, allowing Iraqi mobile radars and missile units to link into the network from pre-positioned fiber optic sites. Ironically, the Bush administration has so far denied an even greater sale of sensitive U.S. fiber-optic systems to China. The Defense Department opposes the sale of Global Crossing to Chinese billionaire Li Ka-Shing and his Hutcheson Whampoa company for obvious national security reasons. Although, the U.S. Defense Department opposes the sale of the fiber-optic giant Global Crossing to Hutcheson Whampoa, Li Ka-Shing is fighting back. Bush defense advisor Richard Perle, who was hired to advise Global Crossing on security to satisfy the U.S. government's concerns, conceded that the Chinese Army is in business with Hutcheson Whampoa providing military communications for the PRC and that China has provided fiber-optic systems to Iraq. "I am not surprised," he stated. "I do not trust the Chinese government on these matters. They have sold dangerous things to Iraq and other nations." "It was very clear that the previous Global Crossing proposal was not going to meet U.S. government requirements. The U.S. government is concerned that the Hutcheson ownership will give them the ability to do injury to U.S. national security. Hutcheson Whampoa will now end up with 20% ownership. I have been retained to help Global Crossing find a structure to protect U.S. national security," said Mr. Perle. LI KA-SHING As this reporter has previously written, Li Ka-Shing has a history of helping the Chinese military erect communications networks using U.S. made equipment. For example, in 1989 Li Ka-Shing raised $120 million to buy a HUGHES built communications satellite for AsiaSat. AsiaSat is also a front company for the People's Liberation Army (PLA). According to Aviation Week and Space Technology, AsiaSat is part owned by the Chinese Army unit COSTIND or the Commission on Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. The AsiaSat Hughes satellite regularly carries "military communications" traffic for PLA units and Chinese military owned companies. A 1996 report written by then U.S. Ambassador to China James Sasser alleges that the Chinese Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) and Chinese billionaire Li Ka Shing were both directly involved with the PLA in financing the communications networks for the Chinese army. The report also states that the PLA was directly involved in the so-called "civilian" Chinese fiber optic communication systems. Sasser's report noted that the PLA actively worked on a Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (MPT) fiber optic network that the Clinton administration stated was "civil" for the House National Security Committee. "For example," wrote Sasser, "in laying long distance fiber optic lines for the MPT's telephones and digital data network, the PLA has provided soldiers to do much of the work. The PLA cadres are considered disciplined and hard working. Once the cable has been laid, the MPT typically allocates some of the bandwidth to the PLA." In 1997, the Rand Corporation wrote a secret report on the "Chinese Defense Industry" and it also included a section on billionaire Li Ka Shing and his business with the Chinese Army. The Rand report was obtained in a successful federal lawsuit against the Commerce Department. The Rand Corporation report highlights Li Ka-Shing's direct connections to the Chinese military. According the Rand report, "Hutchison Whampoa of Hong Kong, controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka Shing, is also negotiating for PLA wireless system contracts, which would build upon his equity interest in [Chinese army] Poly-owned Yangpu Land Development Company, which is building infrastructure on China's Hainan Island." U.S. and allied forces are now fighting a Clinton-era mistake made in 1994 allowing the fiber-optic systems to be sold to China. The same Tiger Song fiber optic system is now sending the commands of the Iraqi military to fight our soldiers. The Chinese Army would love to get its hands on Global Crossing. It is clear from previous sales of such U.S. made systems to Li Ka-Shing that the Chinese Army will benefit from that technology. It is just as clear that - if given the opportunity - the Chinese Army will use Global Crossing technology and assets against the national interests of the United States. RUSSIAN WEAPONS In the past few days, the Axis of Weasel has been caught supplying weapons and support for the maniac in Baghdad. Our Russian friend, Vladimir Putin has been caught red-handed supplying weapons to Iraq. U.S. State Department sources confirmed that Russia had indeed sold a wide variety of banned arms to Iraq as recently as one or two days before the allies struck. The Russian equipment included a variety of night vision gear, GPS jamming equipment - included software and Russian engineers who have continued to work inside Baghdad - and a number of AT-14 Kornet anti-tank missiles. The Russian AT-14 missiles are advanced, laser guided, weapons and are considered very dangerous. But, the U.S. Air Force noted that the Russian jamming equipment is not very effective. The main problem with the Russian GPS jamming equipment is that it is also a radio transmitter, literally saying, "bomb me". According to U.S.A.F. Major General Victor Renuart, allied air forces have targeted several of the Russian GPS jammers and actually struck one with a U.S. JDAM GPS guided bomb. The U.S. has issued a formal demand to Moscow to stop the sales and explain. Moscow has issued several lame excuses that they have no control over arms companies based inside Russia. IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPONS Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam still owes Moscow over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia. The primary Iraqi chemical weapons are VX nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, both obtained from Russia. Interestingly, some sources still claim that the source of Iraqi chemical weaponry is the U.S.A. These sources claim that during the mid-1980s the U.S. transferred chemical weapons technology to Iraq. I find this information incorrect and totally out of line with the current Iraqi weapon inventory. Iraq chemical weapons have previously been deployed on classic Russian made systems. According to "Russian Military Power" published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents." The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I." Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian made chemical weapons at the same time. The fact is that U.S. made chemical weapons might not work when loaded into Russian made systems. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets have been armed with Warsaw Pact designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf war and was foiled by the allied air superiority. Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122mm rockets, 152mm artillery and the M-1937 82mm mortars. Curiously, all the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds, filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design. The only exception to the Russian connection is the recent attempts by Iraq to modify its force of French made Mirage F-1 jets to carry chemical weapons. The State Department has a wonderful video of an Iraqi Mirage jet testing a chemical weapons sprayer. For those who still remain skeptical, take note that one does not modify a multi-million dollar fighter jet to spray French perfume. The Vichy government of Jacques Chirac may deny the arms sales to Baghdad but the weapons in Iraqi hands show that Paris and Moscow have sent more to Saddam than Perrier and Russian vodka. Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-04-11 11:40:00 216.196.168.184 Re: The China Threat Some news on China: - Expose In Japan Press On Chinese Media/Journalists Covering War – A great article detailing how China is using the press to spy on our military operations in Iraq! - China Readies For Future U.S. Fight – Okay, all those surprised… Raise your hand! - China Steps Up Preparation For U.S. Conflict - China Venture into US Telecommunications - US Review of Global Crossing Deal to Go Past March - China Criticizes US \'Rights Abuses\' - China Demands End to Attack on Iraq - China Details Space Safety Measures for Manned Missions - China Develops Artificial Bone with Nano Technology - China In Surprise Move On Russian Ports – Now this is big news! - China Injects $3.1 Million Into Serbia\'s Health Sector - China: Jiang Zemin Still Calling The Shots - China: New Leadership Same Old, Same Old... - China Puts Forth Proposals for Disarmament – Yeah, all the while they develop and build road-mobile ICBMs. :rolleyes: - China Ready To Back Any Measures To Stop Iraq War - China Strongly Calls for Immediate Stop of Military Actions Against Iraq - China To Monitor All Net Use - China To Set Up Another Nuclear Power Plant In Pakistan - China Watches The War And Waits - China: Who Are the Real Criminals? - :rolleyes: - Chinese Experts On Military Actions In Iraq - Feds: Chinese Hack Attacks Likely - China Calls For Immediate End To Military Action Against Iraq - Global Crossing Alert: Democrat Seeks Inquiry On Bankrupt Firm\'s Adviser - Iraq, Testing Ground for US Hi-tech Weapons – An interesting perspective from China. - Jiang: China, France Should Strengthen Cooperation - Kuwait Says Missile Was Chinese - \'Silkworm\' Suspected in Kuwaiti Blast - Missile Explodes Near Kuwait City Mall [Chinese Silkworm Cruise Missile] - Mugabe Gives Seized Land To Chinese Company – Things that make you go “Hmmm…â€� - Perle\'s Connection to Global Crossing - Red China and US Telecommunications: Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing - The China-Iraq Connection: Baghdad Continued To Work On Building Missiles - The Choice of China\'s Diplomatic Strategy - The Significance Of China\'s Export Of Rocket Technology To Turkey - Torture of Christians in China - US Senate Panel Plans Look at Global Crossing Sale - Why China Isn\'t Helping Disarm North Korea And some big news on the recent capture of some spies working for China: - Chinese-American Double Agent Arrested in L.A. - Ex-FBI Agent Faces Charges in China Spy Case - Ex-FBI Agent Resigns Post at Nuclear Weapons Lab - Ex-FBI, Chinese Lover Arrested In Spy Case - Smith-Leung Spy Ring Has Tie To Lawrence Livermore What makes this case big is that this woman spying for China was, in fact, a major player in the West Coast Republican Party. What was that about: quote: 15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. I hope that people realize that this Communist subversion is not the joke some claim it is. I suppose that it is much more comforting and simple to tell ones’ self how Russia and China are just too weak to do anything to us… Also, I thought that some here would be interested in seeing China’s newest fighter concept. It is, of course, a stealth aircraft. I don’t know much about it outside of that. Sorry. It does bear an uncanny resemblance to the F-22, wonder why… :rolleyes: Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-04-21 13:35:00 216.196.175.95 Re: The China Threat Articles on The China Threat: - Alleged Chinese Double Agent - Prosecutors Say Rich Socialite Is A Flight Risk - China Analyst Calls For Dropping Technology Export Controls - China Supports Gulf States’ Call For US Pullout - China Surges Economically While America Falters - China Will Get World\'s Largest Fleet of Transoceanic Communications Cable Ships – Part of the Global Crossing Deal China is trying to close on. - F.B.I. Spy Case Highlights Problems With Informants - FBI Convulsed By Spy Story Of Sex And Lies - In China Trade, The Joke Is On The American Public, In Particular On US Workers - Sex and Espionage in the FBI - Spy Suspect May Have Told Chinese of Bugs, U.S. Says – I guess the US was behind the bugging of Jiang’s presidential jet! - US And China Have The Worlds Largest Economies (PPP) According To The World Bank - US Backs Away From Criticizing China - Why Bush\'s Success In Iraq Is A Setback For Beijing Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-04-29 11:03:00 216.196.175.95 Re: The China Threat China Troubles quote: "China Troubles" by J. R. Nyquist China is burdened with a massive population, a backward countryside and a repressive communist government. Despite so many problems, China’s communist leaders continue to play dangerous games with their country’s future. In order to accomplish its military objectives, China is presently using organized crime and a sophisticated network of agents to infiltrate Canada and Mexico while simultaneously neutralizing FBI counterintelligence. At the same time, a mysterious new illness has appeared in China. Since the public has been focused on the Iraq War, many Americans missed the Katrina Leung story and the FBI’s dismal, though typical, performance. China certainly has problems, but penetrating America and embarrassing American security officials is not one of them. Katrina Leung, 49, was a socialite, a Republican activist in California and an FBI informant for almost two decades. In her work for the FBI, which involved gathering information on China, Leung collected around $1.7 million from grateful FBI officials. She must have been highly trusted. That trust, however, has come to an end. Leung was recently arrested and charged with being a longtime Chinese double agent. The details are rather juicy. It appears that Leung seduced and manipulated her FBI handlers, enjoying sexual relations with at least two FBI officials. She photocopied classified FBI counterintelligence documents and transmitted them to the communists in Beijing. She was given access to secrets she never should have known about. FBI agent James J. Smith, one of her handlers, was also arrested. He had been part of the investigation into illegal Chinese funding of the 1996 Democratic presidential campaign. A search of Leung’s home has yielded classified documents. Her case illustrates the vulnerability of American counterintelligence and American society in general. Her interactions with Republican politicians, like former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan, gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon and Rep. David Dreier, ought to raise more than a few eyebrows. How much compromise and corruption did she spread? How deep did it go? Related to this, there is a story developing out of Canada about Chinese subversion and infiltration that is remarkable. Former Foreign Service officer Brian McAdam is alleging that Chinese agents have corrupted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada’s immigration services. According to McAdam, “China seeks to convert Canada into a highway for attacking the United States.â€� McAdam says that China is using organized crime to subvert Canadian law enforcement and border control. He alleges that Chinese organized crime groups have a treaty with the communists in Beijing for this purpose. In other words, the Chinese intelligence services are coordinating their moves with Chinese organized crime. Along with suspended RCMP Cpl. Robert Read, McAdam alleges corruption among high-ranking officials in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and External Affairs. (See also FreedomSite.org .) In 1992 McAdam discovered that Chinese crime groups had penetrated Canada’s immigration computer system. The matter was investigated at the time, but the results of the investigation led to a cover-up instead of corrections. McAdam was sidelined for his efforts. Robert Read of the RCMP was suspended and charged with “service offensesâ€� for his attempts to uncover Chinese penetrations. Spies and criminals, however, are not the only things jumping from China to Canada. A highly infectious new disease, called SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), has entered Canada from China. Researchers say that SARS is 78 percent identical to sections of genes found in the common cold. Unlike the common cold, the virus’s fatality rate is 4 percent. If it were to infect a quarter of the population of China it would kill 13 million people. If SARS spread globally more than 60 million people could die. The economies of affected regions are already anticipating trouble as people are afraid to travel or attend events at crowded public places. On Monday China announced another four deaths and another 109 cases of the disease. A total of 1,959 cases have been counted in China, along with 89 deaths. The number of cases appears to be doubling every two weeks. Within six months the number of cases could exceed one million. Worldwide 3,861 cases of SARS have been reported with 217 deaths. Previously the World Health Organization criticized China for covering up the extent of the initial outbreak. When the outbreak first began there were reports of medical personnel dying from the disease, including prominent physicians. The Canadian press is reporting that SARS, after claiming its 14th victim in Canada, has infected medical staff despite the protection of gloves, gowns, masks and eye shields. (See Canada.com ) It appears that the virus has the ability to spread by way of objects, not merely persons. This means that maximal medical precautions may not offer complete protection to those working with infected persons. The CDC has told Canadian officials that the SARS virus can remain viable on surfaces for up to 24 hours. Due to the virus’s apparent movement through the Hong Kong sewer system, Chinese authorities are worried that cockroaches can transmit the disease. Undoubtedly, this is a virus that continues to surprise the experts. Despite similarity to the coronavirus family, SARS is absolutely novel. Instead of affecting the young and old in disproportionate numbers as most flu viruses, it strikes young adults with uncharacteristic frequency. Autopsies show that the virus can cause the lungs to hemorrhage, as happens in cases of hemorrhagic fever (e.g., in cases of Ebola). A Times of India article dated 12 April offers a chilling though paranoid addendum to the story: “A top Russian medical expert says SARS could be Chinese bio-weapon.â€� Professor Sergei Kolesnikov, a member of the Russian Medical Sciences Academy, has stated that SARS is a hybrid of two viruses – mumps and measles – that can only be produced in a laboratory. According to the Times of India, Kolesnikov told a conference in Irkutsk, Siberia, that China’s silence about the outbreak is a tip-off. He added that the speed of transmission, the unprecedented infectious qualities of the virus and its severe toxicity lead to the inference that SARS may have spread from a Chinese military research facility. If you want to find a cure, suggested Kolesnikov, “look at where it originated.â€� (See also Express India ) Russia is the motherland of paranoid thinking. It is a rule of thumb that every thief is fearful of having his goods stolen. A technocratic elite that itself is engaged in dirty business – i.e., in the development of biological weapons – is bound to assume that other governments are doing exactly the same. An AFP story out of Moscow, dated April 11 (see AP/Yahoo ) presents the headline, “Deadly pneumonia could be a biological weapon.