Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 71, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


WAR FUNG ADVISORY: Map of U.S. Targets to be Nuked in Case of War with China
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 99
  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Galt's Gulch, FL
    Posts
    20,855


    Strategically, it is an intelligent path to follow. They would lose most of their major cities, including Beijing BUT, we would probably only kill 1/3 to 1/2 of their population at the most.

    It's a numbers game and we lose there. If we lose 50% of our population or more, we cease to function as a viable nation.
    "I've always wondered what the 1920's and 1930's were like, but I never wanted to see it from the German perspective....."
    -John Galt, www.johngaltfla.com

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    Just for perspective......

    One Ohio SSBN with a full load out of MIRVd Trident 2s has 24 missiles with a range of 7500 miles, each with up to twelve 100 Kt W76 or 300-475 Kt W88 warheads. That comes out to 288 independently targeted warheads.

    Reportedly they're generally not loaded to this degree for flexibility in targeting, range and treaty compliance, but even if the total submarine load out of warheads was only half, you're still talking of 144 warheads.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGaltfla View Post


    Strategically, it is an intelligent path to follow. They would lose most of their major cities, including Beijing BUT, we would probably only kill 1/3 to 1/2 of their population at the most.

    It's a numbers game and we lose there. If we lose 50% of our population or more, we cease to function as a viable nation.
    John, does the red represent occupation? Is that their land invasion? Even if this is BS, the area does have a lot of assets including gold, lots of it.

  4. #44
    Is China Planning a Surprise Missile Attack?
    30 August 2011

    A retired Chinese general recently revealed that his country might be planning a surprise missile attack on the United States. The public comment of Xu Guangyu came in response to WikiLeaks revelations that last year Washington had warned its allies beforehand of China’s test of a missile interceptor.


    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a classified cable sent last January 9th, instructed American embassies in Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand to notify those countries of upcoming Chinese launches two days later. The cable included details of the launch sites for the interceptor and the target, the models of the missiles, the purpose of the test, and the test date.

    Yesterday, Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post carried comments from Xu, now at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, to the effect that American satellites would have detected activity at the launch sites but that some of the information in the cables—specifically the types of missiles and the day of the test—must have come from a source on the ground. WikiLeaks’s release of this cable, revealing one or more American spies in China’s strategic missile corps, is perhaps the website’s most significant compromise of US security to date.

    The Hong Kong paper noted that Xu said that “if China could no longer keep secret its missile launches, it would not be able to launch a surprise attack on the US.”

    Is China really in the process of planning to destroy the American homeland with a preemptive barrage of nuclear-tipped missiles? Xu’s comment, of course, is not proof, but it does reveal that Chinese flag officers are thinking about doing so.

    Unfortunately, Xu’s hostile sentiment fits within a worrisome trend. Especially since the beginning of last year, there has been a series of belligerent comments from China’s generals, admirals, and colonels, some talking about war with the US in the near future. Last February, for instance, Colonel Meng Xianging said the People’s Liberation Army would “qualitatively upgrade” its capabilities to force a showdown on US policy toward Taiwan within the decade “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US.”

    Given the belicose statements coming from some of China’s military brass—along with China’s well-documented aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and other peripheral waters—it is difficult to imagine how Western observers can deny China’s intentions and the clashes that lie ahead. Thank you, General Xu.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/b...missile-attack

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Galt's Gulch, FL
    Posts
    20,855
    Quote Originally Posted by West View Post
    John, does the red represent occupation? Is that their land invasion? Even if this is BS, the area does have a lot of assets including gold, lots of it.
    Effective range by type of missile and primary targets as selected by the PLA.
    "I've always wondered what the 1920's and 1930's were like, but I never wanted to see it from the German perspective....."
    -John Galt, www.johngaltfla.com

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Galt's Gulch, FL
    Posts
    20,855
    Quote Originally Posted by China Connection View Post
    Is China Planning a Surprise Missile Attack?
    30 August 2011

    A retired Chinese general recently revealed that his country might be planning a surprise missile attack on the United States. The public comment of Xu Guangyu came in response to WikiLeaks revelations that last year Washington had warned its allies beforehand of China’s test of a missile interceptor.


    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a classified cable sent last January 9th, instructed American embassies in Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand to notify those countries of upcoming Chinese launches two days later. The cable included details of the launch sites for the interceptor and the target, the models of the missiles, the purpose of the test, and the test date.

    Yesterday, Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post carried comments from Xu, now at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, to the effect that American satellites would have detected activity at the launch sites but that some of the information in the cables—specifically the types of missiles and the day of the test—must have come from a source on the ground. WikiLeaks’s release of this cable, revealing one or more American spies in China’s strategic missile corps, is perhaps the website’s most significant compromise of US security to date.

    The Hong Kong paper noted that Xu said that “if China could no longer keep secret its missile launches, it would not be able to launch a surprise attack on the US.”

    Is China really in the process of planning to destroy the American homeland with a preemptive barrage of nuclear-tipped missiles? Xu’s comment, of course, is not proof, but it does reveal that Chinese flag officers are thinking about doing so.

    Unfortunately, Xu’s hostile sentiment fits within a worrisome trend. Especially since the beginning of last year, there has been a series of belligerent comments from China’s generals, admirals, and colonels, some talking about war with the US in the near future. Last February, for instance, Colonel Meng Xianging said the People’s Liberation Army would “qualitatively upgrade” its capabilities to force a showdown on US policy toward Taiwan within the decade “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US.”

    Given the belicose statements coming from some of China’s military brass—along with China’s well-documented aggressive behavior in the South China Sea and other peripheral waters—it is difficult to imagine how Western observers can deny China’s intentions and the clashes that lie ahead. Thank you, General Xu.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/b...missile-attack
    I think it would be more so in retaliation for a US attack on Syria.
    "I've always wondered what the 1920's and 1930's were like, but I never wanted to see it from the German perspective....."
    -John Galt, www.johngaltfla.com

  7. #47
    Is China Turning Up the Heat on Taiwan?
    16 October 2013

    “Increasing mutual political trust across the Taiwan Straits and jointly building up political foundations are crucial for ensuring the peaceful development of relations,”said Chinese leader Xi Jinping to the Taiwanese envoy Vincent Siew on October 6th, according to remarks paraphrased by Beijing’s official Xinhua News Agency. “Looking further ahead, the issue of political disagreements that exist between the two sides must reach a final resolution, step by step, and these issues cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”


    The words, the first public indication that Xi wants to settle the Taiwan issue during his tenure as China’s leader, raised concerns among some in the Taiwan-watching community. “Xi is pushing Taiwan hard into a corner,”noted Gerrit van der Wees, editor of the Washington-based political journal Taiwan Communiqué. And last Wednesday, Stephen Yates, former deputy assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney for national security affairs, said on the John Batchelor radio show that he thinks the Chinese leadership, which was once content to accept the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, is turning up the heat. One cannot help but ask if Beijing is running out of patience and wants to soon absorb the self-governing island as its 34th province.

    Some hope that Xi Jinping made his comments simply because he saw them as obligatory for any ruler of the People’s Republic and that there has been no change of policy in the Chinese capital. Yet Yates, now CEO of DC International Advisory, rejects the notion that Xi’s words were “a standard formulation” or a careless misstatement of existing policy. “It was very, very doubtful this was an accidental statement by Xi Jinping, so they must have thought about and they must have deliberately put forward a change of tone and a change of substance,” he said on the nationally syndicated radio program. “This is very, very different, about saying, ‘Okay, peace in the Taiwan Strait and accommodating economic relationship, open and peaceful dialogue—that’s not good enough. We need to move to the obviously unsolvable issue of politics and you need to concede on this ground now. That’s quite different.’”

    At first glance, it looks as if there is no reason for Xi to force this shift. The Chinese civil war, the struggle between Xi’s Communist Party and Taiwan’s ruling Kuomintang, has been going on since the late 1920s. In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek, China’s president, lost a full-scale military struggle to Mao Zedong and the Communists. Mao established the People’s Republic at the same time Chiang fled to Taiwan and continued his Republic of China on Taiwan. Then, as well as today, both Beijing and Taipei claim to be the legitimate government of all of “China.”

    As a practical matter, the Communist Party rules the Chinese state and the Kuomintang, the organization Chiang once led, is the governing party on what is referred to as “Taiwan.” Leaders in Beijing talk about “reunification” of the two parts of the country. The term, however, is misleading because in fact the People’s Republic has never exerted effective sovereignty over Taiwan, a group of islands scattered across the intersection of the South China and East China Seas.

    Xi’s pronouncement at the meeting with Siew, the representative of President Ma Ying-jeou of Taiwan, took most observers by surprise. Until the beginning of this week, most assumed that Beijing was content with the generally warming ties across the Taiwan Strait. Ma, now in his second four-year term, has devoted himself to fostering economic integration with the People’s Republic by getting behind a series of trade deals and other arrangements with Beijing.

    Those agreements, unfortunately for Ma, have become increasingly unpopular, as many claim that Taiwan’s economy has not benefitted much from the pacts. The latest of them, the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services, is stuck in the unicameral Legislative Yuan, which Ma’s party controls. In order to win ratification, Ma tried to purge the speaker of the body, who resisted the pact, but the president’s move didn’t have sufficient support and it appears now to have failed.

    According to recent polls, Ma’s popularity has fallen to 9.2 percent, which is, perhaps coincidentally, about the same percentage of Taiwan’s population that wants immediate unification with Mainland China. On the other hand, most of the island’s citizens consider themselves “Taiwanese,” not “Chinese,” according to poll after poll.

    Apart from the issue of self-identification, democracy—more precisely the lack of it—is the big stumbling block to unification. Taiwan’s people paid a high price in blood fighting for their democratic way of life, and they are not about to accept authoritarian rule, especially from a communist state in a faraway capital.

    Some are concerned that China’s leadership may think the window for full political integration between China and Taiwan is closing. As Yates observed in his Batchelor show interview, citizens of Taiwan are not nearly as friendly toward the idea of strengthening relations with the People’s Republic as they were ten years ago, and this “anti-China” attitude is gaining popularity.

    And now, given Ma’s sinking poll numbers and his party’s declining prospects for the 2016 presidential election, Beijing worries that a less friendly administration will prevail in Taiwan. Therefore, it’s likely that Beijing sees Ma’s remaining time in office as its last chance to absorb Taiwan without force.

    http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/b...ng-heat-taiwan

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    Quote Originally Posted by mbabulldog View Post
    Land-based nukes are ancient technology. A nations real primary/counter strike capability lies with their Boomer fleet. In fact, I'll have to go find it, I believe our strategy now HEAVILY relies on our Sub fleet, and our land-based missiles are secondary.

    That being said, I don't place a lot of validity in this map. First off, why would a nation openly publish their military strategy? Secondly, there are tons of targets that would cripple a lot heavier that haven't been mentioned.
    Land based ICBMs still have their "pride of place" due to their being an "in plain view" force that can't be ignored as a threat in a conflict as well as an anticipated smaller CEP than SLBMs being launched from a moving platform.

    Adding BMD to those ICBM silo fields in theory should create a first strike "sponge" to keep the population centers on the bottom of any targeting lists.

    As for publishing strategy, it should be seen as much of a warning as drills or maneuvers. That they're publishing this now begs the question as to how "confident" the PRC/PLA leadership actually is in their capabilities.

  9. #49
    Does China have subs capable of launching missiles? If so, wouldn't they also be able to strike the east coast?

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Petunia View Post
    Does China have subs capable of launching missiles? If so, wouldn't they also be able to strike the east coast?
    They've got them, but their range is such that they can't hit all of CONUS from PRC home waters.


    http://justinwrites.files.wordpress....iles_20081.jpg

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NW Missouri, Home of the Black Flag
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatland2 View Post
    An absolutely useless BS map. Any adversary who couldn't take out the nukes in North Dakota on a first strike would be reduced to smoke and rubble in a couple of hours.
    Self assured destruction is not the point of any attack.
    I tend to agree. Not a strategic ballistic missile map IMO.

    Dots on the West Coast are a mix of major cities and capitals.

    For example, why would they hit Helena in MT, but leave out Great Falls (AF Base and nukes) and Billings.

    Why would you hit the capital of ND?

    Looks more like an occupation map to me with the goal of subduing the West Coast and linking up with the Russians in Chicago.

    Anyone know how to read Chinese?

    We see 3 "symbol," 7 "symbol," and 30 "symbol."

    The closest I could find for that symbol was "heaven."