â€� Moscow’s chief of epidemiological services, Nikolai Filatov, also thinks SARS is man-made. According to Chinese researchers the virus mutates rapidly so that the development of a vaccine will not be easy. (See Financial Times ) It has also been reported that communist officials in Beijing have attempted to prevent Chinese medical researchers from publishing their findings about SARS to the world. One Chinese research institute went ahead and posted its findings without official permission. It is hard to say how this virus will affect China. Asia is deeply concerned. North America is yet to see this level of concern, though Canadian hospitals seem unable to contain the virus as yet. Another great article from Mr. Nyquist. Some great information on how China is infiltrating Canada. A topic that is hard to get good information on… Ryan RuckAdministrator (Администратор) 2003-05-07 07:14:00 216.196.171.46 Re: The China Threat Not sure how many heard about the recent news of China’s loss of a Ming-class submarine. The situation surrounding its loss is odd to say the least. First, it was a submarine with a crew of 45-50 and there were 70 on board. Second, all 70 were lost but the sub had not sunk and was able to be towed back to port. Third, this is a diesel-electric sub and not a nuke so how do 70 people die manning their positions (certainly not from rad poisoning). There are a only a few things that could have killed everyone but left the sub floating: -Outside air source for diesel engines cut off suffocating the crew. One problem with this though… The crew would have noticed the increased vacuum and would not have sat idly by at their positions to suffocate. Ask any old submariner who served on diesels what it is like to have the snorkel shut and the engines continue to run. Your eyes, ears, and lungs feel like they are going to pop. Plus, there are usually safety interlocks on the diesel engines to shut them off if a certain amount of vacuum inside the sub is reached. -Exhaust leak/malfunction. If the exhaust port was clogged, had a leak, or shut and the shut off failed, the crew could have suffered from CO poisoning. There are usually CO detectors that sound an alarm if the levels are too high. So either there were no detectors and alarms, they were malfunctioning, or this isn’t what happened. -Sea water got into the batteries. This is the most likely of all. When sea water mixes with the acid in the storage batteries, it forms chlorine gas. Since the sub was found on the surface the diesels were presumably running. And since the engines were running, the chlorine poisoned air was most likely quickly circulated on the sub since the diesels are used to move air. Chlorine poisoning would have killed everyone on board fairly quickly. Some have said that SARS could have caused them all to die. Despite the danger posed by SARS (and the mysterious nature of the illness), it wasn’t SARS. SARS is not that fast acting nor would it have left everyone dead at their posts. In any event, here are a few articles on the situation: - Dozens Die On Chinese Sub - Chinese Sub Down. 70 KIA - Cause Of Submarine Disaster Is Mystery (China Took 2 Weeks To Disclose) - Diesel Engine May Have Sucked Out Submarine Oxygen - Submarines: The Cause Of Chinese Sub Crew Deaths And some news on the Global Crossing deal. Thankfully it is good news! - Global Crossing Sale Under Scrutiny - Hutchison (Stock) Falls With Global Crossing Deal On Rocks - Source: Hong Kong Investor Likely To Pull Out Of Global Crossing Deal - U.S. Widens Probe of Hutchison\'s Global Crossing Bid Unfortunately, I don’t share some people’s optimism about HW just dropping the deal. With such a strategic advantage on the line, they will fight (and bribe) tooth and nail to get this to pass. The only way that it will be blocked is if the government prevents it. And with President Bush being as optimistic about relations with China as he is, I don’t know if that will happen. As Lenin said: "The Capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with." And for other China news: - Rail-Mobile ICBMs Enter Chinese Arsenal – How many heard about this great news? - [Warren] Buffett\'s Berkshire Hathaway Raises PetroChina Stake – More Western investment in China. - Accused Double-Agent Met 2,100 Times With Chinese Officials(Chinese Influence On U.S. Elections ) – Words fail me… - China Takes Credit for US North Korea Talks - Chinagate II: Time For GOP Action - Duped Again by Communist China - GPS, Galileo And The China Factor – Very interesting… - India, China Seek Ways To Enhance Ties - Tale Of Sex And Spies Leaves FBI With A Chinese Puzzle - The Tradeoff Of Trade With China: Jobs - U.S., China Ties May Gain Even as Korea Talks Stall Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-06-29 23:45:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Congress looks at China threat Taipei Times ^ | 6.30.03 | Charles Snyder Congress looks at China threatBy Charles Snyder STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON Monday, Jun 30, 2003,Page 1 Seven members of the US House of Representatives, including a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, have introduced legislation in the House demanding that China dismantle the hundreds of ballistic missiles it has deployed across the Strait aimed at Taiwan and renounce the use of force against Taiwan. If China does not eliminate the missiles, the resolution says, President George W. Bush should authorize the sale to Taiwan of the Aegis anti-missile system, "which would enable Taiwan to defend itself against the threat of a missile attack by China." The legislation, which is a non-binding "sense of Congress" measure, also states that "the future of Taiwan should be determined peacefully and with the express consent of the people of Taiwan." The measure rejects any administration move to accept an offer made by then Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) in talks with Bush last October to withdraw missiles in exchange for a reduction in US arms sales to Taiwan. The legislation was spearheaded by congressman Robert Andrews, a Democrat, and by Joel Hefley, a Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Other sponsors include David Wu of Oregon, the first Taiwan-born member to be elected to Congress. The bill was referred to the House International Relations Committee, which under chairman Henry Hyde has been more than willing to help Taiwan legislatively. But it came just as Congress was going home for a week-long Independence Day holiday, so no action is likely before the middle of next month. Noting that for more than a half century a close relationship has existed between the US and Taiwan which "has been of enormous economic, cultural and strategic advantages to both countries," the bill calls Taiwan a "full-fledged democracy" and an "ally of the United States" which has extended humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and support for the Iraq war. It describes China's deployment of more than 400 short-range ballistic missiles as a threat to Taiwan's security and cites the US commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 to maintain Taiwan's defense security. The resolution says that "grave concerns exist concerning the deployment" of the missiles, "which threaten security and stability in the Taiwan Strait." It calls on Bush to "direct all appropriate United States officials" to raise this with China and "seek a public, immediate and unequivocal renunciation from the leaders of the People's Republic of China of any threat or use of force against Taiwan. "China should dismantle the missiles that threaten Taiwan, otherwise the President should authorize the sale of the Aegis system to Taiwan," the bill says. In April 2001, when Bush agreed to a massive weapons sale to Taiwan, he pointedly excluded the Arleigh-Burke-class destroyers equipped with the sophisticated Aegis system after China reportedly objected to the sale, reportedly drawing a "red line" between the Aegis and any other weapons system Washington was considering in the deal at the time. Original Link Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-06-29 23:48:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China and Biological Warfare Federation of American Scientists ^ | various | various http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/cbw/ Chemical and Biological Weapons China is widely reported to have active programs related to the development of chemical and biological weapons, although essentially no details of these programs have appeared in the open literature. China is believed to have an advanced chemical warfare program that includes research and development, production and weaponization capabilities. Its current inventory is believed to include the full range of traditional chemical agents. It also has a wide variety of delivery systems for chemical agents to include artillery rockets, aerial bombs, sprayers, and short-range ballistic missiles. Chinese forces have conducted defensive CW training and are prepared to operate in a contaminated environment. As China’s program is further integrated into overall military operations, its doctrine, which is believed to be based in part on Soviet-era thinking, may reflect the incorporation of more advanced munitions for CW agent delivery. China has signed and ratified the CWC. On 30 December 1996 the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress China ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC]. Previous, dual-use chemical-related transfers to Iran's chemical weapons program indicate that, at a minimum, China's chemical export controls are not operating effectively enough to ensure compliance with China's CWC obligation not to assist anyone in any way to acquire chemical weapons. In March 1997 Israeli authorities arrested an Israeli businessman, Nahum Manbar, for allegedly selling Chinese chemical weapon components to Iran. On May 21, 1997, pursuant to the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, the US Government imposed trade sanctions on five Chinese individuals, two Chinese companies, and one Hong Kong company for knowingly and materially contributing to Iran's chemical weapons program. These individuals and companies were involved in the export of dual-use chemical precursors and/or chemical production equipment and technology. The Chinese companies were the Nanjing Chemical Industries Group (NCI) and the Jiangsu Yongli Chemical Engineering and Technology Import/Export Corp. In 1939 the Japanese army established the Unit 731 germ-warfare research center in Harbin, where Japanese medical experts experimented on Chinese, Soviet, Korean, British and other prisoners. China possesses an advanced biotechnology infrastructure as well as the requisite munitions production capabilities necessary to develop, produce and weaponize biological agents. Although China has consistently claimed that it has never researched or produced biological weapons, it is nonetheless believed likely that it retains a biological warfare capability begun before acceding to the BWC. China is commonly considered to have an active biological warfare program, including dedicated research and development activities funded and supported by the Government for this purpose. There is essentially no open source data on the subject of Chinese BW activities, and many legitimate research programs use similar, if not identical equipment and facilities. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-06-29 23:51:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat GPS, Galileo and the China factor Asia Times ^ | 5.2.03 | John Berthelsen GPS, Galileo and the China factor By John Berthelsen Does Europe need to spend US$3 billion to duplicate the United States' 28-satellite Global Positioning System, the satellite system that is designed to tell anyone with the right receiver exactly where he is located on Earth? Apparently so, to the manifest irritation of the US government. That irritation is starting to ratchet up with word that the European Union is asking the Chinese government for help in creating its system, called Galileo. The Chinese are weighing various options, but it is widely believed that they will join the Europeans in creating Galileo, which would by 2008 loft a constellation of 30 satellites 23,000 kilometers into the sky to give Europe its own satellite navigation network. "It's national pride, it is nothing but national pride," fumed an aide to US Representative Dave Weldon, a Republican congressman who oversees the funding of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). "The Europeans feel they are vassals of the United States in respect to space power." Both the Chinese and the Europeans see Galileo as yet another counterweight, no matter how small, to the overwhelming technological superiority of the United States. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, there has been no remotely comparable force. US aerospace, sea and land power seem unassailable, with the United States alone now spending more money on defense than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations plus Russia, China, Japan, Iraq and North Korea combined. An EU spokesman also said Galileo has been designed and developed as a non-military application, unlike the US system. And, unlike GPS, which was in essence designed for military use, he said, Galileo provides a "possibly higher degree of precision" as required by modern business, something that causes US officials to snort with derision. They point out that GPS, used in the recent Iraq war by the military to locate targets, among other functions, performed well beyond the needs of nearly any commercial system. The Europeans have long sought to counter US technological supremacy in aerospace, through the French Ariane space program, for instance, since the 1960s. That evolved into the European Space Research Organization (ESRO), the precursor of the European Space Agency, partly to combat the so-called "brain drain" of scientists from Europe owing to the explosive development of science in the United States. European pride was on the line even then, with the French threatening to quit the ESRO in 1970 unless it reduced its purely scientific programs in favor of developing an applications satellite program. As long ago as 1984, the United States' space budget was already six times that of France, 11 times of that of Germany and 11 times that of Japan. Likewise, Airbus Industrie, which now threatens Boeing for world dominance in the aircraft industry, was set up by France, Germany and England to offset US supremacy in air transport. In 1960, there were 17 manufacturers of commercial aircraft in the West. By the late 1980s, there were three - Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Airbus. Today, there are two, with both the Europeans and the Americans complaining that the other side is subsidizing aircraft production through various hidden means. The Europeans have also spent decades and billions of dollars in various attempts to counter US jet-fighter superiority. The European Union, in a news release dated March 26, said that if Galileo were to go forward, it would approve the project "strictly as a civilian enterprise", a reference to the fact that GPS was originally developed by the US as a military system. Others indicated it would ensure that if the US GPS system were disabled by a terrorist attack, Galileo could fill in. Some EU officials, however, have privately characterized Galileo as a thinly veiled attempt to subsidize Europe's aerospace industry further. For its part, the US government says it sees "no compelling need" for Galileo because GPS should be able to meet the needs of the global user community for the foreseeable future. The government, according to Ralph Braibanti, director of the State Department's Space and Advanced Technology Staff, continues to operate, maintain and provide GPS signals free of user fees for civilian use across the world. "It's not immediately obvious why users in Europe and elsewhere would pay voluntarily for Galileo services when they can get the GPS signals for free," Braibanti said in a written statement. "Galileo's basis positioning service (Open Signal) will offer the same capabilities as GPS today and will also be free of charge," the EU spokesman countered. "Added-value service, especially for areas where human lives are at stake such as in aviation, will have to be paid for. Today's GPS cannot be used for these kinds of applications. Moreover, there is no guarantee that GPS, or a modernized GPS, will remain free of charge for all times." Presumably through clenched teeth, the Americans have proposed an agreement on GPS-Galileo cooperation. In a news release in February, Braibanti said that if Europe goes ahead with Galileo, the United States "would be interested in cooperating with Europe to ensure that it is interoperable with GPS". The US government has held a virtual monopoly on space positioning since it developed GPS as a military device. It has since developed into a commercial vehicle for surveying as well as keeping track of vehicles, aircraft, ships, or even herds of cattle. Satellite radio navigation enables any individual to determine his precise position down to one meter. Other commercial uses are speed control, aid for the disabled and elderly, public works, customs services for the location of suspects and border controls, and search and rescue. The EU says it has recognized the commercial possibilities, inviting more than 500 industry leaders from across the world to an EU briefing in Brussels on March 18 as potential investors and users. "The business case is questionable," said the Weldon aide. "It is a jobs program, a high-tech jobs program. They are going to charge when GPS is already up there for free. The US government is picking up the tab for GPS because the military paid for it. It was not envisioned as a civilian system. When it was opened up for civilian applications, it had already been bought and paid for." Certainly, EU member governments had threatened to balk in December because of the cost of Galileo. Unanimous backing is necessary. At a meeting in Brussels, a majority of the 15 EU ministers said they needed another three months to decide whether to spend the 450 million euros ($495 million) needed as seed funding. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany have expressed reservations for various reasons. France and Italy are fervent backers. However, the EU leaders have been reluctant to finance the project without guarantees of private backing. Even after it is up and running, it will cost an estimated 220 million euros a year to run it. Enter the Chinese, who have been asked to come up with an estimated $200 million to help defray costs. A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC, declined comment on the issue. "We know negotiations are going forward," he said. "But we don't have much information at this point." Nonetheless, then-premier Zhu Rongji as long as two years ago said China would like to become involved on a variety of levels, including for satellite navigation in non-transport areas such as geodetic surveying, agriculture and fisheries. A working group between the EU and China was set up in 2001. China's minister of science and technology, Xu Guanhua, met German Transportation Minister Kurt Bodewig in Berlin in August, and other officials have met since. "The Chinese are involved because they could benefit from a lot of technological knowledge the Europeans have and the Europeans benefit because the Chinese have got the money," said the Weldon aide. "They will have a hand in it, they are a fledgling space power, they will learn a lot." However, China will not have equal rights with Europe in respect to Galileo's planned Public Regulated Services, according to Spacenews, a Washington, DC-based publication devoted to aerospace and technology. The service is an encrypted signal to be used by government authorities for both military and civil purposes. Originally, the Public Regulated Services unit was to be placed on a part of the radio spectrum that was planned for the GPS military code, which angered US officials concerned that it was a threat to future US and NATO military operations. The Europeans have since settled the issue with international frequency regulators. The Europeans argue that the US still has the right to jam GPS frequencies, and perhaps Galileo frequencies as well, during time of war to prevent enemy use of satellite navigation for weapons guidance or troop navigation. "I don't think that is a real concern," said Weldon's aide. "Would we deny a NATO ally use of the service during time of war? We would be helping to defend an ally." Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-06-29 23:53:00 192.172.8.18 Re: The China Threat In case you guys have not noticed none other than J.R. Nyquist has taken up the issue of a probable invasion of the US mainland by Russia and China. He has come away with what appears to be a favorable review of Glbranson's "The Silent Invasion" tome. There are now numerous threads on the possibility (or certainty) of a ground war in the USA that have made their way into the forum at The Final Phase. Interesting reading. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-06-29 23:53:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Is China Bound to Explode? Business Week ^ | MAY 5, 2003 | Mark L. Clifford THE NEW CHINESE EMPIRE And What It Means for the United States. If you want to understand why China's government has engaged in a massive cover-up of the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic, read Ross Terrill's The New Chinese Empire. The book, of course, was in the can long before SARS erupted, presenting Beijing's leaders with their worst crisis since the 1989 Tiananmen massacre and its aftermath. But the pattern of paternalistic posturing, blatant lying, and dismissive slapping-down of anyone who questions official truth follows a pattern common in China for two millenniums. It is just this imperial attitude and its relation to the range of current problems that Terrill analyzes so cogently. The past quarter century has been a time of undeniable achievement for China. Rapid economic growth has lifted more than 200 million people out of absolute poverty and given hundreds of millions more a lifestyle that their parents could barely imagine. Society, too, has opened up in important ways: No longer does the state decide where citizens live, work, or send their children to school. As a result, China's many outside boosters have become confident that, in a decade or two, economic and social progress will automatically lead to a more open political system. Don't be fooled, warns the author. China's humming factories may make it the world's leading workshop, but its political system is a dinosaur. An ancient, autocratic tradition of realpolitik known as Legalism has fused with the Leninist structure of the ruling Communist Party to produce a brittle political setup that is incapable of the change that China's more modern economy and society demand. One way or another, Terrill contends, the day of reckoning -- possibly a violent one -- is drawing nigh. Terrill joins a long line of observers, including lawyer Gordon Chang and journalist Joe Studwell, who have argued that China's communist regime is doomed. The author is a former "friend of China," as the country's government terms those who are sympathetic to the regime. He first traveled to the country more than 30 years ago. What makes Terrill stand out among other China pessimists -- and what makes up the bulk of this volume's nearly 400 pages -- is his solid analysis of China's past 2,000 years, and of that history's relevance today. Among the symptoms that the Chinese regime is "dysfunctional in the world of nation-states," Terrill says, is its clinging to the ways of empire. Over the years, the author shows, China has used its moments of strength to grab neighboring territory, from what is now Yunnan province to Tibet and Xinjiang. During periods of weakness, China bided its time, disguising frailty as power. To awe their subjects, the mandarins falsely maintained that leaders ranging from Britain's King George III to Muslim warrior-king Tamerlane were paying tribute to them. Today, the state continues to turn weakness into strength -- for example, convincing many foreigners, including some Americans, that in both business and diplomacy, they need China more than China needs them. China remains, in Terrill's telling, an "empire of theatre and presumption," a country that is "deeply corrupt, politically unstable, yet extremely ambitious." Like the empires of old, the Communist state today has a deeply ingrained sense of its right to rule, and doesn't see the necessity for democratic processes. Where rulers once claimed to have the mandate of heaven, the Chinese Communist Party says its dictatorial mandate comes from history. The SARS cover-up supports Terrill's indictment of Beijing. Yet strains are growing between the need for economic growth and integration into the wider world -- and the necessity for repression. China's citizens are ever more confident and ever less willing to defer to the government. Investors, both foreign and domestic, want the certainty that the rule of law can bring. And they need the free flow of information that lubricates a modern market economy. Such demands are anathema to the party. Says Terrill: "Beijing is trying to do something impossible -- combine a market economy and Communist paternalism -- and the resulting strains will not go away." Terrill excels at analysis of the past, but his sense of where things go from here is less persuasive. Believing that "for the coming years, politics is destiny," he offers seven possible scenarios for the future that downplay cultural and economic developments. One possible outcome, he suggests, involves a party fracture followed by a military takeover. There is little discussion of the notion that China could evolve into a pluralistic, democratic society, as Taiwan and South Korea have done in the past 15 years. Nor is there much analysis of the pressures for change brought about by China's turn to a more market-oriented economy and its entry into the World Trade Organization. Terrill may not have a great crystal ball. And the book's subtitle, What It Means for the United States, bears little relation to the book and seems like a marketing gimmick. However, his refusal to be blinded by the facade of economic and social progress makes this a valuable work. Although no one can predict what will take place, by looking at China's past, Terrill has provided an excellent road map for understanding its future. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-06-29 23:54:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat Don't bet on China confronting N Korea http://www.taipeitimes.com ^ | May 19, 2003 | Sushil Seth Even when the US is at the zenith of its power, things don't seem so easy and smooth. For example, a small and impoverished country like North Korea is proving a hard nut to crack. Its brinkmanship on the nuclear question is a serious constraint on US power, for fear that things could get out of control with dire consequences all around. Even if one were to discount North Korea's nuclear deterrent (it is believed to have a couple of atomic bombs, with more in the process), the sheer scale of its conventional military power, in terms of threatening South Korea and Japan, is scary. With its million-strong army and an array of weapon systems from artillery to missiles, Seoul is within easy reach. And Japan is a missile target. South Korea is understandably nervous, with much of the blame for igniting the crisis directed at Washington. As Elizabeth Economy and Eugene Matthews point out, "Anti-US sentiment in South Korea is at its highest level since the country's founding in 1948. Most South Koreans believe that the United States does not appreciate the danger it [South Korea] confronts on a daily basis from North Korea, and they see America's recent harsh rhetoric as having exacerbated that danger, by increasing the North's sense of isolation and paranoia." There is also a pervasive sense of danger in Japan. The Japanese probably regard it as the most dangerous scenario since World War II. There is a growing political constituency favoring militarization, including nuclear weapons. Taken to its logical conclusion, its ripple effects in the region are too horrible to imagine. In other words, the crisis on the Korean Peninsula requires urgent resolution. But it is increasingly realized that a pre-emptive strike is not a feasible proposition because of its unpredictable consequences. The scale of human and material destruction is too grim to contemplate. This leaves diplomacy as the preferred alternative. Diplomacy has two facets: coercive and persuasive. Both require international cooperation. Regarding the first, UN-approved international sanctions are the obvious course. Pyongyang, though, has raised the stakes by declaring that it would regard sanctions as a declaration of war. In any case, with China effectively ruling out a Security Council-approved sanctions regime (with its veto), it might not come to that. Any attempt to cobble together a sanctions regime outside the UN will have to reckon both with Pyongyang and Beijing. Regarding persuasion, China is again the crucial factor. And it won't work unless Pyongyang is clear about the alternative. Beijing, therefore, would need to forewarn Pyongyang that unless it abandoned the nuclear path, it would be on its own. Considering Pyongyang's overwhelming dependence on Beijing for its economic lifeline (thin as it is), China has considerable leverage over its "brotherly" communist neighbor. Why isn't China then exercising this leverage? Beijing contends that it is quietly working on Pyongyang to see reason. And feels hurt that it is not getting the credit it deserves. Without Beijing's restraint, it is implied, things could get worse. In other words, Beijing indeed is contributing to regional stability through its tact and statesmanship. China is thus coming out in the region as a responsible power, a counterweight of sorts to US "brashness." Though exasperated at times with China's unwillingness to put the necessary pressure on North Korea, Washington believes that Beijing is -- or should be -- concerned about Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. This is the conventional wisdom. And it is not working. Therefore, it might be necessary to go beyond the conventional straitjacket to explore other possible explanations. China fancies itself as an alternative superpower. But the US is not keen on competition. Indeed, it regards China as a strategic competitor. And under its new strategic blueprint it is determined to maintain its supremacy at any cost. According to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, "The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy to impose its will on the United States." It adds, "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States." No prizes for guessing where this message is directed. Beijing is quite aware of its limitations and has scrupulously avoided confronting the US politically and militarily. Indeed, it has forged cooperation with the US against terrorism. For the foreseeable future, China has no hope of competing with the US in raw power. But it certainly can tap into other areas to erode the US position and is steadily doing it. It has lately been projecting a benign and responsible image among its Asian neighbors. With ASEAN countries, it has entered into a framework agreement to promote free trade over 10 years. The lure of China's vast market is being dangled before these countries feeling the pinch of the US economic slowdown, notwithstanding the fact that it is much more competitive with its regional neighbors in terms of markets and investments. Beijing has also been seeking to appear reasonable over the South China Sea islands issue and development of its resources. Similarly, at the recent SARS summit of ASEAN countries in Bangkok, Beijing agreed on regional cooperation to confront the epidemic. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made quite an impression with his sense of humility by admitting that much needed to be done. China's charm offensive in Asia has won it considerable goodwill, at a time when the US is preoccupied with terrorism, Iraq and the Middle East in general. Above all, it has made an impact with its softly-softly approach on North Korea. An impression is thus created that without China's steadying and restraining hand, the North Korean crisis could easily explode. More remarkably, even Washington sets store by Beijing in resolving the crisis, believing that Pyongyang's intransigence will eventually exhaust China's patience in favor of concerted international action for its downfall. But it might not turn out that way. North Korea is China's diplomatic trump card to maintain and promote its great-power ambitions. It has promoted Beijing's credentials as a peacemaker of sorts by its hosting US-North Korean negotiations. And it is being suggested by some Chinese analysts (with official nod, no doubt) that, at some point, if North Korea were to continue being difficult, Beijing would have to disabuse their mind of "the illusion that China will support them whatever they have done." Washington would like to believe this. But will it happen? It is difficult to be categorical. But if Kim Jong-il were to cave in or be overthrown with Chinese involvement, US global domination will be even more entrenched. It is not a prospect that Beijing would like to be part of. NickM (Member) 2003-06-30 11:57:00 12.111.167.100 Re: The China Threat No kidding. Communist coutries do not work at loggerheads to each other, despite surface appearences. Nick (who has read Golytsin) Cspace (Member) 2003-07-30 23:35:00 216.242.4.172 Re: The China Threat China Adds to Missiles Aimed at Taiwan, Pentagon Says quote:July 30 (Bloomberg) -- China is on a path to increase by half over the next few years the number of short-range ballistic missiles arrayed against Taiwan, a Pentagon report says. China has about 450 CSS-6 and CSS-7 missiles facing Taiwan across the South China Sea. That number is expected to grow by 75 a year ``over the next few years,'' the report said. The missiles are mobile and have ranges of 372 miles (600 kilometers) and 186 miles (300 kilometers), respectively. ``As Beijing increases the accuracy and lethality of its conventional ballistic missile arsenal, a growing and significant challenge is posed to U.S. forces in the Western Pacific, as well as to allies and friends, including Taiwan,'' the report said. The report is the second unclassified assessment of China's military by the Bush administration. Aside from the missile trend, it rehashes the earlier document. That report described a Chinese policy of intimidating Taiwan by the threat of missiles, Soviet-built submarines and blockade or invasion. That policy continues, said the new document. Taiwan was taken over by the Nationalist Party after the party lost control of China to the Communists in 1949. China still considers the island a breakaway province and reuniting the two remains a centerpiece of Chinese foreign policy. A 1979 U.S. law requires the U.S. to offer Taiwan the weapons it needs to defend itself against China. Argument for Missile Defense The disclosures may provide ammunition for advocates of a robust U.S. missile defense program that would include allies such as Taiwan and Japan in a regional system of air-, sea- and grounded-based defenses. The report also could add pressure to improve Taiwan's air defense systems with modern weapons such as the Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co. PAC-3 anti-missile system that saw its first action in the recent war in Iraq. Taiwan this month formally requested its first batteries of PAC-3s, according to a report in Jane's Missiles & Rockets Report. ``All of China's known short-range ballistic missile assets are believed to be based in the Nanjing Military Region opposite Taiwan,'' and ``the accuracy and lethality of this force is increasing,'' says the ``Annual Report on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China.'' Israeli Sale Disclosed Among other disclosures, the Pentagon said China ``has procured from Israel a significant number of Harpy anti-radiation systems.'' The Harpy is a kamikaze drone produced by Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd. that's equipped with anti-radar sensors and a bomb capable of attacking Taiwanese air-defense radar. The drone would dive into a radar station. The Harpy was used during July 2002 Chinese military drills in the region opposite Taiwan, according to press reports but the Pentagon had not previously confirmed the Israeli sale. ``The Harpy detects, attacks and destroys enemy radar emitters, hitting them with high accuracy,'' IAI says on its web site. ``It effectively suppresses hostile surface-to-air missiles and radar sites for long durations, loitering above enemy territory for hours.'' The drone is already in use with several air forces, IAI said. The report also strengthened a warning in last year's report that China is expected to acquire within the decade ``a significant'' airborne early-warning capability similar to the U.S. AWACS airplane. The U.S. in 2001 stopped Israel from selling one of their versions to China but the communist government continues to pursue the technology, the report said. ``The technical ability could exist for these aircraft to display a coordinated air picture, with the capability to command and control airborne assets,'' the report says. This capability combined with aerial refueling aircraft could give China the potential to launch combat missions over a wide area in the Pacific, the Pentagon said. New Weapons Systems The report said China also is developing or procuring weapons systems under a program known as ``Assassin's Mace'' to ``counter intervening U.S. forces.'' The report didn't elaborate. China is now assessed to have deployed Over-the-Horizon Sky- Wave radar that could target large U.S. aircraft carriers, the report disclosed. The report repeats an earlier assessment that China is developing CSS-6 variants that could employee Global Positioning Satellite navigation to allow attacks of Taiwan and Okinawa. The new report also repeats U.S. assessments that China's reported $20 billion defense budget put it closer to $65 billion and could increase four-fold by 2020 in real terms. FYI, CSpace Cspace (Member) 2003-07-30 23:37:00 216.242.4.172 Re: The China Threat Pentagon says China refitting missiles to hit Okinawa quote:China is modifying short-range mobile missiles to target U.S. forces in Okinawa and is sharply increasing the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, according to the Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power. "Beijing has greatly expanded its arsenal of increasingly accurate and lethal ballistic missiles and long-range strike aircraft that are ready for immediate application should the [People´s Liberation Army] be called upon to conduct war before its modernization aspirations are fully realized," according to the report released yesterday. The Chinese are working on a medium-range missile that will give Beijing the ability to launch attacks against the 25,000 U.S. troops deployed on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa. The new missiles also will be able to hit Taiwan from bases farther inland from the Chinese coast, the report said. Currently, all of China's short-range CSS-7 and CSS-6 missiles are deployed in the Nanjing military region, located across the Taiwan Strait from China. The new CSS-6s will "employ satellite-aided navigation to enable attacks against both Okinawa and Taiwan." China now has deployed 450 short-range missiles and the force will grow by more than 75 missiles a year, the report said. Last year's report said China had 350 CSS-6 and CSS-7 missiles within striking range of Taiwan and that the Chinese military was adding 50 a year. The missiles pose "a growing and significant challenge ... to U.S. forces in the western Pacific, as well as to allies and friends, including Taiwan." Regarding the threat to Taiwan, the report states that China could use "decapitation" attacks against the island using missiles, aircraft or an amphibious assault. "China's efforts to develop coercive military options present challenges not only to Taiwan, but also to other countries in the region such as the Philippines and Japan," the report said. China also is beefing up its long-range nuclear missiles. Along with building new intercontinental ballistic missiles, China may abandon its pledge not to be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict. Beijing is "reconsidering" how it would use nuclear weapons "against U.S. forces in the region," the report said. The report also warns that China is building up its "information warfare" forces in preparation for a conflict over Taiwan, which President Bush has vowed to defend from Chinese attack. Beijing has adopted a new strategy of what Beijing military planners call "assassin's mace" arms — advanced weapons designed for use against U.S. forces. Current "assassins maces" that could trump advanced U.S. weapons include fighter bombers, submarines, antiship missiles, and mines that could attack U.S. aircraft carriers. "Chinese doctrine continues to emphasize surprise, deception, and shock effect in the opening phase of a campaign," the report said. China's military buildup has led the Pentagon to quietly build up its military forces in the Pacific in recent months. Attack submarines have been deployed in Guam, along with stockpiles of air-launched cruise missiles. Bombers also have been moved to the region to deal with either a conflict in Korea or possibly a war over Taiwan, defense officials said. China continues to build up its military in utmost secrecy. Its military spending is estimated to be many times greater than the official estimate of $20 billion annually, the report said. Based on observation of U.S. forces in the 1999 conflict in Kosovo, China has adopted an air-defense system called "Three Attacks and Three Defenses," that calls for attacking stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and helicopters and defending against precision bombing and missile strikes, electronic warfare and enemy reconnaissance, the report said. China also watched U.S. Special Forces and increasingly mobile U.S. military forces operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, the report said. The report states that China's leaders believe Communist Party rule would be undermined if the military loses a future war over China. Strategically, China's communist leaders are using a Leninist approach in an attempt to influence "those who oppose and those who support China's interest's abroad." "Once China's leaders make the distinction between friend and foe, they can develop and tailor [propaganda] themes to counter opposition and advance their overall agenda," the report said. "Moreover, such distinctions position China to reward 'friends' abroad, or alternatively, punish 'enemies' to enhance its own position in the balance of power." The report, required by a provision of the 2000 defense authorization law, includes other details of China's buildup, such as: •New fighter aircraft made indigenously as well as purchases of Russian Su-30 and Su-27 fighter-bombers. •Purchase of eight new Kilo submarines from Russia, along with antiship cruise missiles for the subs. China also is purchasing two Russian Sovremeny warships. •Development of advanced weapons, including lasers, radio-frequency bombs and anti-satellite weapons. FYI, CSpace Cspace (Member) 2003-07-31 23:20:00 216.242.4.172 Re: The China Threat Follow-up from yesterday's reports. China Slams Pentagon Report on Threat to Taiwan quote: BEIJING (Reuters) - China denounced a Pentagon report on Friday accusing it of deploying growing numbers of ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan and said Washington was making excuses to sell advanced weapons to the island. "The motive is to foment public opinion and excuses to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement when asked to comment on the Pentagon's annual report on Chinese military might. "The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition." On Thursday, Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan used the occasion of Army Day to underscore the mantra of the mainland's communist rulers that they would not tolerate any attempt to prevent reunification with the island. "Realizing the complete reunification of the motherland is the common desire of all Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots," Cao said in comments carried by the People's Daily, the Communist Party's mouthpiece. "We have the determination and the ability to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity," Cao said during celebrations to mark the 76th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army. "We will never allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China in any way," said Cao, a vice-chairman