    Palmetto
    Last edited by Palmetto; 11-01-2013 at 06:32 PM.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, Sed nomini tuo da gloriam (Not to us, not to us, O Lord, But to thy name give glory.)

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NW Missouri, Home of the Black Flag
    Posts
    6,361
    Quote Originally Posted by West View Post
    John, does the red represent occupation? Is that their land invasion? Even if this is BS, the area does have a lot of assets including gold, lots of it.
    Looks an awful lot like a prophetic invasion map of the US with China taking the West coast and Russia taking the East coast.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, Sed nomini tuo da gloriam (Not to us, not to us, O Lord, But to thy name give glory.)

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NW Missouri, Home of the Black Flag
    Posts
    6,361
    OK, had to do some online sleuthing.

    Heaven, in the Chinese culture can mean: season; seasons. Like: winter; the three hot 10-day periods [following the summer solstice]. 時令; 季節. 如: 冬天; 三伏.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tian
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Non nobis, non nobis, Domine, Sed nomini tuo da gloriam (Not to us, not to us, O Lord, But to thy name give glory.)

  14. #54
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Galt's Gulch, FL
    Posts
    20,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Petunia View Post
    Does China have subs capable of launching missiles? If so, wouldn't they also be able to strike the east coast?
    http://youtu.be/6SU3R21gDqw

    "I've always wondered what the 1920's and 1930's were like, but I never wanted to see it from the German perspective....."
    -John Galt, www.johngaltfla.com

  15. #55
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    23,201
    there won't be a war between China and the US, please assimilate this into your brains.........

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Galt's Gulch, FL
    Posts
    20,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmetto View Post
    I tend to agree. Not a strategic ballistic missile map IMO.

    Dots on the West Coast are a mix of major cities and capitals.

    For example, why would they hit Helena in MT, but leave out Great Falls (AF Base and nukes) and Billings.

    Why would you hit the capital of ND?

    Looks more like an occupation map to me with the goal of subduing the West Coast and linking up with the Russians in Chicago.

    Anyone know how to read Chinese?

    We see 3 "symbol," 7 "symbol," and 30 "symbol."

    The closest I could find for that symbol was "heaven."







    Palmetto
    Except that it was originally published in a Chinese Communist newspaper. Other than that, nothing to see here, move along. Plenty of football on this weekend along with the NBA tonight.
    "I've always wondered what the 1920's and 1930's were like, but I never wanted to see it from the German perspective....."
    -John Galt, www.johngaltfla.com

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    20,864
    You would think they learned by now that its not posable to win such a war.

  18. #58
    This looks like an over the pole attack using the DF-5 slbms. Chinese subs, if they do launch with this target plan-are sitting just east of Hawaii and probably somewhere around the north pole. 2 subs in each area. The CEP of the df5s isn't good-probably .5NM or so.
    This map, if it is accurate is showing aalmost a purely countervalue target scenario.Odd to say the least.But-the breadbasket of the us and a good portion of the manufacturing capability in the us is left intact in this scenario.
    The invasion would come through Mexico heading northeast.Osama would probably surrender though, so the chicoms would get the best parts of the us without an (official) fight.
    I'd be curious if the Chicoms has thoughts on taking Canada out.Fewer people.smaller military, just as advanced as the us.
    Interesting the Chicoms are talking about all this-why now?

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnGaltfla View Post


    Strategically, it is an intelligent path to follow. They would lose most of their major cities, including Beijing BUT, we would probably only kill 1/3 to 1/2 of their population at the most.

    It's a numbers game and we lose there. If we lose 50% of our population or more, we cease to function as a viable nation.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    At the next Lexington and Concord
    Posts
    1,964
    Well after reading this thread I added a can of paint and a stencil to my gear bag.

    Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

    ~Patrick Henry~, March 23, 1775

  20. #60
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Galt's Gulch, FL
    Posts
    20,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Publius View Post
    You would think they learned by now that its not posable to win such a war.
    They can win. We lose 280 million. They lose 600 million. Basic math.
    "I've always wondered what the 1920's and 1930's were like, but I never wanted to see it from the German perspective....."
    -John Galt, www.johngaltfla.com

  21. #61
    I like that stencil!!
    Also, just thought of something-the colors on the map "could" be "D" plus demarcation lines based on a western us land invasion. The red could mark D day plus 10, the orange could be D day plus 20, etc.
    One thing is for sure-I'd fight against them.

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    mo
    Posts
    1,436
    We've already been nuked from the WH. How could they do any worse damage than what's being done to our country now? It's just a matter of speed.

  23. #63
    Interesting read.


    Red Dawn Scenario: Chinese Attack On America Imminent
    Posted: November



    http://truthernews.wordpress.com/201...ember-21-2012/

    About the Author
    David Chase Taylor is an American journalist living in Zürich, Switzerland, where he has applied for political asylum after the release of The Nuclear Bible, a book credited with stopping a false-flag/state-sponsored nuclear terror attack upon America. Taylor also released The Bio-Terror Bible, a book and website exposing the coming global bio-terror pandemic. Taylor, the editor-in-chief of Truther.org, has also exposed the 2012 Democratic National Convention Terror Plot, NATO’s implementation of the SKYNET Terminator Program, the “Twilight” Premier Terror Plot, as well as the Alex Jones links to STRATFOR.

    TRUTHER.ORG LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Terror related assertions, forecasts and predictions made by Truther.org DO NOT necessarily imply that said terror events will transpire in reality, but rather that there is a distinct possibility that said terror events theoretically could happen based on the cumulative terror related data. Historically, once a particular false-flag terror related plot is widely exposed (See: Super Bowl XLV), the terror plot is immediately canceled or postponed. State-sponsored terror attacks must have a prior “paper trail” in order to set-up patsies, create plausible deniability, develop scapegoats, and mislead the public from the true perpetrators of terror. Truther.org’s sole purpose is preventing 9/11 type terror events by drawing unwanted global attention to various terror related “paper trails” prior to their fruition.

  24. #64
    Russia Is Preparing To Attack America
    February 26, 2013 - Conspiracy, Featured, Main, War - Tagged: government, new world order, obama, petrodollar, police state, war

    United States has not been attacked on the home front for 200 years dating back to the War of 1812. There exists a plethora of confirming information to support the fact that America’s days may be numbered and that we are totally unprepared for what is coming.

    obama the communist Russia, through the traitorous cooperation and complicity of President Obama, is positioning its assets in order to attack Alaska. Before I piece together the many elements of the planned Russian “surprise attack”, it is important for America to understand that it takes a communist to bring communism to America. Obama was bred by communists, raised by communists, educated at the finest schools with communist money, his political career was launched by communists and his controllers in the White House are communists. Part one of this series will clearly establish the fact that Obama is the lynchpin of a multigenerational plan to hand America over to the Russians and to the Chinese communists.

    Obama did not just wake up one day and decide to weaken American defenses and hand over the country to the Russian communists. Obama was groomed for this position for the past several years. He is indeed the right communist, at the right time, whose mission is to bring America the most crippling form of communism the world has ever seen.
    Russian Defectors Have Warned the US About This Moment

    High-profile Soviet defectors have been telling American intelligence agencies for decades that the Russians have engaged in a multigenerational plot to destabilize America prior to the takeover in which both the Russians and the Chinese will unleash a ferocious military assault upon our country.

    To match feature USA-RUSSIA/SPYThe high-ranking defector, Sergei Tretyakov, who repeatedly warned Americans that Russia’s core government had never abandoned the Cold War and still aimed to destroy the United States. In his later years, he said his main goal was to “wake up” the American people to the deadly threat posed to them by the former Soviet Union. His death was reported as a cardiac event, however, his family remains suspicious. Tretyakov joined a plethora of others who defected from the former Soviet Union in order to warn the American people about a planned attack sponsored by the Russian government with assistance from within the American government.

    Former Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, a well renowned media/propaganda expert defected to the United States. in 1970, and subsequently exposed the KGB’s subversive tactics against American society. Yuri Bezmenov has conducted a number of interviews in which he explains how Marxist ideology is deconstructing America’s values by controlling the media and which would ultimately serve to demoralize the country, destabilize the economy, and provoke crises in order to Sovietize the United States. Bezmenov is well known for revealing Russia’s doctrine of “ideological subversion”, a slow, long-term multi-decade process of media-based brainwashing in which the sole purpose is to confuse, confound, and destroy the moral base of America. Can anyone argue that our country’s values represent a debasement of our national sense of morality? Every perversion known to mankind in now honored in our media. Christians are out and hedonists are in. Loyal husbands and fathers are out and a philandering lifestyle is a honored “virtue.” On this point, the Russians have won.

    Former Russian Colonel Stanislav Lunev has the distinction of being the highest ranking Russian military officer to defect to the United States after doing so in 1992, after Boris Yeltsin came to power. Lunev’s information was considered to be so volatile, but accurate, that the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA placed Lunev, where he remains to this day, in the FBI’s Witness Protection Program. Lunev reported that Russia’s military, despite “losing the cold war”, continues in its war preparations which are designed to conquer the United States by stealth

    Anatoliy Golitsyn, a high-ranking KGB defector who fled to the United States in order to warn Americans about the secret Russian plan to attack the United States. Golitsyn is generally considered to be among the first and most revealing on the subject of the secret Russian plans to attack. Having authored the The Perestroika Deception in which Golitsyn wrote about the deceitful intent behind the Leninist strategy in which the present-day Communists are actively pursuing as they fake American style democratization efforts in Russia. According to Golitsyn, the short-term strategic objective of the Russians is to achieve a technological convergence with the West solely on Russian terms and mostly through a series of one-sided disarmament agreements. According to Golitsyn, after the United States military is eliminated as a strategic threat to Russia, the long-range strategic Russian plan is to pursue Lenin’s goal of replacing nation states with collectivist model of regional governments as a stepping stone to global governance. In order to achieve their final goal, Golitsyn states that Russia, after lulling America to sleep, will join with China in order to attack the United States from both the outside and inside as he detailed that …the Soviets and the Chinese will be officially reconciled and enact a “scissors strategy” in which China will attack the US through the southern border and Russia through northern border by way of Alaska. As the reader will clearly see in the following paragraphs, Obama is the catalyst in making these long-range communist plans come to fruition.
    Obama the Communist

    Obama has been surrounded by nothing but communists for all of his life. From Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, to the husband and wife communist terrorist team of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn from the Weathermen Underground terrorist organization, Obama has known nothing but Marxist communist philosophy in his formative years. The late Senator, Joseph McCarthy, is rolling over in his grave due to the fact that a sitting President has such a retrograde pattern of communist associations and still managed to attain the presidency.

    Former FBI Weatherman Task Force supervisor, Max Noel, notes that the FBI utilized a CARL test when it conducted background checks on various suspects. The acronym CARL stands for Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalty used to assess candidates fitness to hold the highest office in the country. On each of these four points of power, Obama fails and fails miserably. Like many FBI law enforcement agents and officials, Noel was alarmed by the fact that someone like Barack Obama could capture the presidency. For some unexplained reason, Obama was never vetted before he became a candidate for the presidency by the FBI. This is an unacceptable result of our national security system and is wholly suggestive of internal plot to allow the installation of a blatantly communist advocate into the highest political position in America.

    Today, many people have been in a position to now vet the President after Obama’s four years of “fundamentally transforming America“. This particular series will continue to connect the dots of the secretive and nefarious communist background of Barack Hussein Obama and tie his associations, actions and internal belief system to a current coup d’état which is close to capturing all of the vital elements of power in this country.

    Comrade Obama’s ascension to the presidency has been a long time in the making. Interestingly, Barack Obama’s past associates especially the communist terrorists which funded his Harvard legal education and ultimately launched his political career as an Illinois state senator, namely, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, have been in lockstep with Obama his entire adult life. However, Dohrn and Ayers were not the first to indoctrinate Obama with the Marxist communist philosophy. For that information, we have to begin with Frank Marshall Davis.