of the Central Military Commission and who sits on the Communist Party's elite Politburo. China is boosting military spending and deploying increasing numbers of ballistic missiles to prepare for a possible conflict in the Taiwan Straits aimed at bringing the island to its knees before the United States has time to intervene, the Pentagon said on Wednesday. The White House said on Thursday that China's build-up of ballistic missiles capable of striking Taiwan could destabilize the region, and added it was prepared to sell the island weapons to defend itself. Since China and Taiwan split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, Beijing has threatened to attack if the democratic island declared independence or dragged its feet on reunification talks. FYI, CSpace Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-08-03 22:31:00 192.172.8.18 Re: The China Threat China is targeting US forces Based in Japan. Consider this as one in a continuing series of "heads-up" warnings. Pentagon says China refitting missiles to hit Okinawa By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES China is modifying short-range mobile missiles to target U.S. forces in Okinawa and is sharply increasing the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan, according to the Pentagon's latest annual report on Chinese military power. "Beijing has greatly expanded its arsenal of increasingly accurate and lethal ballistic missiles and long-range strike aircraft that are ready for immediate application should the [People´s Liberation Army] be called upon to conduct war before its modernization aspirations are fully realized," according to the report released yesterday. The Chinese are working on a medium-range missile that will give Beijing the ability to launch attacks against the 25,000 U.S. troops deployed on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa. The new missiles also will be able to hit Taiwan from bases farther inland from the Chinese coast, the report said. Currently, all of China's short-range CSS-7 and CSS-6 missiles are deployed in the Nanjing military region, located across the Taiwan Strait from China. The new CSS-6s will "employ satellite-aided navigation to enable attacks against both Okinawa and Taiwan." China now has deployed 450 short-range missiles and the force will grow by more than 75 missiles a year, the report said. Last year's report said China had 350 CSS-6 and CSS-7 missiles within striking range of Taiwan and that the Chinese military was adding 50 a year. The missiles pose "a growing and significant challenge ... to U.S. forces in the western Pacific, as well as to allies and friends, including Taiwan." Regarding the threat to Taiwan, the report states that China could use "decapitation" attacks against the island using missiles, aircraft or an amphibious assault. "China's efforts to develop coercive military options present challenges not only to Taiwan, but also to other countries in the region such as the Philippines and Japan," the report said. China also is beefing up its long-range nuclear missiles. Along with building new intercontinental ballistic missiles, China may abandon its pledge not to be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict. Beijing is "reconsidering" how it would use nuclear weapons "against U.S. forces in the region," the report said. The report also warns that China is building up its "information warfare" forces in preparation for a conflict over Taiwan, which President Bush has vowed to defend from Chinese attack. Beijing has adopted a new strategy of what Beijing military planners call "assassin's mace" arms — advanced weapons designed for use against U.S. forces. Current "assassins maces" that could trump advanced U.S. weapons include fighter bombers, submarines, antiship missiles, and mines that could attack U.S. aircraft carriers. "Chinese doctrine continues to emphasize surprise, deception, and shock effect in the opening phase of a campaign," the report said. China's military buildup has led the Pentagon to quietly build up its military forces in the Pacific in recent months. Attack submarines have been deployed in Guam, along with stockpiles of air-launched cruise missiles. Bombers also have been moved to the region to deal with either a conflict in Korea or possibly a war over Taiwan, defense officials said. China continues to build up its military in utmost secrecy. Its military spending is estimated to be many times greater than the official estimate of $20 billion annually, the report said. Based on observation of U.S. forces in the 1999 conflict in Kosovo, China has adopted an air-defense system called "Three Attacks and Three Defenses," that calls for attacking stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and helicopters and defending against precision bombing and missile strikes, electronic warfare and enemy reconnaissance, the report said. China also watched U.S. Special Forces and increasingly mobile U.S. military forces operate in Afghanistan and Iraq, the report said. The report states that China's leaders believe Communist Party rule would be undermined if the military loses a future war over China. Strategically, China's communist leaders are using a Leninist approach in an attempt to influence "those who oppose and those who support China's interest's abroad." "Once China's leaders make the distinction between friend and foe, they can develop and tailor [propaganda] themes to counter opposition and advance their overall agenda," the report said. "Moreover, such distinctions position China to reward 'friends' abroad, or alternatively, punish 'enemies' to enhance its own position in the balance of power." The report, required by a provision of the 2000 defense authorization law, includes other details of China's buildup, such as: •New fighter aircraft made indigenously as well as purchases of Russian Su-30 and Su-27 fighter-bombers. •Purchase of eight new Kilo submarines from Russia, along with antiship cruise missiles for the subs. China also is purchasing two Russian Sovremeny warships. •Development of advanced weapons, including lasers, radio-frequency bombs and anti-satellite weapons. Pentagon Says China Refitting Missiles To Hit Okinawa Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-08-07 02:14:00 192.172.8.18 Re: The China Threat Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan To Destroy America -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have just acquired a copy of the book Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan To Destroy America. This book is the english translation by the Pan-American Publishing Company, Panama City, Panama of the orginal work (Unrestricted Warfare) by two young generation, yet senior, Colonels of the Peoples Liberation Army. It was first printed in Beijing by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in February 1999. here is the oft quoted excerpt from page 122 of the book: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military...This is beacuse they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three years prior to September 11, 2001. Here are the forms of "total warfare" identified that China or its surrogates must engage in to defeat and destroy the enemy, specifically the United States of America and its allies. Financial Warfare: attack the banking and stock markets, manipulate the value of targeted currency. Smuggling warfare: sabotage the target nation by flooding its market with illegal goods and pirated products. Cultural warfare: influence the culture by imposing your own cultural viewpoints. Drug warfare: flood the taget with drugs and breakdown the society by their use. Media and fabrication warfare: manipulate foreign media by compromising or intimidating journalists, gain access to the targets airwaves, impose proaganda. Technological warfare: create technology monopolies by setting standards independently in vital technologies in peace and wartime. Resources warfare: control scarse natural resources or manipulate their access and market value. Psychological warfare: impose your own national interest by domination the target nations own perception of its strengths and weaknesses. Network warfare: dominate and subvert information systems. International law warfare: join international or multinational organizations in order to subvert their policies and the interpretation of their rulings. Environmental warfare: weakening or subjugating the target nation by despoiling or altering its natural environment. Economic aid warfare: control a targeted country by through aid dependency. Thus we have asymmetrical total warfare at all times and in perpetuity until the target nation is vanquished There is a section in this book which is of keen interest and concerns China's al-Qaeda Connection. In June 2002 The Washington Times reports that US intelligence confirms that before the September 11 attacks China's military provided training for Afghanistan's taliban and its al-Qaeda supporters. I wonder if the Chinese PLA version of Unrestricted Warfare was one of the textbooks of instruction. I do not doubt it. As I read and digest this book I will comment on what I come across in this thread. If anyone else here has this book, please add your comments and observations. And yes, the CIA, DIA and other US national security departments were provided copies of this translation prior to September 11, 2001. Here's some other avenues of pursuing this book and other vital information (yes, I am engaging in my own version of Information Warfare ). Massive amounts of data are available here: Chinese PLA Doctrines Index Direct Links: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw1.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/unresw2.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/WEBRES3.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/WEEBRES4.htm And this from a general web search... PAPER TIGER OR 'UNRESTRICTED WAR' By William Markiewicz The book 'Unrestricted War', written by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, tries to answer this question: How does a relatively weak country like China stand up to a power like the United States? Among the ways they would deal with such an adversary are terrorism, drug trafficking, environmental degradation and computer virus propagation. "Unrestricted war is a war that surpasses all boundaries and restrictions," they write at one point. "It takes military and nonmilitary forms and creates war on many fronts. It is the war of the future." Colonel Wang said in an interview: "War has rules, but those rules are set by the West. If you use those rules, then weak countries have no chance. But if you use nontraditional means to fight, like those employed by financiers to bring down financial systems, then you have a chance." Colonel Qiao suggested that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic should have attempted to deal with NATO attacks by slipping a terrorist group into Italy and attacking NATO air bases. Terrorist bands also could have attacked population centers in Germany, France and Belgium, he said. Open but discreet termination The West has destroyed its own 'war rules' in Yugoslavia and was ready to destroy all of Yugoslavia. Few besides the Yugoslavs would have noticed. NATO launched its air attacks on Serbia in front of the blinded world masses who simply could not associate NWO and its NATO with terrorism, allowing the perpetrator to 'get away with murder.' Psychologists know that people see mostly what they're ready to see. In what is called 'the Magellan Syndrome' the Indians couldn't see the mighty ships at anchor on their shores because in their mental universe there was no place for such ships. We also read about Indians who told escaped slaves that they were 'the first white men' to show up in this region. As they had never seen a black man before, anyone who was not Indian had to be white. How many of us seeing the elephant 'Jumbo' flying with his ears would believe our own eyes? Collective visions exist, yes, but again, only for people who are predisposed to see them. Never would a Muslim or a Jew have a vision of Christ for example. In a hypothetical war with China, would the USA show more restraint than it did in the heart of Europe? Attacking the civilian population by air as in Yugoslavia, levelling everything on the ground and calling it collateral damage, is the most efficient and cynical possible form of terror. Drug trafficking and computer virus propagation are minor tactics which may annoy the mighty adversary without affecting the outcome of the war. All the terrorist groups gathered couldn't cause even a small part of the damage caused by an all powerful air force. NATO means business and fights to win. Anything the weak can do the strong can do limitlessly. Therefore 'unrestricted war' in the final account may turn against its initiators. Poker Kamikaze versus bombs Unrestricted war, meaning the field terrorism proposed in the book, is a weakness which disguises itself as force, and weakness impresses only if it's embodied in those who are ready to die. The Numancia, Massada, Warsaw Uprisings, gave the message that those who were going to die would be deadly first. The Kamikaze horrify; people are afraid of those who are not afraid to die. They are scared already by the fact that they themselves cannot be scary. Democracies have less stamina than dictatorships because they must answer to their citizens. But, to take advantage of this, Kamikazes would have to be in great numbers like attacking ants or hornets and this kind of death by choice will always be reserved for a few desperados. Therefore the West probably will never run the risk of being exposed to such a poker game. http://www.vagabondpages.com/september99/tiger.html Here's an excerpt from the World Socialist Web Site Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An article in the Washington Post last Sunday revealed that discussion has already taken place in military circles in China over its limited defence capacities in a decade of aggressive US military interventions. Colonel Wang Xiangsui, who co-authored with Colonel Qiao Liang a book entitled Unrestricted War, was quoted as saying: “The country that studied the Persian Gulf War the most was not America, but China. The military studied all the weapons systems and all the strategy, but we two think that China cannot follow the US model. We are much poorer than the United States. So we think that China needs to begin to adjust the way it makes war.â€� Reflecting the thinking in Chinese military circles, Wang and Qiao draw the conclusion from NATO's attack on Yugoslavia that China confronts a similar threat over areas it either controls or claims. “If today you impose your value systems on a European country, tomorrow you can do the same to Taiwan or Tibet,â€� Wang said. The two officers propose that China plan future strategies including computer viruses, media and financial warfare, to try to deal with the vast technological superiority of the US and other major powers. Beijing is attempting to upgrade its weaponry. It recently announced the purchase of 72 advanced Sukhoi-30 fighters from Russia at the estimated cost of $US2 billion in a deal that will also permit the manufacture of 250 more in China. On August 2, in a move calculated to increase the pressure on Taipei, China announced that it had successfully test fired a new long-range ground-to ground missile—the Dong Feng-31—capable of carrying a 700 kilogram warhead about 8,000 kilometres. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The links to fas.org above is Unrestricted Warfare by PLA Col.s Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui in its entireity. minus the forward by Al Santoli and the Translators notes to the CIA, etc and a brief preface. The book is now the doctrine of the Peoples Liberation Army. Phil FiordAdministrator (Member) 2003-08-08 00:45:00 68.169.170.128 Re: The China Threat http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B656343.htm 07 Aug 2003 17:14:03 GMT China moves to draw U.S. into space arms talks -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Robert Evans GENEVA, Aug 7 (Reuters) - China, in a clear move to draw in a reluctant United States, announced on Thursday it was ready for talks on preventing an arms race in space even if they were not specifically aimed at a binding treaty. The surprise announcement, following what diplomats said was a high-level decision in Beijing this week, was billed by a Chinese envoy as a major compromise aimed at injecting life into the long-stalled Geneva Conference on Disarmament (CD). Russia, which like China had earlier argued -- in the face of U.S. refusal -- for formal negotiations on a global agreement barring weaponry from space, hailed the Chinese shift and told the 65-nation forum it would be ready to join in. Both powers, known to be deeply concerned over U.S. plans for a "Star Wars Mark II" National Missile Defence system (NMD), said they hoped the move would clear the way for talks on space arms and other disarmament issues to get under way soon. Just a week ago in an obvious reference to NMD they told the CD, currently holding a three-months summer session, that the danger of "weaponisation" of outer space was growing and had to be tackled promptly. There was no immediate response from the United States. Its envoy did not take the floor at Thursday's session of the United Nations-sponsored CD -- where some of the major disarmament treaties of the Cold War period were negotiated. Under the administration of President George W.Bush, Washington has insisted that it must have the right to deploy a system like NMD to defend itself against "rogue states" and terrorists who might acquire ballistic missiles. RETURN FOR HELP But senior CD diplomats said China and Russia appeared to be stepping up pressure on the United States to at least talk about the issue -- perhaps in return for their help in the global "war against terrorism" and in the North Korean crisis. "Perhaps they feel that there are some signs the Bush administration is beginning to realise that it needs friends and that it cannot continue to pursue a unilateral path on all issues," said one envoy, who declined to be identified. Making the announcement, China's ambassador Hu Xiaodi told the CD on Thursday that his country was demonstrating "immense flexibility" in dropping its demand for formal negotiations on a space arms pact, which have been in the air for a decade. The decision had been taken to try to break the six-year deadlock in the CD, where the last pact completed was a wide-ranging nuclear test ban treaty in 1996 and which has since been the scene of diplomatic squabbling. Discussions on space weapons, under a new programme proposed by five former CD chairmen, would take place alongside talks on nuclear disarmament, on banning production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and on how to guarantee non-nuclear states would not be targets for nuclear attacks. Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-08-08 03:37:00 192.172.8.18 Re: The China Threat Phil, Good article above. The Russian and Chinese have a very big problem with US dominance in space. Star Wars Mk II scares the hell out of them because they understand that who ever controls space can also control the ground under it. Currently the US is decades ahead of anyone else in controlling and networking the Battlespace. We hold the strategic high ground and our enemies can't stand it. I want to address something that my initial post above on Unrestricted Warfare mentioned. In the introduction to the book Al Santori writes: quote:" Unrestricted Warfare suggests that war with the U.S. can begin with bribing American officials to gain their objectives. The art of buying off politicians in foreign governments did not begin with "Chinagate" and China's apparent bribes to Bill Clinton, though the incidents are perhaps the most egregious of public treason in the history of our republic. The Chginagate scandals first surfaced in 1997, when it was published, and confirmed by U.S. sources, that president Clinton had legally authorized the transfer of America's most guarded ballistic missile technology by the Loral Corporation, though there was evidence that the technology was first illegally transferred. Before the Clinton authorization, China's missiles were wildly inaccurate, wit ha greater likelyhood of exploding soon after launch than upon reaching their targets. But with the assistance of President Clinton, China now has missiles as accurate as ours. In return, President Clinton's 1996 campaign recieved, according to the FBI, more than $10 million in illegal Chinese donations... Perhaps the authors of Unrestricted Warfare were cognizant of the success of Chinese payments to President Clinton when they advocated bribery as a form of total war." This backs up my contention that the PLA has been at war with the US since 1996. It also and reinforces what I and others have been saying for a very long time, Bill Clinton betrayed this country completely. Malsua (Moderator) 2003-08-08 14:55:00 216.6.139.106 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by Sean Osborne: Phil, Good article above. The Russian and Chinese have a very big problem with US dominance in space. Star Wars Mk II scares the hell out of them because they understand that who ever controls space can also control the ground under it. Currently the US is decades ahead of anyone else in controlling and networking the Battlespace. We hold the strategic high ground and our enemies can't stand it. I want to address something that my initial post above on Unrestricted Warfare mentioned. In the introduction to the book Al Santori writes: quote:" Unrestricted Warfare suggests that war with the U.S. can begin with bribing American officials to gain their objectives. The art of buying off politicians in foreign governments did not begin with "Chinagate" and China's apparent bribes to Bill Clinton, though the incidents are perhaps the most egregious of public treason in the history of our republic. The Chginagate scandals first surfaced in 1997, when it was published, and confirmed by U.S. sources, that president Clinton had legally authorized the transfer of America's most guarded ballistic missile technology by the Loral Corporation, though there was evidence that the technology was first illegally transferred. Before the Clinton authorization, China's missiles were wildly inaccurate, wit ha greater likelyhood of exploding soon after launch than upon reaching their targets. But with the assistance of President Clinton, China now has missiles as accurate as ours. In return, President Clinton's 1996 campaign recieved, according to the FBI, more than $10 million in illegal Chinese donations... Perhaps the authors of Unrestricted Warfare were cognizant of the success of Chinese payments to President Clinton when they advocated bribery as a form of total war." This backs up my contention that the PLA has been at war with the US since 1996. It also and reinforces what I and others have been saying for a very long time, Bill Clinton betrayed this country completely. Sean, while I agree that the PLA may be at war with us, the people in the mainland are idjits. The Army is made up of those folks. These are the same folks who blow themselves up in firework factories regularly. In fact one blew up last week. A regular occurance. The Chinese people have none of what any American would call "Common Sense" -Mal Phil FiordAdministrator (Member) 2003-08-08 15:21:00 68.169.170.128 Re: The China Threat Geez, Mal, it's funny you mention "Common Sense" as that has been topical in my office as of late in communications we make. Good call btw. I too echo the reality of the PLA being in a quiet stance of unofficial war. I see it constantly on probes to my computer that are blocked. The IP's come from various regions in China including the province that the more recent outbreak of disease is found to have originated from. These probings are odd to me for we know that China regulates the useage of the net internally. I must go thru my logs sometime and post some of these IP's. Of course I saved a detailed record. Malsua (Moderator) 2003-08-08 16:41:00 216.6.139.106 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by Phil Fiord: Geez, Mal, it's funny you mention "Common Sense" as that has been topical in my office as of late in communications we make. Good call btw. I too echo the reality of the PLA being in a quiet stance of unofficial war. I see it constantly on probes to my computer that are blocked. The IP's come from various regions in China including the province that the more recent outbreak of disease is found to have originated from. These probings are odd to me for we know that China regulates the useage of the net internally. I must go thru my logs sometime and post some of these IP's. Of course I saved a detailed record. Phil, as a note, while it is thought that China controls internet access, I found NO, that is Nada, not one, not any restriction on internet access. This is from the mainland. I was on any number of various connections, not one was blocked. For a hoot, I entered "Falun Gong" in the google search engine. I found their main website. I was leaving that hotel the next day so hopefully they didn't get a jack booted thug invasion. heh. China's only hope to keep down a peasant invasion is to keep them stupid. Only a select few ever get to see western TV and the internet so it's not much of a problem to them. -Mal Cspace (Member) 2003-08-15 06:14:00 216.242.4.172 Re: The China Threat Not sure if this has been brought up before in the China Threat Thread. I'm still trying to learn about all the Chinese and Russian subterfuge before I participate too much in these threads. But, I found this today, and thought it should be posted. Nanotechnology Threatens America quote:On Aug. 7, I spoke on "The Bert Lee [Radio] Show” in Arizona about the expected ability of nanotechnology, being developed in China since 1986, along with at least six other postnuclear fields, to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation and thus to eliminate Mutual Assured Destruction, that is, to disarm the West. The host of the show introduced me generously, but then objected to whatever I said with remarks like "But Professor, how come you know this and our entire political establishment does not?” I would reply: "You mean our entire political establishment does not want to know this.” After half an hour of such exchanges, four listeners called, and three of them (75 percent) agreed with me. I will quote their astute remarks in one of my next columns. The fourth of these four listeners also asked me to explain the strategic advantages of nano power over nuclear power, and this is what I said: Nuclear (and thermonuclear) power can "burn” a city, but it cannot "burn” an ocean, the atmosphere or a continent. Hence the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, on which world peace has rested. A nuclear country has means of nuclear retaliation – submarines deep under water, underground missiles, and bombers on duty high in the air. They all carry nuclear charges, and none of them can be destroyed by a nuclear attack. If attacked by nuclear weapons, a nuclear country activates its means of nuclear retaliation, and these destroy the attacker. Yes, Mutual Assured Destruction! Nano power does not burn, explode or irradiate. It passes in between atoms and molecules, and "destroys from within” all means of nuclear retaliation, be it submarines, underground missiles or bombers, together with their nuclear charges. I receive e-mails from nanotechnologists expressing approval and good wishes, as well as inquiring about nanotechnology in China. In other words, we are no longer a few lonely custodians of the nanotechnological truth; our ranks are growing, and here I want to make public, with the author's permission, Britt Gillette's highly stimulating e-mail to me of Aug. 1. He graduated magna cum laude with distinction from James Madison University in 1999, and has been educating the public on the civilian benefits and the supernuclear geostrategic danger of nanotechnology. His nano sci-fi "Conquest of Paradise” I hope to review in my column. Following is his remarkable e-mail to me: "I enjoyed the opportunity to read your article "The Mind of an American Specialist in Nanotechnology.' I am intimately familiar with the plethora of policy challenges the free world will face with the emergence of [weaponized] molecular nanotechnology, and have read Mark Gubrud's "Nanotechnology and International Security' on several occasions. I agree with your conclusions, and I am disheartened by Mr. Gubrud's naivete in relation to geopolitical realities. "Like many within the nanotechnology community, Mr. Gubrud fails or refuses to recognize the inherent dangers of nanotechnology's development. Since the prospect of two nanotechnic powers locked in confrontation would almost certainly lead to unparalleled planetary destruction, many apologists simply present the solution of "a single global regime' as an answer to the problem. Like Mr. Gubrud, such people fail to mention the wide array of cultural and ideological values that make such an international alliance unworkable at best. In addition, such advocates fail to address what measures will be taken to check the power of "a single global regime.' For a nanotechnic dictatorship cannot be defeated from within. I am also sorry to read that Mr. Gubrud replied to your inquiries in the manner in which he did. "I suggest that instead you contact Dr. Eric Drexler, author of "Engines of Creation,' which, ironically, and probably coincidentally, was published in 1986 – the year you cite as China's inauguration of Project 863. In light of his past comments, Dr. Drexler is quite wary of the potential negative consequences of this probable superweapon. In addition, Mr. Chris Phoenix of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is a person grappling with similar questions in regard to the policy implications of molecular nanotechnology, and I recommend him as a person you should contact. [Coincidentally, a warm letter from Chris Phoenix, director of research, came in response to the column "The Mind of an American Specialist in Nanotechnology”.] "I was drawn to your article because you're the first person I've ever seen on a mainstream website to deal with the topic of "Superweapon #3' in the realistic near-term, rather than as an ambiguous creation "decades in the future.' I ardently believe "Superweapon #3' will be a molecular assembler, and I have since 11 September devoted myself to the task of educating others in regard to its potential dangers. Your article today prompted me to go back and read through your NewsMax archives. All I can say is "Keep up the good work!' "One article I read [WorldTribune, "Proof Positive of Post-Nuclear Weapons in China and Russia”] dealt with the comments of a Mr. William Stroupe, who stated the following: "It does intrigue me that if one could possibly down the crucial technological assets of the West in one fell swoop, without the use of nuclear weapons, then world domination on the part of the attacker would surely result. But how could this possibly be done, from a technological standpoint?' "Such a prospect of world domination could easily be achieved with the creation of a molecular assembler – a device capable of breaking and creating the chemical bonds between atoms and molecules. Since a molecular assembler is by definition able to self-replicate, the first could build a duplicate copy of itself. Those two then become four, become eight, and so on. ... This compounding capital base could lead to a massive and decisive force within days. As Eric Drexler described in his book, "a state that makes the assembler breakthrough could rapidly create a decisive military force – if not literally overnight, then at least with unprecedented speed.' "To answer to Mr. Stroupe's question, such a device is capable of rapidly manufacturing and deploying billions of microscopic/macroscopic machines at relatively little cost. These machines could comb the oceans for enemy submarines and quickly disable the nuclear arsenals they carry. Similar acts of sabotage could be carried out simultaneously against land-based nuclear facilities and conventional military forces in a matter of hours, if not minutes. "The race to build a molecular assembler, if won by China, will result in a worldwide nanotechnic dictatorship, and I appreciate your efforts to call attention to this important subject. We are certainly at a crucial juncture in history, not unlike 1938 and its nuclear scientists who foretold of the atom bomb. This time, we cannot afford to be caught sleeping. "Currently, I am working on a fictional account of a future nanotechnic arms race in a novel scheduled for a January 2004 release. The premise revolves around the shortsightedness of America and its reluctance to take advantage of its current technological and economic advantages. If you're interested, I'd love to get your feedback before publication. "I hope you continue to press forward with informative articles. I've enjoyed reading them.” FYI, CSpace Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-08-15 20:04:00 68.84.219.44 Re: The China Threat Hmmmm...nobody has posted it yet...so I will. It seems that the MSBlast, W32SAN worm/trojan originated in... you guessed it ... the Peoples Republic of China. More later. Malsua (Moderator) 2003-08-17 22:14:00 208.249.136.2 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by Sean Osborne: Hmmmm...nobody has posted it yet...so I will. It seems that the MSBlast, W32SAN worm/trojan originated in... you guessed it ... the Peoples Republic of China. More later. Sean, The answer may be a bit more mundane than "The Chicoms did it!" While I don't put it past them, there is a much more likely root cause as to why these attacks originate in China. A large bulk of the software installed in China is bootleg. The chinese get on the net and get in vast data pirate networks. They download and install whatever they want...including nice little helper applets that turn their computers into zombies. Most of them don't run AV software and most don't have any firewall of any sort. This makes it a ripe breeding ground for exploitation. That attack coming from China may have originated from anywhere. Russia and Isreal seem to have alot of talent and alot of idle hands. -Mal J.H. v.d.Laar (Member) 2003-08-18 00:06:00 64.186.205.136 Re: The China Threat On the subject of nano-tech, the August issue of NASA's Tech Briefs magazine has an article about nano-tech, including The Center for Nanotechology at NASA Ames. I didn't see any of the Aug. articles linked, though. http://www.techbriefs.com/nano/ http://www.nasatech.com milton (Member) 2003-08-18 08:37:00 65.94.114.137 Re: The China Threat China puts air force and navy generals in key posts By tapping officials with air and coastal warfare experience, it is positioning itself for any battle over Taiwan Strait The Straits Times August 16, 2003 By Oliver Chou CHINA has stepped up preparations for any battle over the Taiwan Strait by moving several generals with experience in air and coastal operations to key positions. According to reports, Lieutenant-General Zheng Shenxia, 61, chief of staff of the air force, was recently appointed president of the Academy of Military Sciences, the top think-tank on military strategy. He is the first airman to head the academy since it was founded in 1958 by the late Marshal Ye Jianying. Analysts believe this reflects an increased emphasis by Beijing on improving research and planning for airborne operations rather than traditional ground force movements. The implications are obvious: Should hostilities break out over the Taiwan Strait, it is the air force and navy of the People's Liberation Army that will do most of the fighting. Just as significant is the appointment of Lt-Gen Pei Huailiang as the new commandant of the National Defence University, another top military institute. For the past 13 years, the 62-year-old veteran had served in two of the three military regions along China's south-eastern coastline - three years as deputy chief of staff in the Nanjing command in the early 1990s, and a decade as deputy commander of the Jinan military region. Analysts believe it is this extensive experience at the front line with Taiwan that accounted for his latest appointment. He is expected to help reshape the strategic thinking of successive batches of senior officers who attend the university. Apart from Lt-Gen Zheng and Lt-Gen Pei, a number of other senior officers were also rotated recently through key jobs in Nanjing, Jinan and Guangzhou - the third of the military regions along the coastline facing Taiwan - as well as the national command in Beijing. For example, Lt-Gen Ye Aiqun and Lt-Gen Xiong Ziren of Guangzhou were named deputy commander and deputy commissar of Nanjing region while Major-General Liu Zhongxing, former commander of the Guangxi-based Seventh Air Corps, is now head of Jinan's air force. Observers say the shuffling is to enhance inter-region and inter-services coordination, all in preparation for any fighting over the strait. The ultimate aim is to have a mix of top officers in each of the three regions facing Taiwan, including one with vast experience in airborne operations. In the event of war, all three regions become one well-coordinated theatre. Take Nanjing military region, for example. Its commander Zhu Wenquan has been there for years but political commissar Lei Mingqiu, the second-in-line, is from Guangzhou. Lt-Gen Ye and Lt-Gen Xiong are the two new deputy chiefs moved in from Guangzhou while a third deputy commander, Lt-Gen Ma Diansheng, is the former commander of the 15th Airborne Corps under Guangzhou. Completing the Nanjing line-up are commanders of the East Sea Fleet and the regional air force, Vice-Admiral Zhao Guojun and Maj-Gen Liu Chengjun, who rank as ex-officio deputy chiefs. It may be noted that Maj-Gen Liu was a new appointment from within the Nanjing air command, filling in the vacancy left by his boss Ma Xiaotian, who was promoted as vice-commander of the air force national command. Analysts believe these appointments have strengthened Beijing's command and control over the regions. It is no coincidence that the incumbent chief of the general staff Liang Guanglie was formerly commander of the Nanjing command [URL= http://www.cuttingedge.org/news_updates/nz1104.htm] http://www.cuttingedge.org/news_updates/nz1104.htm[/URL] are they getting ready? how old are the chinese comanders? can they stay on a post more than say 5 years? milton (Member) 2003-08-18 08:45:00 65.94.114.137 Re: The China Threat China puts air force and navy generals in key posts By tapping officials with air and coastal warfare experience, it is positioning itself for any battle over Taiwan Strait The Straits Times August 16, 2003 By Oliver Chou CHINA has stepped up preparations for any battle over the Taiwan Strait by moving several generals with experience in air and coastal operations to key positions. According to reports, Lieutenant-General Zheng Shenxia, 61, chief of staff of the air force, was recently appointed president of the Academy of Military Sciences, the top think-tank on military strategy. He is the first airman to head the academy since it was founded in 1958 by the late Marshal Ye Jianying. Analysts believe this reflects an increased emphasis by Beijing on improving research and planning for airborne operations rather than traditional ground force movements. The implications are obvious: Should hostilities break out over the Taiwan Strait, it is the air force and navy of the People's Liberation Army that will do most of the fighting. Just as significant is the appointment of Lt-Gen Pei Huailiang as the new commandant of the National Defence University, another top military institute. For the past 13 years, the 62-year-old veteran had served in two of the three military regions along China's south-eastern coastline - three years as deputy chief of staff in the Nanjing command in the early 1990s, and a decade as deputy commander of the Jinan military region. Analysts believe it is this extensive experience at the front line with Taiwan that accounted for his latest appointment. He is expected to help reshape the strategic thinking of successive batches of senior officers who attend the university. Apart from Lt-Gen Zheng and Lt-Gen Pei, a number of other senior officers were also rotated recently through key jobs in Nanjing, Jinan and Guangzhou - the third of the military regions along the coastline facing Taiwan - as well as the national command in Beijing. For example, Lt-Gen Ye Aiqun and Lt-Gen Xiong Ziren of Guangzhou were named deputy commander and deputy commissar of Nanjing region while Major-General Liu Zhongxing, former commander of the Guangxi-based Seventh Air Corps, is now head of Jinan's air force. Observers say the shuffling is to enhance inter-region and inter-services coordination, all in preparation for any fighting over the strait. The ultimate aim is to have a mix of top officers in each of the three regions facing Taiwan, including one with vast experience in airborne operations. In the event of war, all three regions become one well-coordinated theatre. Take Nanjing military region, for example. Its commander Zhu Wenquan has been there for years but political commissar Lei Mingqiu, the second-in-line, is from Guangzhou. Lt-Gen Ye and Lt-Gen Xiong are the two new deputy chiefs moved in from Guangzhou while a third deputy commander, Lt-Gen Ma Diansheng, is the former commander of the 15th Airborne Corps under Guangzhou. Completing the Nanjing line-up are commanders of the East Sea Fleet and the regional air force, Vice-Admiral Zhao Guojun and Maj-Gen Liu Chengjun, who rank as ex-officio deputy chiefs. It may be noted that Maj-Gen Liu was a new appointment from within the Nanjing air command, filling in the vacancy left by his boss Ma Xiaotian, who was promoted as vice-commander of the air force national command. Analysts believe these appointments have strengthened Beijing's command and control over the regions. It is no coincidence that the incumbent chief of the general staff Liang Guanglie was formerly commander of the Nanjing command [URL= http://www.cuttingedge.org/news_updates/nz1104.htm] http://www.cuttingedge.org/news_updates/nz1104.htm[/URL] are they getting ready? how old are the chinese comanders? can they stay on a post more than say 5 years? Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-09-16 04:10:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat (Ummm... yeah, right... deny, deny, deny.... Satellites can see all though) China denies troop build-up on borders Xinhua News Agency ^ | 9/16/2003 BEIJING, Sept. 16 (Xinhuanet) -- China on Tuesday denied it was building up troop numbers on its borders with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Myanmar. Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said China was replacing its armed police with military troops along the two border areas in a reform of border administration. Kong was responding at a regular press conference to reports that China replaced its armed police with military troops along the Sino-DPRK and Sino-Myanmar borders, and to journalists'questions on the timing and intent of the action. He said replacement of the armed police, who originally defended the two borders, had begun early this month. In order to unify the land border administrations, China decided to replace the armed police with Chinese People's Liberation Army troops. The replacement, which had been a long time in preparation, was complete, Kong said. Enditem Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-09-16 04:13:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat China 'sends 150,000 troops to N. Korean border' AFP ^ | SEPT 15, 2003 China has deployed up to 150,000 troops on its border with North Korea to deter Pyongyang's nuclear build-up and contain mounting violence from rogue North Korean soldiers, a report here said yesterday. Five divisions of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) troops had been deployed in Yanbian Korean autonomous prefecture, bordering North Korea, since last month, an unidentified security source in China was quoted as saying by Hong Kong's Sunday Morning Post. Large troop movements and new military barracks had also surfaced in the border towns of Hanchun, Tumen, Kaishan, Sanhe and Baijing, while air force jets had frequently been seen flying over the capital Yanji, 40km from the border, the report added. But Mr Kong Quan, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman, last Tuesday refused to confirm or deny the reported deployment of PLA troops. Hong Kong's Chinese-language Sing Tao Daily had earlier reported that three PLA units - each with 50,000 troops, including armoured divisions - had been deployed along the 1,400km border. The paper quoted a Chinese Foreign Ministry source as saying the move was aimed at deterring North Korea from continuing its nuclear build-up and pressurising Pyongyang into holding talks with the United States. The Sunday Morning Post said residents of Yanbian prefecture also believed the PLA troops were there to halt the violent crimes such as murder allegedly carried out by North Korean soldiers. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-09-16 04:14:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat (Remember the plane that was FORCED out of the sky by the Chinese??? Keep reading. We should have blown that plane off the map after our folks were out of it.) Navy: China Likely Has U.S. Spy Secrets AP via The Las Vegas Sun ^ | September 11, 2003 | ROBERT BURNS The crew of a Navy spy plane that landed on China's Hainan Island in April 2001 after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet did not destroy all classified materials aboard, and it is "highly probable" that some fell into Chinese hands, Navy investigators concluded. The report, which was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Jane's Defense Weekly, blamed the Chinese fighter pilot for the collision and did not fault the Navy crew for failing to complete the destruction of classified information aboard the EP-3. Specifics about the classified materials were deleted from the released version of the report, and the report did not address the possible impact of any compromise of official secrets. "The destruction of classified material was accomplished while the aircrew was probably still in shock from the aircraft collision and the subsequent rapid descent of the aircraft and with very little time prior to landing," the report said. It also found that "destruction of all classified materials onboard did not occur," and concluded that "compromise by the People's Republic of China of undestroyed classified material on PR-32 is highly probable and cannot be ruled out." PR-32 was the mission designation of the U.S. plane. Materials classified as confidential, secret and top secret were, as a matter of normal practice, carried aboard the plane in papers, magnetic tapes, computer disks and computer hard drives, the report said. The incident on April 1, 2001, caused a deep rift in U.S.-Chinese relations, made worse by China's decision to detain the 24 American crew members for 11 days and not permit the United States to fly the damaged EP-3 off Hainan Island. Instead it was removed in pieces and reassembled in the United States. The Bush administration severed military-to-military relations with China, although limited ties have since been renewed. The EP-3 crew belonged to Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron One, based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash. The investigation report said they were fully qualified and ready for the mission. The EP-3 is designed to conduct reconnaissance and collect electronic signals intelligence. The Chinese F-8 fighter had intercepted the Navy plane and was maneuvering dangerously close to it as they flew over the South China Sea in international airspace. On a third close approach, the Chinese pilot lost control and slammed into the Navy plane, according to the report. The Chinese plane was ripped in half. The pilot was never found and is presumed to have perished. After the fighter struck the Navy plane's No. 1 propeller, causing the U.S. plane to shake violently and snap-roll to the left at about a 140-degree angle of bank, the aircraft commander gave the order for the crew to prepare to bail out. The plane was descending at a rate of 4,000 feet per minute until it reached an altitude of about 15,000, where it leveled off. Procedures do not require that destruction of classified material begin in that situation. After the No. 1 engine was shut down and the plane became more controllable, the crew was directed to "prepare to ditch," meaning they would stay with the plane as it went down. Although not required at that point, the crew began to destroy classified material, the report said. Some was jettisoned out a hatch, and equipment was smashed with an ax and other hard objects such as metal containers. Upon landing at a military air base on Hainan Island some remaining classified papers were shredded. The Chinese military ordered the Americans off the plane and took control of it. The investigation report said the crew had hidden some classified materials on the plane and hand-shredded some papers. "Therefore, compromise of undestroyed classified material is highly probable," it concluded. --- Associated Press writer John J. Lumpkin in Washington contributed to this report. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-09-16 04:16:00 140.32.120.18 Re: The China Threat U.S. Must Keep Eye on China Military Build-Up Tuesday , September 09, 2003 | Melana Zyla Vickers With all the difficulties facing U.S. forces in Iraq, it’s easy to forget that the challenges there are modest compared to those a big military power could throw in the American direction. Yet a little-noticed recent report by the secretary of defense to Congress serves as an alarming reminder that China (search) isn’t wasting any time building up militarily while the U.S. is otherwise occupied, and that the north Pacific power could present a formidable military challenge if in the future it became an outright foe. Even as the Bush administration asks Congress for billions more in Iraq funds, it needs to keep focused on big-ticket, long-term investments that will prepare the military for a future, major military threat -- whether it be China or another power. Among the areas of advancement for China, whose annual spending on defense is estimated at $45-$65 billion, and rising by 17 per cent annually: New means of projecting power beyond its borders: China has some 450 short-range ballistic missiles already deployed. It is expected to add about 75 missiles per year over the next few years, the report to Congress says. All China’s missiles are believed to be targeted at Taiwan. (search) In addition, China is replacing all 20 of its intercontinental ballistic missiles -- capable of reaching the U.S. -- with longer range versions. China is also working on a submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Pentagon report says. Anti-access, or the ability to prevent U.S. vessels’ access to certain areas, or prevent aircraft access to airspace: China’s first two Sovremennyy class guided missile destroyers (search) from Russia have been integrated into the naval fleet, the report says. It also says that China is buying two more from Russia. China has built a diesel electric sub and has bought four Kilo-class diesel subs (search) from Russia, with orders for eight more. China has produced a new nuclear-powered attack sub class called the Type 093 SSN (search), according to the report. In addition, China has plans over the next 10 years to acquire from Russia -- or develop with Russian help -- double-digit surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) (search) for a highly advanced SAM air defense system. Counter-space measures against satellites, other targets: China may have high-energy laser equipment that could be used to develop ground-based anti-satellite weapons, the report says. Information warfare: Chinese info warriors stress computer and network warfare (search) and electronic security systems, among other things. The report says they have an “unusual emphasis on a host of new information warfare forces instead of the “information superiorityâ€� and other approaches used in the U.S. In addition, information-warfare (search) reserve units in several Chinese cities are developing “pockets of excellenceâ€� that could eventually expand to form a corps of “network warriorsâ€� to defend China’s information and telecoms networks while uncovering weaknesses in those of other countries, the report says. The Pentagon needs to continue investing -- and in some cases begin investing -- in capabilities that will give the U.S. the upper hand, and that will allow the U.S. to target enemy systems that cam be moved around and hidden, that are kept deep inland and out of current U.S. reach, and those that target space. Among the investments the U.S. needs most: A long-range, stealthy bomber: Currently, the U.S. has only 16 long-range stealthy B-2 bombers. The House Armed Services Committee has shown strong interest in supporting a new bomber program. Ideally, the fighter-obsessed Pentagon will quit dragging its feet and support a new long-range, stealthy bomber A.S.A.P. Only such an aircraft could penetrate enemy airspace, reach its target deep inland from a long distance away, and deliver the kind of payload that would be necessary. A long-range, stealthy reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle(UAV): The U.S. has long range UAVs but not stealthy ones. Only a UAV with long range and stealth could operate in an environment where there are double-digit SAMS and which it had to fly to from a base far away, such as Guam, to a target deep inland. More converted Trident subs: The cruise missiles (search) fired from converted, stealthy Trident submarines would be highly effective at hitting enemy targets without the enemy knowing whence the strike came. Even more effective would be faster, ballistic missiles fired at the targets. The idea of equipping the Tridents with those missiles should be explored, and a few more Tridents (search) should be converted to this missile application also. Stealthy, long-range transport for special forces: If commandos need to operate behind enemy lines in a future, that enemy being China, only an aircraft that can fly from a base out of Chinese missile range and that can avoid Chinese air defenses will succeed in depositing the soldiers in country. The special forces don’t have such aircraft, and the Pentagon needs to invest in some. Space defenses: These might include the means of taking out enemy ground-based lasers and of finding and disabling enemy micro-satellites. The U.S. has no such capabilities right now. All that’s a tall order. But it’s essential that even as Iraq pulls at the Pentagon’s resources, it stay focused on the long-term competition -- because that’s what Beijing is doing. Melana Zyla Vickers, a columnist for TechCentralStation.com, is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum. She is a former editorial-board member of USA Today, Canada's The Globe and Mail and The Asian Wall Street Journal, and a former editor at the Far Eastern Economc Review. She has a master's degree in strategic studies and economics from Johns Hopkins University's Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-09-19 02:30:00 192.172.8.18 Re: The China Threat I urge all Americans to boycott all mainland Chinese products. China is not a captalist country, nor does it engage in free-market capitalism. All indusrty belongs to the State and is controled by the State. China is a communist country, an enemy of the United States which sells its goods in capitalist nations. The profit from those sales go directly into the Chinese military buildup. We Americans in large measure hold the purse strings to the Chinese military's well-being. It is in our interest to keep tight control on how much currency the Chinese military has to play with. Here is an article from yesterdays (18 SEP 03) Washngton Times (Bill Gertz) on how the US Government is now making it easy for us not to buy Chinese-made goods. Another word for this is Economic Warfare. U.S. Tags China With Stiff Penalties By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES The State Department has imposed economic sanctions on China for its sales of missile technology, State Department officials said yesterday. "These are the strongest sanctions we've ever imposed on China," said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The sanctions were imposed on the government-run conglomerate Norinco and will ban all export licenses on controlled U.S. goods to China. That ban prohibits launches of U.S. satellites on Chinese rocket booster. Additionally, the sanctions triggered a provision of the Arms Export Control Act that could lead to a ban on imports of a large number of Chinese goods into the United States. All of Norinco's products are banned from entering the United States under the new sanctions. But more severe sanctions that cover other major Chinese companies were waived for one year and could be triggered if China continues to permit its companies to sell missiles to rogue states, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Those sanctions could cost China "billions" of dollars in lost sales, one official said. "These sanctions invoke the Helms amendment," the official said. "In this case what it does is that it prevents the U.S. government from issuing any type of export license to a variety of products, including satellite launches." The 1991 Helms amendment to the arms-control act, named after Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, punishes nations with nonmarket economies, such as China, by extending sanctions to all companies. Invoking the amendment restricts sales to the United States of all goods that could be used in building missiles, including aircraft, electronics, and space systems or equipment. No details of the missile-related sale were made public and the identity of the missile-goods purchaser was not identified. The sanctions were announced in public documents sent to the Federal Register that will be published in today's edition of the official announcement bulletin. It is the third time in four months that China was hit with sanctions for violating U.S. laws regarding the spread of weapons of mass destruction and missile-delivery systems for those weapons. Norinco also was sanctioned in May and July. The additional sanctions are an attempt to target a company that U.S. officials have labeled a "serial proliferator" that China's government refuses to rein in. Norinco is one of China's largest state-run manufacturers and U.S. officials have estimated that recent sanctions will cause the company up to $100 million in lost U.S. sales. The weapons sanctions come amid mounting pressure from the Bush administration on China for trade and financial practices. A CIA report to Congress released in March stated that, "Chinese entities remain key suppliers of [weapons of mass destruction] and missile-related technologies to countries of concern." Norinco was punished in May with stiff penalties for selling missile-related goods to Iran's Shehid Hemmat Industrial Group, the state-owned defense contractor that builds Iran's short- and medium-range missiles. Norinco was caught selling specialty steel used in Iran's missiles in October 2002. The specialty steel sale was upsetting to U.S. officials because it took place two months after Beijing announced new export regulations aimed at curbing missile-technology sales. China's government denied the sale took place and denounced the sanctions as an attempt to hinder China's economic growth. In July, Norinco and five other Chinese companies were hit with U.S. sanctions under the 2000 Iran Nonproliferation Act for selling chemical, biological and nuclear arms and missile materials to Iran. Norinco has been identified as a China's third-largest manufacturer and its products are distributed through numerous U.S. discount retailers. Link to the Above zwergnase (Member) 2003-09-19 03:51:00 80.129.160.177 Re: The China Threat quote: I urge all Americans to boycott all mainland Chinese products. o.k. good idea, but how do you manage that, given the amount of products manufactured there? BTW, most taiwanese companies maintain factories on mainland china producing the bulk of taiwan products also there, paying taxes to the red chinese, employing their people. So you`d have to include the ally taiwan as well in the boykott.. Sean Osborne (Member) 2003-09-19 03:58:00 192.172.8.18 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by zwergnase: [QB]o.k. good idea, but how do you manage that, given the amount of products manufactured there? [QB] It's a very simple process. The consumer needs only to look on the packaging of the product. If it is from the PRC is will say "Made in China". If it is from Taiwan is will say "Made in Taiwan". If the label say Made in China don't buy it. If the label says Made in Taiwan buy it. zwergnase (Member) 2003-09-19 04:02:00 80.129.160.177 Re: The China Threat quote: If the label says Made in Taiwan buy it. like i said before: the bulk of Taiwan products comes from Mainland as well.. zwergnase (Member) 2003-09-19 04:18:00 80.129.160.177 Re: The China Threat quick search turned up: quote: From virtually no hi-tech industrial foundation, Taiwan now stands as the most important PC, IC and Telecommunication manufacturing base, the fourth largest producer of hi-tech hardware products in the world. The third largest producer is Mainland China, in which about 70% of its hi-tech products are manufactured by Taiwanese investment. Taiwanese investment in Mainland produced roughly equal amount of products quote: Although the two countries do not formally recognize each other, Taiwanese companies are rapidly opening factories on the mainland and working to persuade their government to relax a host of regulations to allow even greater expansion. Taiwanese companies, for instance, are not permitted to move notebook or semiconductor manufacturing facilities to mainland China because of national security laws. Technically, Taiwanese companies are not even in China. Instead, they form shell corporations in the Cayman Islands and funnel investments to China. That's starting to change, though. "By the end of this year, the People's Republic of China will have an opportunity to take over Taiwan in terms of IT products," said Victor Tsan, director at the Institute for Information Industry, an analyst organization. Taiwan looks to China to grow high-tech operations Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 00:09:00 63.186.1.121 Re: The China Threat Travel agent leaks State secret The Australian ^ | October 9, 2003 | Catherine Armitage http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7506297%255E13762,00.html CHINA plans to launch a man into space, or maybe even two or three, next Wednesday at 6am - at least according to the travel agent with exclusive rights to market tours to watch the historic launch. It's supposed to be a state secret, but anybody who responded to advertisements placed by the China Aviation International Travel Service in two Beijing newspapers this week was let in on it. "The launch is scheduled on the 15th. It's still a secret," said a tour salesman. Just under 4000 yuan ($700) buys a return flight from Beijing to the remote Gobi desert launch site in Inner Mongolia, four nights' accommodation in a four-ish star hotel and a seat to watch proceedings from 8km away on October 15. "You can't get closer in case something happened. Oh, please excuse me for saying unlucky words," said the tour agent, who gave his name as Xiong. Fear of failure and the fact it is a military mission has shrouded the project in secrecy. There was speculation the launch would be held during the top leaders' annual planning session, which runs for four days from this Saturday. An event that will propel China into the exclusive club of nations to have achieved manned space flight is seemingly too important a propaganda opportunity for the leaders to miss. According to Chinese media reports, President Hu Jintao and former president Jiang Zemin will be viewing from 7km away. "It's of great significance, a milestone of our probe into the unknown field," said Wu Zhe, deputy principal of the Beijing University of Aeronautic and Astronautic Science and Technology. Dr Wu said the mission had the same political significance as "two bombs and one satellite", a phrase used by Chinese to refer to their Cold War development of atomic and hydrogen bombs and the first Chinese satellite. Andy G (Moderator) 2003-10-09 00:59:00 209.216.94.49 Re: The China Threat Rick, Off-topic post here, so taking my chances, but sis you happen to catch last night's show about the original creation and staffing of NASA? Rather than spotlight the obvious heroes, the astronauts, it focussed on the other heroes, the engineers that made it happen. What a bunch of guys! And they were all 22/23, still wet behind the ears but balls to the wall. Heck of an inspiration. Somehow I don't see that happening again, and that's a crying shame. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 04:11:00 63.186.32.58 Re: The China Threat Sorry Andy, I was rather busy the last few days and haven't seen any television lately. Here's how busy I've been.... http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/2003/10-colorado/0310-colorado.htm http://www.nato.int/ http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/10-october/e1007c.htm Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 04:11:00 63.186.32.58 Re: The China Threat China in Danger of Overheating, Say Economists FT.com ^ | 10/8/2003 | Richard McGregor China's economy may be growing much faster than official economic statistics suggest and is in danger of overheating, according to an emerging consensus among foreign and local economists. The economists say a surge in investment, bank lending, construction and car manufacturing has put the Chinese economy on course to grow at about 11 per cent this year, well above official forecasts of just over 8 per cent. "Right now, it is as high as it has ever been," said Jonathan Anderson, of UBS, in Hong Kong. Using the bank's own system for measuring Chinese gross domestic product, Mr Anderson said third quarter growth was running at 14.2 per cent and would be close to 11 per cent for the year, once the slower rural economy and other factors were taken into account. Few of the economists believe that the present growth rate is either sustainable or desirable for the central government, which is now tightening credit in an attempt to rein in credit growth. UBS's view is broadly backed by some of China's best-known economists, including Wu Jinglian, of the State Council's Development Research Centre, and Zhang Jun, of Fudan University, in Shanghai. Mr Wu said at a recent seminar that China's growth for the first six months of 2003 was more than 10 per cent, compared with the official figure of 8.2 per cent, and was likely to beat the government's whole-year forecast. Prof Zhang agreed that the official figures were understating growth, saying the figure for GDP (news - web sites) could be "bigger than people have expected". China's official GDP statistics have long been criticised as inaccurate because they do not measure significant parts of the economy, use outdated methods and rely on questionable provincial data. Local officials, used to meeting targets set in a command economy, have consistently reported growth rates that outstrip the national average. The inconsistencies were most glaring during the late 1990s, when official statistics recorded high-speed expansion at a time of falling energy consumption, weak jobs growth and declining prices. This year, however, most leading economic indicators are pointing steeply upwards. Exports, property and cars accounted for about one third of the economy in terms of their value-added contribution to GDP, said Andy Xie of Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong, and all three were growing by more than 30 per cent. "One third of the economy is growing by about 30 per cent - that's about 10 per cent already," he said. Power consumption, one of the most important independent indicators of Chinese GDP growth, was up by 15 per cent so far this year compared with 2002, Mr Xie added. China's growth rate this year is especially fast in the light of the crisis over severe acute respiratory syndrome, which brought travel and much retail activity to a standstill. Malsua (Moderator) 2003-10-09 06:06:00 216.6.139.106 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by Sean Osborne: [QUOTE] If it is from the PRC is will say "Made in China". If it is from Taiwan is will say "Made in Taiwan". If the label say Made in China don't buy it. If the label says Made in Taiwan buy it. Being a bit tardy in response on t his one, I just would like to state my observation. Having visited a number of factories in mainland China. Many of which were textiles, I saw name brands that are not titled "made in China". 90% of the manufacture of these goods, shirts, NFL jerseyies, Pierre Cardan, etc type of stuff. People on the floor in these places were making these things. They were even sewing tags on them that said "Made in India, Made in Indonesia, Made in Thailand and one biggie that struck me "Made in France". All this coming straight out of the depths of Guangdong. Tags are a joke. At least "The Great Wall Mart" is mostly honest(75%+ comes from China), pretty much no one else is. -Mal Wallis (Member) 2003-10-09 08:33:00 132.61.176.6 Re: The China Threat Allow me to back you up on this one Malsua. When I was working proprietary infringements, I had to investigate several Korean companies that were making/selling clothes, often knock-offs. Their factories were located in China. And the labels read exactly what you wrote AND near-perfect, if not perfect, labels of the copyright holders the Koreans were copying. Malsua (Moderator) 2003-10-09 08:47:00 216.6.139.106 Re: The China Threat quote:Originally posted by Wallis: Allow me to back you up on this one Malsua. When I was working proprietary infringements, I had to investigate several Korean companies that were making/selling clothes, often knock-offs. Their factories were located in China. And the labels read exactly what you wrote AND near-perfect, if not perfect, labels of the copyright holders the Koreans were copying. Yup, agreed. My only other contention is that these were sold as "ORIGINALS". -Mal Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 22:47:00 63.186.9.192 Re: The China Threat In other words, gentlemen, China IS attempting to gain economic funding from the very people they want to defeat. You made our case for us. (shrugs) Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 22:48:00 63.186.9.192 Re: The China Threat CHINA: The Dragon’s Dawn: China as a Rising Imperial Power strategypage.com ^ | August 28, 2003 | Geoffrey Cain http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=CHINA.HTM CHINA: The Dragon’s Dawn: China as a Rising Imperial Power August 28, 2003: The Dragon’s Dawn: China as a Rising Imperial Power: Possessing a brutal history of foreign invasion, rape, and occupation by expanding Asian empires, most notably the Mongols under Genghis Khan, modern China has developed a sense of cultural pride through feelings of ethnic revenge and in notions of national expansion. Such an upsurge in patriotism can essentially be seen in such factors; however, in order to fully understand China as a rising power, other aspects of growth must be considered within its full international context. Increasing Defense Expenditures and Territorial Expansion In 2000, China increased its defense spending to 13 percent of its gross domestic product, followed by another augmentation to 17 percent in 2001. One analyst observed that recent purchases by Chinese generals tend to “emphasize power-projection forcesâ€� to apply military power “at a distance.â€� Though the actual reasons are decreed as protective measures by the Chinese government, some correlation can be drawn to recent maneuvers, such as its claim of 80 percent of the South China Sea, which is against international law, and by its direct colonialism over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, also in possession of Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. A former Philippines defense minister called this a “creeping invasionâ€� when asked to comment on its possible ramifications. China has also laid claim to the Philippines’ Mischief Reef and has established military installations on four other disputed reefs; moreover, has been a notable increase in Chinese naval traffic around the Philippines’ territories that makes many countries “uneasy that China may want to resume the imperial status it had in earlier centuries,â€� according former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Furthermore, the Japanese government has reported that Chinese military vessels sail into Japanese waters approximately 20 times per year. This has prompted the Japanese Defense Ministry to begin a massive project for mapping its coastal seafloor to observe China’s growing fleet of submarines. This is not to mention that Japan moves 70 percent of its crude oil and fishing through the South China Sea, of which China has called for the “immediate eviction of foreign military vessels or vessels owned by foreign governments and used for noncommercial purposes that violate the laws and regulationsâ€� of China. The People’s Republic is currently gaining a number of territories through aged treaties as well, such as Britain’s Hong Kong in 1997, Portugal’s Macau in 1999, and some former Russian territories in 1997. In 2000, China forged a pact against terrorism, drug czars, and Islamic radicalism and has been helping Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan with security problems. Some analysts believe that this is a move to establish more authority in Asia and challenge the traditional U.S. dominance since World War II. This can be seen in an ancient Confucian tenet that calls for leading by example, not by force. China as the “Middle Placeâ€� The Chinese have traditionally seen themselves as the center of the world due to their history of occupation by foreign invaders. In fact, the Chinese word for “Chinaâ€� is Zhong Guo, which literally means “Middle Place.â€� In addition, the Great Wall symbolizes its sense of being besieged, as it had been conquered by the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1167-1227 A.D.), the Yuan Dynasty under Kublai Khan (1260-1368 A.D.), and by the Manchu Dynasty (1911 A.D.) from a northern invasion after the reestablishment of Ming control. It has also been under the de facto control of Japanese, European and American commercial imperialism throughout the 1900s. As one Chinese general puts it, “This was a period of humiliation that the Chinese can never forget. This is why the people of China show such strong emotions in matters concerning our national independence, unity, [and] integrity of territory and sovereignty.â€� According to the Chinese government, the U.S. is worried about Chinese economic and political growth, and thus is trying to encircle it with bases and alliances. Chinese nationalists point to its recent support of India (because China has been giving blueprints for nuclear arms to Pakistan), its recognition of Vietnam, its sales of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, its support of Japan as an economic powerhouse, and its support of a unified Korea under Seoul. Likewise, U.S. bases in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan gives them evidence to support their cause against Western dominance, according to one Tsinghua University professor. It should be noted, however, that China supported the war in Afghanistan. The Taiwan Dilemma It can be asserted that China’s extravagant claims over the South China Sea are part of a plan to ultimately unify with Taiwan. James R. Lilley, former U.S. Ambassador to China, stated, “[Uniting with Taiwan] would end what China feels to be a blockade on its abilities to control its surrounding seas.â€� To them, Taiwan appears to be a Western military stronghold that is impeding its cause of Asian dominance. Moreover, China sees Taiwan as its own territory from its profligate cultural history; that is, Taiwan was originally part of China before the Communist revolution, and the original government of China fled to Taiwan upon defeat. Both the Communist and the former government believed that there was one China, but they disagreed as to who was in control. Conclusion There is a high possibility that China will one day dominate Asia through its military, economic, and political influence. Its Confucian doctrine of leading by example is currently being supplemented by a slow military expansion into islands that are not highly visible on the world stage, thus not diverting much attention to its actions. Moreover, its nuclear weapons (though not numerous) act as a deterrent from the UN or the U.S. from taking multilateral action in the area. As Chinese General Mi Shenyu puts it, “For a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance. We must conceal our abilities and bide our time.â€� -- Geoffrey Cain Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 22:50:00 63.186.9.192 Re: The China Threat CHINA: Bomb Shelters and PhDs October 6, 2003: China is offering 1,600 of its "fast track" military officers the opportunity to go to graduate school. The officers will get Masters and PhD degrees in technology areas useful to ongoing military reforms. Noting the success of a similar educational program in the US (which has been in place for nearly half a century), the Chinese want to make sure that the armed forces not only gets high tech weaponry, but has officers who understand the stuff and know how to use it effectively. October 2, 2003: The government announced it would build over a thousand large underground shelters to protect people from "earthquakes and major fires." The shelters would be equipped with water, communications equipment and other supplies. The shelters could also be used in case of a nuclear war, but the government announcement did not mention that. The government announcement also didn't mention that an underground shelter is the last place you'd want to be after a major earthquake (because of the aftershocks) and that such shelters for fires is, at the very least, odd. October 1, 2003: China put its first 200 plain clothes air line police into service. In teams of two, the police fly internal routes of Chinese air lines. Another 1400 such police will enter service in the next year. http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=CHINA.HTM September 21, 2003: Taiwan and the US have set up a "hot line" (a secure and robust communications system between government officials in both countries.) The existence of this communications system was kept quiet until recently. The system implies that America would quickly come to the aid of Taiwan if China attacked, because such "hotlines" are only created to Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 22:53:00 63.186.9.192 Re: The China Threat China poses biggest threat to world trade Irish Independent ^ | 9/26/03 | Anthony O' Reilly http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1053769&issue_id=9854 WORLD leaders are at last recognising that there are huge imbalances in the world economy that threaten its future stability. The Group of Seven statement, following the recent meeting of the International Monetary Fund, that exchange rates should be fixed by market forces reflects this concern. But what is the greatest cause of these imbalances? The willingness of the American consumer to carry on buying the products of the world and thereby sustain global growth? Or the economic and trading practices of what is - on some calculations - the world's second largest economy, China? China was not explicitly mentioned in the G7 statement. Neither did it figure large in the failed trade discussions in Cancun. But I believe that the growing manufacturing might of China is, in absolute economic terms, the issue. There is a real drama that will shape our futures taking place in China. China has the capacity, the willpower, the structure and the command economy to rip the heart out of manufacturing growth in Europe and America over the next two decades. Many see this as an opportunity, and the flood of international capital into China testifies to this. China is now the largest recipient of direct investment of any country in the world. Others will argue that China creates a real opportunity, both in terms of its own marketplace and by producing goods that represent a cap on inflationary pressures in the rest of the world, most particularly in the United States and Europe. All this is elevated on the altar of globalisation to a sort of inexorable movement towards a higher plane. Let me demur. If the headlong pursuit of Chinese expansion is allowed, it will pose a very serious threat to employment in Europe and the United States, and most particularly to the US elections in 2004. George Bush will have enormous difficulty in ensuring a real expansion in employment if the present growth of Chinese trade with the US, at more than $100bn per year in terms of its trade balance (or 25pc of its trade imbalance), continues unabated. With the flood of US capital - be it from Intel, Microsoft or any of the other major new-age companies - pouring into China, a great deal of US intellectual software and manufacturing skill is also being exported to China, but without any guarantees as to its subsequent expropriation. The Chinese have waited a long time for this day, and their day has come. They are hugely inventive; they are increasingly well educated (and the flood of well-equipped students from their universities testifies to this); they accept extremely low wages and allow environmental conditions that would not be tolerated in the West. And they protect their domestic market in a manner that even the Japanese can admire. Allied to these virtues are the vices of a society in change. In what has been a command society since 1949, the laws of property, contract and, particularly, the protection of intellectual property rights are still in their infancy. No one doubts that many in Beijing wish a level playing field, but the playing field is not level, and Western companies competing with them in their own markets will find a flexibility in their application of rules that would make the WTO blanch. WalMart, the US retailer, now has more than 300 permanent buyers in China, and last year imported $12bn of Chinese goods, with the commendable aim of keeping consumer prices down. But the consumers paradoxically are conspiring in their own demise - or at least the demise of their own jobs. If WalMart were a country, it would rank ahead of Great Britain and Russia in total imports. This indicates the staggering potential of China and its capacity to move quickly. Anyone who has visited Shanghai will find a city that is among the most modern and dynamic in the world. Its architecture, work ethic and sense of commitment have almost no equal - and it is a product not of free enterprise but of the command economy. The world has decided that the aims of the WTO are best served by including China and not imposing an undue degree of surveillance on its growing economy for a number of reasons - some good, some bad. The Beijing Olympics in 2008 will be one of these, and represents an opening of the Chinese market and mind to world influence. That, in itself, is excellent. The problem is the price that will be paid by the world in employment terms if China does not play the game the way the WTO wishes it to be played. The threat is clear. There are possibly 450 million Chinese in the manufacturing economy. There are 850 million people on the bench, waiting to get into the manufacturing and services sector. A company of which I am chairman, Wedgwood, is manufacturing in China a range of ceramics equal in quality and substantially lower in price than anything we could produce in Europe or the US. The Chinese have been magnificent in their co-operation, intelligent in their application of new technique, and hugely productive. This is the model of the future, and it is a frightening one. So, what is the answer? It must be a combination of many things, but two are key. First, the Chinese have to impose and police the laws of contract, property and intellectual property rights that we enjoy in the Western world. This has to be done in the most open and transparent way through their judiciary. The judiciary has to be freed from political obligation - something that will be extraordinarily difficult in China. Second and most important of all, the hugely undervalued yuan (renminbi) must be revalued upwards, not in one immediate leap, but gradually, determinedly and as a matter of policy. These policies will work to a gradual improvement in the entire world economy. Not to follow them would be to reignite the ghost of protectionism and the Smoot-Hawley import tariff in the United States, and a range of quotas and tariffs from other trading blocs, including of course the European Union. There has been, quite rightly, an outcry following Cancun at the way the developed world has subsidised its agriculture. Each country can advance special pleading in regard to its sectional interests, be it France protecting its farmers or Japan protecting its rice growers, for political and cultural reasons. We have to recognise that China is both the problem and the opportunity. Together, China and the West can build a huge, growing and more satisfying market that will bring benefit to all, particularly developing countries, if approached gradually, sensibly and legally. The converse is the death of globalisation - the erecting of frontier barriers, the rule of clubmanship and a slow death for worldwide free enterprise. Surely the choice is obvious. Let us make the next two years a time for decision in which China must play a most active part in policing its own economy and making it responsive to the needs of our global economy. If we fail to create a more level playing field for international trade, all of us - including China - risk losing the very thing that has so vastly increased global wealth. Sir Anthony O'Reilly is executive chairman of Independent News and Media Plc. Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-09 22:56:00 63.186.9.192 Re: The China Threat http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200307/30/eng20030730_121242.shtml China: Japan has an Axe to Grind (China is stressing here, lol) Despite a last-ditch protest by all the opposition parties, Japan's Upper House approved a controversial bill on Saturday to send the Self-Defence Forces (SDF) to help rebuild Iraq. Under the new law, which is valid for four years, Japan will dispatch some 1,000 of its SDF soldiers to Iraq in October. Their role will be to provide logistics support to the United States and British forces in humanitarian relief, reconstruction efforts and peacekeeping operations. The new law, for the first time, enables Japan to send its SDF troops overseas to an occupied country where war has not yet officially ended at the request of the occupying authorities, and not the country's government. Tokyo defines the objective of the Iraq assistance law as helping bring stability and democracy to the war-ravaged country. But is there any specific need to utilize the SDF in the rebuilding operations, which is banned under the peace principles of its own Constitution, not to mention the justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a still hotly contested issue? Under Article 9 of its post-World War II Constitution, Japan "forever renounces war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force.'' This provision has been traditionally interpreted as prohibiting the nation from exercising the right to collective defence, including joint military operations with US forces and collective security activities, such as United Nations peace-keeping operations. During the Diet -- the Japanese parliament -- debate, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said SDF troops will stay clear of combat zones and adhere to the rules of the non use of force. With the US and allied casualties caused by guerrilla attacks in Iraq occurring almost daily, it will be difficult to distinguish combat from noncombat zones amid the volatile Iraqi situation. Furthermore, there is no assurance, for now at least, that the SDF personnel will not get bogged down in combat-like scenarios where lurking dangers could necessitate the use of force. The basic question, therefore, is what role the SDF should play? Koizumi reportedly told the Diet following the enactment of the Iraq law that a permanent law should be established to define the role of the SDF in its overseas peacekeeping operations. Since the end of the Cold War Japan has been expanding its military role overseas, in particular under the banner of fighting terrorism, since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US. To build confidence among its Asian neighbours, Japan needs to rethink its security policies on expanding its international presence. (China Daily News) Cspace (Member) 2003-10-14 03:00:00 216.242.4.172 Re: The China Threat I don't know how or if this will change the China threat but here goes anyway... Chinese Endorse Constitutional Change quote:BEIJING - China's ruling communists closed a secretive four-day meeting Tuesday aimed at pushing ahead with market reforms and said a revision to the country's constitution had been endorsed — but didn't say what it was. Diplomats and foreign analysts have said they expected the plenary session of the Communist Party to endorse a constitutional amendment guaranteeing private property in a society that officially has banned the notion since it took power in 1949. "We should protect all kinds of property ownership — and private ownership as well," China Central Television quoted President Hu Jintao as saying. "We should expand our political reform." The official Xinhua News Agency didn't give any details, saying only that the plenum approved "a proposal on revising part of the country's constitution." Neither it nor CCTV said what the constitutional change was. Hu also spoke of the importance of re-employing workers in China's industrial northeast — a crucial political priority for the Beijing government, Xinhua said. Private property rights are a key demand of China's entrepreneurs, and such an amendment would certainly encourage more private investment and initiative — which the party needs to raise living standards and keep itself securely in power. The constitutional change was to be submitted to the National People's Congress, the country's nominal legislature, for approval, Xinhua said. Such a move is procedural, given the party's absolute authority in China. The change also could enshrine the political legacy of Jiang Zemin, the retired leader who invited capitalists into the party with a theory unveiled in 2001 called the "Three Represents." Jiang is believed to desire a mention in the constitution alongside communist China's founder, Mao Zedong, and economic reformer Deng Xiaoping. The meeting closed a day before the beginning of a launch window for China's first manned space mission. The events, timed so close together, appear arranged to play up the Communist Party's role in such a patriotic accomplishment. Hu has spoken of political reform before, but usually in the context of economic progress. Few expect the dictatorship to institute any kind of bold political reforms in the immediate future. Though Hu is at the top of both party and government, China is run by a small group of powerful party members who tread carefully toward the future. Xinhua also said the plenum endorsed a decision "regarding the improvement of the socialist market economic system." It didn't elaborate. Unlike the pomp and fanfare that accompanied last autumn's party congress meeting, this year's assembly of the leadership, a lesser meeting, was shrouded in secrecy and low-balled by the state-controlled media. The meeting came at a crucial time for China's new generation of leaders. While economic growth continues, millions of Chinese — particularly in the industrial northeast — are out of work. Rural poverty remains endemic. The leadership has spearheaded the notion of creating a "well-off society" that allows most Chinese to benefit from the experiment in market forces that Deng unleashed 25 years ago. But that has not happened yet for many Chinese, and keeping growth moving and prosperity on the rise is crucial to the party's progress and efforts to maintain one-party rule over an increasingly savvy society. The leadership headed by Hu, which was installed in a gradual generational transition in the past year, earned praise Tuesday from The New York Times. "One of this year's more encouraging developments has been the more nuanced and constructive diplomatic style of China's new leadership under President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao," the Times said in an editorial. While cautioning that such attitudes could change, the Times said China's new leaders "have regularly associated themselves with more pragmatic domestic policies and more responsible international behavior." FYI, CSpace Rick DonaldsonAdministrator (Member) 2003-10-15 22:55:00 63.186.9.222 Re: The China Threat From: Strategic Forecasting Alert [mailto:alert@mail2.stratfor.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:29 PM To: intelbrief@mail2.stratfor.com Subject: Full Stratfor Analysis: Net Assessment: Former Soviet Union -- In Search of Revival ................................................................. Net Assessment: Former Soviet Union -- In Search of Revival The states that once comprised the Soviet Union continue to decline on all levels: Temporary economic successes cannot halt a downslide that began during the final years of the socialist republic. Moscow alone is trying to generate momentum toward regional revival through stronger ties with Europe. There appears to be a growing consensus in Moscow that not only is it impossible to retreat further geopolitically, but also that to survive as a regional power and to be able to defend its vast perimeter, Russia must pursue at least a modestly expansionist policy. Given the weakness of all erstwhile Soviet states, including Russia, the door is open for outside powers to step up pressure on the region. The United States, Europe, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Islamic militant groups are all expanding their political clout there. The future of all the former republics will depend on whether Russia, the only post-Soviet heavyweight, can pull them out of the quagmire. Given the region's history of repeated revivals under challenging circumstances, the former Soviet Union (FSU) just might have a chance to retain its status as a global player with which to contend. Potentially Valuable but Tough Terrain Geography has been more of a liability than an advantage for the FSU. To begin with, the fact that the post-Soviet space occupies what might be the world's most strategic location has made it an arena for fighting for thousands of years. The sheer vastness and the ethnic diversity of the region make foreign relations difficult to manage. The fact that many neighboring states and distant powers alike have diverse, often conflicting, agendas in the region only adds to that challenge, as does the need to protect thousands of miles of borders. On the positive side, however, it is hard for an outsider to conquer such a vast territory -- a fact that Napoleon, Hitler and others learned too well and too late. The climate itself threatens the former Soviet republics' chances of ever attaining the standards of productivity and economic efficiency seen in developed countries. Its location in the northern latitudes means that most industries must exert greater effort than more southerly countries to produce or extract a unit of any product. For this reason, Russian and even Caspian oil exploration, extraction, refining and transportation are doomed to be significantly more costly than in the Middle East. Although Russia has access to three oceans, it lies too far north to succeed as a sea power: Most of its seaports and naval bases are iced in for months at a time. Thus, sea powers such as the United States and Britain always will have an advantage over the FSU, including Russia, in naval power and, therefore, in projecting global power. Is It Good To Be Rich in Resources? The post-Soviet space is probably the world's richest region in terms of natural resources. Someday, its combined estimated oil and gas resources might surpass those of the Persian Gulf. Ukraine's black soils are unparalleled as arable land; the future of the world's timber and wood-processing industry is tied to vast territories covered with taiga -- seemingly endless virgin coniferous forests -- in eastern Russia. And if clean, drinkable water eventually becomes the world's most precious commodity, Russia could draw upon Lake Baikal, the world's deepest lake, in eastern Siberia: It contains more potable water than all of the world's other lakes combined. Used effectively, any one of these natural resources has the potential to make the state or group of states that owns it a powerful world player. So far, however, the former Soviet republics have done a poor job of taking advantage of them. Although the high price of oil has helped keep the economies of the oil-rich states in the region afloat for the past several years, little can be said about positive effects of the abundance of natural resources in the post-Soviet space. On the contrary, the former Soviet republics have chosen to implement more complicated means of production in virtually all sectors, with poor efficiency across the board. Also, although plentiful minerals and other resources have the potential to attract outside investment and, in turn, to boost local economies, they also could attract foreign governments seeking to control those -- thus potentially adding to the region's security risks. Conflicts among former Soviet states over resources located along shared borders, such as in the Caspian Sea, are also possible. Tensions already exist among some Central Asian states over scarce resources such as water, electricity and gas. Twelve Years of Decline Overall, the former Soviet republics have made no meaningful economic or geopolitical advances since the fall of the Soviet Union about 12 years ago. In fact, many of them resemble developing nations. In Russia, living standards, among other economic measures, have dropped to "Third World" levels. For the former Soviet states, shipping ever-increasing volumes of oil to the West is bringing their economic status closer to that of Equatorial Guinea than to that of the United Arab Emirates: The profits are not being used to raise living standards, nor to build up other industrial sectors. Russia and the other former Soviet republics are simply very weak and on the slow but sure path to further decay and possible collapse. Russia alone has gained a measure of economic security, thanks to the high price of oil, but it remains very vulnerable, since global oil prices are beyond Moscow's control. Foreign investment, meanwhile, remains too low to spur the economy -- a situation that will endure until legal and economic reforms can improve what is now a somewhat chaotic environment. Investment in production, especially in the manufacturing sector, is dropping steadily. Businesses suffer a chronic shortage of capital, and while real production (except in the energy sector) dwindles, imports rise. All exports other than those of natural resources are falling. Within the decade, the production facilities comprising the bulk of what the former republics own will become too old to function. This situation is serious, since thus far virtually no new facilities and equipment have been built to replace them. It is not only the Russian economy that is in decline. So too is the country's population, which is shrinking by almost 1 million people per year. The ailing infrastructure; failing social system; rising drug use; growing incidence of AIDS, tuberculosis and other diseases and people-trafficking, slavery and other such problems all contribute to what is a systemic crisis. The military-industrial complex, too, is being downsized: In 2004, the government will reduce spending on the military-industrial complex by half the amount requested by the Defense Ministry and planned by the Cabinet. In Russia, the flight of natural and human resources as well as capital -- to the tune of $30 billion per year, according to Interpol sources -- is a steady trend. Corruption and organized crime have reached epic proportions: In 2003, 93 of the Duma's 450 members reportedly were under criminal investigation at the time of their election, and many had criminal records. For now, parliamentary immunity has put a halt to all investigations. According to documents circulated within the Duma, Russian officials gain $40 billion through corruption. There are about 10,000 organized crime groups that, having divided the whole country into various territories, take "protection" money from state and private enterprises and from foreign businesses. A source on a Russian legislative committee on internal law enforcement and security says that 16 percent of police officers are paid by criminal groups to participate in illegal activities, such as extortion and fabricating or closing criminal cases. The situation is mirrored throughout most of the former Soviet republics. The Russian Federation: More Splintering? The Russian Federation runs the risk of breaking up into smaller entities. If Russia eventually loses the war in Chechnya -- or if that battle drags on for too long -- separatists in other parts of the country likely will rally, eventually spelling the end of the federation. The potential for secession is developing in Dagestan and in other Muslim-dominated republics in the North Caucasus. There is also a chance that the Kuril Islands and the Kaliningrad region might have to be turned over to other countries. However, the surest sign that the Russian federation might split up is the fact that regions with ethnic-Russian majorities show tendencies toward secession. These include Primorsky Krai -- which encompasses Vladivostok -- Magadan and Sakhalin Island. Moldova is still not united, Georgia is breaking apart and Azerbaijan is dealing with secessionist movements among its ethnic minorities. In Ukraine, the political divide between the west and the rest remains serious, resulting in the possibility that the country might split apart along the former Russia- Austria border. The idea of a "Commonwealth of Independent States" remains mostly just that: a concept. The only organization for integration that still has a chance to succeed is the Eurasian Common Economic Space, which comprises the four most geopolitically important republics in the region: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Pressure Builds From Outside Given the region's state of weakness, external players are looking to fill the power vacuum. These include the United States, Europe, China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Islamic militants. The United States has become the most influential foreign power in the region, with Russia now second. China is building influence in Central Asia and is slowly expanding economically and demographically into the Russian Far East. Ankara has made strides in relations with Central Asia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Moldova. Although the threat in Russia from Islamic militants is immediate, the U.S. push into the post-Soviet space remains the long-term strategic challenge for Russia, Belarus and Turkmenistan. Moscow and Washington do not see eye-to-eye on some key foreign and security policies -- including matters such as Iraq -- and they likely will have disagreements in the future. Therefore, NATO's eastward expansion and the stationing of U.S. forces in several former Soviet states could undermine Russia's national security. Nevertheless, Moscow's strategic nuclear arsenal, while it exists, guarantees that Washington, Beijing and other world players will not completely write off the country. Meanwhile, among the other former Soviet states, the struggle to decide between alignment with Russia and the United States is being replaced by the challenge of deciding between a pro- European and a pro-U.S. course. Because of fresh ties with Paris and Berlin and its serious disagreements with Washington on important security and foreign policy matters, Moscow is steering more decidedly toward greater alignment with the European Union; the other former Soviet republics are trying to befriend both camps. Weak Borders The Russian Federation cannot survive for long under current conditions. The combination of continued economic and social decline, the likelihood of political fragmentation and the growing pressure from external players eventually will lead it to repeat the fate of the original Soviet Union. If Russia loses the war in Chechnya, its disintegration as a federation is all but assured. Russia has not been able to cut off supply lines to Chechen militants from two sources: organized crime groups from the former Soviet republics and Wahhabi Muslim organizations originating in the Middle East. These lines of supply will remain functional until Russia retakes control of some of the predominantly Muslim regions of the former Soviet Union. In particular, Moscow has to regain some control over Georgia and Azerbaijan, through which supplies flow to Chechen militants. Only this would guarantee that Russia would not lose the war in Chechnya. Russia's long and porous southern border, which lacks natural barriers and defense fortifications, currently cannot be defended: Islamists from the Middle East and Central Asia easily surf through sparsely populated Kazakhstan and directly into Russia, from the Volga Region to Siberia. And these groups are working to coordinate their efforts: The Islamic Movement of Turkmenistan was recently formed, along the lines of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Also, another global Islamist group, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, has become the most popular radical group among the Central Asian populace. Russia's western borders, 80 miles from St. Petersburg and 240 miles from Moscow, are also poorly protected and easily penetrated by foreign spies, militants and other destabilizing elements. And if a major conflict with NATO were to erupt in the future, Russia would not be able to defend its capital, which lies close to the western border. What Path Will the Republics Take? Given all of these factors, it is likely that whoever is in power in M