    Obama’s real father, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party and a former Soviet Agent who was under FBI investigation for a total of 19 years. In 1948, Davis moved from Chicago to Hawaii leaving behind a colleague named Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Senior White House advisor, Valerie Jarrett. Yes, the Jarrett’s are communists as well. Both Jarrett and Davis wrote for a left wing newspaper called the Chicago Defender in which they espoused a communist takeover of the United States Government. In 1971, Davis, according to Joel Gilbert, reunited with his then nine-year-old son, Barack Obama, and schooled him in the ways of being a good communist for the next nine years.
    Chicago Slum Lord, Valerie Jarrett

    Chicago Slum Lord, Valerie Jarrett


    White House advisers, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, were both “Red Diaper Babies, in which they were the sons and daughters of well-to-do parents who desired communism and lived out their dreams through their children’s revolutionary activities. Other notable red-diaper babies also included Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder. Jarrett’s situation is particularly interesting in that her family and the Ayers family have been multigenerational friends which also included a marriage between the two families. Much of the Obama administration is a nest of communists and this should serve to gravely concern every American citizen.

    Following the nine years of mentoring and parenting by Frank Davis, Obama made some very important communist connections which ultimately led to him obtaining an impressive college education financed by some very familiar communist activists’, namely, Tom Ayers, Con Ed CEO, and then his son Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. You remember Bill and Bernardine, don’t you?
    Bill Ayers Mug Shot

    Bill Ayers Mug Shot

    The Prairie Fire book was co-authored by Dohrn and Ayers, and, quite unbelievably, it was dedicated to Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedy’s assassin. Former FBI informant, While appearing on The Common Sense Show, Larry Grathwohl, revealed that he testified in a court of law that Ayers and Dohrn had direct involvement in a terrorist plot which killed San Francisco police sergeant, Brian V. McDonnell, by a bomb made and planted by these Weathermen Underground terrorists.

    Grathwohl also revealed that he asked Ayers, in a meeting of about 25 well-to do Weatherman, most with advanced degrees from Ivy League Universities, what the Weathermen planned to do when they achieved their goal of a communist take over the government. Grathwohl stated that Ayers paused for a moment and then said that it was likely that about 50 million Americans will have to be re-educated in concentration camps located in the American Southwest and that about 25 million would have to be eliminated, meaning that they would have to be murdered. Bill and Bernardine’s Weather Underground had the support of Cuba, East German intelligence and the North Vietnamese. I believe that since Obama was able to secure a second term, and with the power granted to him by the NDAA, that he will fulfill Ayers’ promise to Grathwohl to murder 25 million Americans who cannot be “re-educated”.

    Obama’s educational and political benefactors, Ayers and Dohrn, raised a son, Chesa Boudin, who worked for Hugo Chavez , communist dictator in charge of Venezuela. Chesa Boudin was the child of Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, members of a Weather Underground spin-off group who went to prison for an armored car robbery that resulted in the murders of two police officers and a security guard. Dohrn served seven months for her role in the robbery and this is the reason that she is ineligible to become bar certified as an attorney. Is anyone else uncomfortable with the fact that Ayers and Dohrn were the ones primarily responsible for educating Obama with communist funds and then subsequently launched his political career from their living room? Well, it is true, please read on.

    Allen Hulton, a 39 year veteran of the postal service, provided a sworn affidavit to Maricopa County, AZ. Sheriff investigators, led by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an effort toward determining whether or not former foreign college student, Barack Obama, is eligible to be placed on Arizona’s 2012 election ballot. After reviewing Hulton’s affidavit, it is apparent that Ayers and Dohrn were in fact the de facto adoptive parents to this foreign student destined to become the first illegitimate President of the United States. As a result, Obama was treated to the finest Ivy League education that communist backed money could buy as Hulton maintains that the Ayers’ told him that they were financing the education of a promising foreign student at Harvard. Hulton also testified that he met Obama while at the Ayer’s home and he asked Obama what he going to do with all his education, to which Obama politely answered, “I am going to become the President”.

    Readers should take note that this is an affidavit, and as such, is formally considered to be evidence, not conjecture or hearsay. There can be no other conclusion that the communist terrorist, Bill Ayers, began grooming Obama to become America’s first communist President during Obama’s college years. Their relationship continues into the present time as it is on record that Ayers visited the White House in August of 2009.

    We also know that Obama’s communist affiliations continued well into his adulthood because of the good work of Joel Gilbert who discovered that Obama was active with a Weathermen Underground support group known as The May 19th Communist Organization, in New York. Perhaps, this is why Ayers was visiting the White House.

    Frank Chapman, a communist activist and a member of the communist front group known as the World Peace Council. Chapman clearly used the term “mole” to describe Obama. He said Obama’s political climb and subsequent success in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries was “a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle.” Chapman further stated that, “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through. The Communist Party USA backs Obama to the hilt.” It is clear that Obama is their man!

    America is at a serious crossroads. The United States is preparing to go to war with Iran and its allies, China and Russia, in a last ditch effort to save the Petrodollar scheme as opposed to letting China and Russia buy Iranian oil in gold. If America loses this struggle, the dollar will collapse. America’s economy is in shambles and the country can ill-afford being purposely run into the ground by a series of red-diaper babies bent on the communist takeover of this country. There can be no doubt about it, Barack Obama is a traitor to this country. He is the culmination of a distinct and purposeful mufti-generational communist plot to install a communist dictator who would weaken this country to the point that it is very vulnerable to an outside Russian attack.

    obama_communist_flag_card-p137872120744570903q0yk_400Russian troops have infiltrated the United States and all signs in and around Alaska point to the fact that the Russian attack will commence through the Bering Strait and proceed southward into British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

    Part two of this series will explore the emerging evidence to support the belief that Alaska is about to be attacked by Russia.



    http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...k-america2558/
    Last edited by China Connection; 11-01-2013 at 09:04 PM.

  25. #65
    Kremlin Cheers Obama's Re-Election - ABC News
    abcnews.go.com › ABC News Blogs › Headlines › Nation‎

    Nov 7, 2012 - Putin is also expected to call Obama personally “in the near future. ... Russia says it was misled into supporting an international military ...
    Putin wants a stronger Obama | Russia Direct
    http://www.russia-direct.org/content...r-obama‎

    Sep 25, 2013 - The discussion of Putin's motives takes us back to the time of Obama's re-election when Russia skeptics saw Putin's support for Obama as a ...
    Russia's Putin Welcomes Obama's Re-Election : NPR
    www.npr.org › News › World‎

    Nov 7, 2012 - Russian President Vladimir Putin sent word welcoming President ... Russia's Putin Welcomes Obama's Re-Election ... Support comes from:.
    Articles: Russia: Re-Elect Obama, or It's World War III
    http://www.americanthinker.com/.../r...war_...‎

    Jan 19, 2012 - Russia: Re-Elect Obama, or It's World War III ... Last week, Americans learned that they are, or soon may be, at war with Vladimir Putin's Russia. ... since the Kremlin has consistently supported dictators throughout the Arab ...
    The Coveted Russian Dictator Endorsement: Putin Picks Obama
    pjmedia.com/.../the-coveted-russian-dictator-endorsement-putin-picks-ob...‎

    Sep 8, 2012 - However, Putin's delight with Obama is hard to understand in light of his ... gave support to the rebels in Afghanistan against the forces of the USSR, ... Dmitri Medvedev, Obama asked him to tell Putin that after reelection he ...
    What Will Obama Give Russia If He's Re-elected? by Terence ...
    www.creators.com › Conservative › Terence Jeffrey‎

    President Barack Obama would like to do some things for Russian President ... and authorities mobilized local officials and resources to garner support for Putin.

  26. #66
    [QUOTE=Palmetto;5026309]Looks an awful lot like a prophetic invasion map of the US with China taking the West coast and Russia taking the East coast.

    CHINA AND RUSSIA

    A Vision Received by Brother Dumitru Duduman April 22, 1996

    I prayed, then went to bed. I was still awake, when suddenly I heard a trumpet sound. A voice cried out to me, "Stand!"

    In my vision, I was in America. I walked out of my home, and began to look for the one who had spoken to me. As I looked, I saw three men dressed alike. Two of the men carried weapons. One of the armed men came to me. "I woke you to show you what is to come." He said. "Come with me."

    I didn't know where I was being taken, but when we reached a certain place he said, "stop here!"

    A pair of binoculars was handed to me, and I was told to look through them.

    "Stand there, don't move, and look," he continued. "You will see what they are saying, and what they are preparing for America."

    As I was looking, I saw a great light. A dark cloud appeared over it. I saw the president of Russia, a short, chubby man, who said he was the president of China, and two others. The last two also said where they were from, but I did not understand. However, I gathered they were part of Russian controlled territory. The men stepped out of the cloud.

    The Russian president began to speak to the Chinese one. "I will give you the land with all the people, but you must free Taiwan of the Americans. Do not fear, we will attack them from behind."

    A voice said to me, "Watch where the Russians penetrate America."

    I saw these words being written: Alaska; Minnesota; Florida.

    Then, the man spoke again, "When America goes to war with China, the Russians will strike without warning."

    The other two presidents spoke, "We, too, will fight for you." Each had a place already planned as a point of attack.

    All of them shook hands and hugged. Then they all signed a contract. One of them said, "We're sure that Korea and Cuba will be on our side, too. Without a doubt, together, we can destroy America."

    The president of Russia began to speak insistently, "Why let ourselves be led by the Americans? Why not rule the world ourselves? They have to be kicked out of Europe, too! Then I could do as I please with Europe!"

    The man standing beside me asked, "This is what you saw: they act as friends, and say they respect the treaties made together. But everything I've shown you is how it will REALLY happen. You must tell them what is being planned against American. Then, when it comes to pass, the people will remember the words the Lord has spoken."

    Who are you?" I asked.

    "I am the protector of America. America's sin has reached God. He will allow this destruction, for He can no longer stand such wickedness. God however, still has people that worship Him with a clean heart as they do His work. He has prepared a heavenly army to save these people."

    As I looked, a great army, well armed and dressed in white, appeared before me.

    "Do you see that?" the man asked. "This army will go to battle to save My chosen ones. Then, the difference between the Godly and the ungodly will be evident."

  27. #67
    WHY RUSSIA NEEDS ALASKA

    by Dave Hodges - thecommonsenseshow.com
    February 27, 2013

    It is now clear that any Russian attack upon the United States will come through Alaska and I’m of the opinion that Russia will not wait for us to attack Iran before attacking the United States. The following paragraphs will demonstrate why Alaska is so vitally important to the fulfillment of Russia’s communist plans for world domination.
    The Heartland Theory

    British geographer and military historian, Sir Halford MacKinder, in 1904, wrote an article that changed how politicians and military men viewed the world. It was a perception that influenced Hitler to send his troops eastward in an attack upon Russia in 1940. It was also the driving force that led to the underpinnings for superpower foreign policy which guided foreign policy for both sides during the Cold War. The theory that had so influenced nearly three generations of strategists was called simply, the Heartland Theory.

    Basically, Mackinder’s Heartland Theory viewed geo-political military history as a struggle between land-based and sea-based powers. Mackinder believed the world had become a “closed” system, with virtually no new lands left for the Europeans powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without creating chaos elsewhere. According to the theory the common denominator for world conflict has been reduced to sea powers vs. land-based powers which would subsequently struggle for dominance of the world, and the ultimate victor would be in a position to set up a world empire. The determining factor in this struggle was physical geography; “Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls”.

    Containing Russia Is the Key to World Peace

    From Mackinder’s perspective, Soviet Russia had to be contained within the heartland. Mackinder’s believed that whosoever controlled Eurasia, controlled the world, so long as the controller had access to useable ports. The problem for Russia is that they have so few usable ports thus impacting commerce and the movement of men and material in a time of war. So long as Russian could be prevented from being a major sea power, the forces of the United States and Western Europe were safe. However, if Russia should become a sea power in conjunction with its massive land-based power, Russia could rule the world.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski confirms the Heartland Theory, in his book, A Geostrategic Framework for the Conduct of the US-Soviet Contest (pp 22-23), n which he echoed the words of Mackinder when he stated that “Whoever controls Eurasia dominates the globe. If the Soviet Union captures the peripheries of this landmass … it would not only win control of vast human, economic and military resources, but also gain access to the geostrategic approaches to the Western Hemisphere – the Atlantic and the Pacific.” For Russia, controlling the peripheries of the landmass means controlling Alaska and having access to its ports. This would make Russia the world’s most preeminent land and sea power and the world would have to pay homage to the new global master.
    Stalin’s Secret Plans to Invade Alaska In 1951

    stalin

    In 1999, at a conference held at Yale University, previously-secret Russian documents revealed that Russian Dictator Joseph Stalin had undergone extensive planning in preparation to invade North America as early as 1951. The event was one of a series of programs sponsored by the Washington D.C.-based Cold War International History Project (CWIHP), which monitors new documents pertaining to the Cold War. The Yale conference centered on Stalin’s relationship with the United States.

    These documents, from the Cold War, revealed that Stalin had a definitive plan to attack Alaska in 1951-52 and had undergone major military preparations in anticipation of the invasion. Russia has always considered itself to be landlocked and this served as the major motivation for Russia’s planned incursion which would have given Russia access to good sea ports. Stalin subsequently died and the plans were abandoned, at least temporarily.
    Suspicious Happenings In Alaska

    In light of the evidence, it is abundantly clear that there are clear economic, political and military reasons why the Russians would want to occupy Alaska. My interest in this topic surfaced quite serendipitously as a couple of listeners to my radio program sent me information on the Agenda 21 invasion of small Alaska communities, and oh, by the way, they also reported that they were seeing Russian troops in their respective communities.

    alaska map 2

    The sighting of Russian troops in small Alaskan towns such Ketchikan, Alaska, got my undivided attention. Ketchikan is the southeastern most city in Alaska. With an estimated population of 8,050. Ketchikan is the fifth-most populous city in the state. Another area where there are civilian sightings of Russian troops is in Sitka, Alaska. The City of Sitka, formerly New Archangel under Russian rule, is located on Baranof Island and the southern half of Chichagof Island in the Alexander Archipelago of the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, one military veteran reports seeing Russian submarines, on a frequent basis, just off the coast. Further, there are civilian reports of Russian vehicles and troops moving through Alaska north of Anchorage. These are only anecdotal accounts and further proof is required in to validate these eyewitness accounts. Yet, there are indeed verifiable, reported media accounts of Russian troops on American soil.

    The presence of Russian troops on American soil is very troublesome. America does not need to rely on the anecdotal accounts of Alaskan civilians to be concerned about the presence of Russian troops on American soil. Russian commandos are also “training” at Fort Carson, in Colorado Springs since last spring. Why is this concerning? The United States is about to go to war with Iran for selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold instead of the Petrodollar. Russia and China have threatened to nuke the United States if it dares to attack Iran. Russia is, and should be considered to be an enemy of the United States.
    A Stunning Act of Treason

    alaska 2

    Obama has given away seven strategic, oil-rich Alaskan islands to the Russians at a time when we could be going to war with Russia. At minimum, the oil, alone, from these Islands should be considered to be a military asset. I remain very concerned that these seven islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea could also be used as a military staging area from which to invade Alaska and defend its new claims of the mineral rich resources at the North Pole.

    The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake, related to these seven Islands. Didn’t Obama promise energy independence. Didn’t this proven communist president promise to help the economy bounce back by lessening our dependence on foreign oil? And despite our ongoing economic depression, Obama killed the Keystone Pipeline a few months ago. Perhaps, very soon, America will not need the Keystone Pipeline because Alaska will not be remaining as a viable member of the United States. To those who think that Obama would never sacrifice Alaska to Russia, then please tell us “conspiracy theorists” why he would give away seven Islands, one as big as Delaware, with great natural resources, to the Russians? This is a case of bold-faced treason plain and simple. Obama and his cabinet should be arrested, tried and sentenced as we would with any traitor. Yet, there is more.
    The Giveaway of Alaska

    There exists documented facts which support the reasons why Alaska should be placed on high alert.

    Russia recently sent four brigades to the Arctic. The Arctic can be used as a staging area for the invasion of the North Pole to protect its recent mineral claims, but more importantly, this area of the Arctic could serve as a base of operations from which to invade Alaska with the help of pre-positioned assets within the state.

    In March of 2012, with a microphone left on. Obama made an unguarded comment to Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev to be “more lenient on nuclear issues” because he could be more flexible “after the November election”. Does more flexible mean killing the Keystone Pipeline prior to giving away seven rich Alaskan Islands to the Russians? Does more flexible mean letting the Russians train in Colorado Springs and in Alaska? Does being more flexible mean compromising our defense of Alaska?
    More Treason From Obama

    Although some journalists have said that they suspect that Obama is preparing to give away Alaska to Russia. I previously did not see how a sitting president could do such a thing and remain in office. However, if Russia were to militarily seize Alaska, that would provide Obama with a plausible excuse in which he claims America was caught off guard and the danger was unforeseen. Obama could best accomplish this by weakening the defenses of Alaska and the evidence is supportive of this suspicion. The evidence does not support a timetable, however, I would guess that this event may transpire in Obama’s last year in office, or possibly in the lame duck session where he cannot be held accountable. This article will hopefully remove Obama’s ability to excuse away the notion that America lost Alaska because it go caught with its proverbial pants down.

    The giving away of seven strategic, oil-rich Islands is a good start to support a claim of treason because Obama is purposely weakening the defense of Alaska. Also, local residents along the Alaskan coast have reported to me that the massive over flights along the coast have all but ceased. The F-22′s have disappeared. The Air Force says the flights have been suspended because of oxygen concerns which are impacting the pilots. Then shouldn’t the flights be replaced by F-16′s? What about national security?These over flights have been a staple of Alaskan defense since the Cold War. If we are close to war with Iran and its ally, Russia, then shouldn’t we beefing up our patrols in Alaska?

    Recently the ATF asked for gun registration records in Alaska. Perhaps the Russians need to know, in advance, where the most civilian opposition will come from when they take over Alaska.
    Are Plans Being Made For a Post-Russian Takeover of Alaska?

    It is now on the record that Putin said that he was going to make his country the greatest country, economically, as he said in print that he is claiming part of Alaska. Adding fuel to the fire, it is now clear that Russia is also establishing plans for an Arctic industrialization. In geopolitical and military terms, it could be an easy to claim to make if the military resistance in Alaska is greatly compromised, and it has been.

    The last thing that country should do on a potential front line area is to close military facilities and bases, yet, this is exactly what is happening in Alaska. Obama and the Base Realignment and Closure Commission have been closing bases and/or reducing base operations all through Alaska. It has gotten so bad that the Alaskan Governor hired a lobbyist to prevent military reduction.

    Two years ago, a prominent Russia Professor predicted the end of the United States. The professor stated that Alaska would return to the control of Russia and that the United States would be split into six pieces. John McCain recently said “I think it’s very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian Empire. Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire.”

    There is also a tunnel from Russia to Alaska being constructed. Are we funding our own demise with our tax money which is designed to set up Russia’s future? Last summer, Russia challenged west coast detection capabilities of our military by making provocative moves with their submarines inside of our territorial waters. Also, in a stunning move, Putin banned adoptions of Russian children by American parents. Could it be likely that he is looking out for the Russian adoptees as this is a reaction to what Putin knows is coming?
    Conclusion

    Should we be closing bases on the potential front lines? Should we be failing to patrol off of our coast? Should we allow the unchallenged sightings of surfaced Russian subs close to the coastline? Any one of these events should be considered to be a serious national security concern. Yet, the media and Obama act as if all is well.

    There are a lot of dots on this wall to connect. However, there is one monumental dot to seriously consider. Subsequently, I have some final questions. If Obama is willing to give away seven oil-rich Islands in the area of Alaska, during these tough economic times, then what exactly isn’t he capable of doing to the United States? Is the sacrifice of Alaska so far-fetched in light of these other considerations? Aren’t the apparent Russian plans to seize Alaska part of the fulfillment of the Heartland Theory in which Mother Russia propels itself in the status of the world’s super power by making itself both a land and sea power through the seizure of Alaska?

    When someone can provide a plausible set of answers to the questions that I have raised here, then I will continue to sound the alarm that “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.”

    -
    NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION AND THE MILITARIZATION OF THE ARCTIC

    http://sreaves32.wordpress.com/2013/...uclear-attack/

  28. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566

  29. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    17,786
    [NOTE: If Ann Arbor were hit, Michigan would be devastated]

    I don't see how the entire state would be devastated, however it would be a horrible thing to happen. and as for me, I really don't want to see this happen not ever.ann arbor is a big college town, with 2 huge hospitals, one of those is for vets. no industry much to speak of.
    blessings to all momof23goats

  30. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    Quote Originally Posted by momof23goats View Post
    [NOTE: If Ann Arbor were hit, Michigan would be devastated]

    I don't see how the entire state would be devastated, however it would be a horrible thing to happen. and as for me, I really don't want to see this happen not ever.ann arbor is a big college town, with 2 huge hospitals, one of those is for vets. no industry much to speak of.
    Recall this study being posted here in the past.....

    Int J Health Geogr. 2007; 6: 5.
    Published online 2007 February 28. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-6-5
    PMCID: PMC1828719
    Vulnerability of populations and the urban health care systems to nuclear weapon attack – examples from four American cities
    William C Bell1 and Cham E Dallas
    corresponding author1
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828719/

  31. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    For links see article source.....
    Posted for fair use......
    http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...war-china-9346


    The National Interest
    Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
    Source URL (retrieved on Nov 2, 2013): http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...war-china-9346

    How to Win a War with China
    More [1]
    Sean Mirski [2] | November 1, 2013

    The mounting challenge presented by China’s military modernization has led the United States to review existing military strategies and to conceptualize new ones, as illustrated by the ongoing debate over AirSea Battle (ASB), a new concept of operations put forward by the Department of Defense [3]. But in the universe of possible strategies, the idea of a naval blockade deserves greater scrutiny. By prosecuting a naval blockade, the United States would leverage China’s intense dependence on foreign trade—particularly oil—to debilitate the Chinese state. A carefully organized blockade could thus serve as a powerful instrument of American military power that contributes to overcoming the pressing challenge of China’s formidable anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) system [4]. A blockade could also be easily paired with alternate military strategies, including those based on ASB.

    In the context of a Sino-American war, the United States could try to take China’s greatest national strength—its export-oriented, booming economic-growth model—and transform it into a major military weakness. To do so, the United States would implement a naval blockade of China that attempted to choke off most of China’s maritime trade. Under the right conditions, the United States might be able to secure victory by debilitating China’s economy severely enough to bring it to the negotiating table.

    Yet until recently, a blockade strategy was largely overlooked, perhaps because economic warfare strategies seem inherently misguided given the close commercial ties between China and the United States. But if a serious conflict between the two nations erupted, then their immediate security interests would quickly override their trade interdependence and wreak enormous economic damage on both sides, regardless of whether a blockade were employed.

    Even if a blockade is never executed, its viability would still impact American and Chinese policies for deterrence reasons. The United States’ regional strategy is predicated on the belief that a favorable military balance deters attempts to change the status quo by force, thus reassuring allies and upholding strategic stability. The viability of a blockade influences this calculus, and can accordingly affect American and Chinese actions—both military and nonmilitary—that are based on perceptions of it. If a naval blockade is a feasible strategy, it strengthens the American system of deterrence and dilutes any potential attempts by China to coerce the United States or its allies. Moreover, if a blockade’s viability can be clearly enunciated, it would also enhance crisis stability and dampen the prospects of escalation due to misunderstandings—on either side—about the regional balance of power. In short, as Elbridge Colby put it [3]: “the old saw remains true, that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it.”

    While a blockade is not a priori impossible or irrelevant in any situation, it is also not a ready tool in the American arsenal and would be feasible mainly within certain boundaries. Most importantly, many commentators miss the fact that a blockade is a context-dependent strategy, one that crucially depends on the regional environment.

    The Strategic Context

    A blockade would not be employed lightly by the United States, given its significant potential costs. Accordingly, Washington would likely only consider employing a blockade in a protracted conflict over vital interests; anything less would simply fail a basic cost-benefit analysis.

    More importantly, though, a blockade strategy would depend on the cooperation of several third parties in the region. After all, China’s trade is borne on the seas largely as a result of economic considerations rather than physical limitations; if China were blockaded, it would turn to the countries on its borders for help.

    While many of its neighbors would be unable to make a strategic difference because of their rugged geography or their small size, three could prove vital: India, Japan, and Russia. The latter two would be important in helping the United States by cutting off China’s trade routes in its south and east, respectively, through implementing national embargoes on China and pressuring their smaller neighbors to do the same. Without their cooperation, the United States’ task would become much more difficult.

    The last of the three neighbors—Russia—would be the lynchpin of a successful blockade, and could tip the balance of a blockade in favor of either China or the United States. On the one hand, Russia is remarkably well-positioned to alleviate the blockade’s effects on China. Russian trade would be immune to American interdiction, since Russia’s nuclear arsenal and significant conventional assets preclude any serious American attempts at military coercion [5]. But on the other hand, China’s northern neighbor could also sound the death knell for China’s ability to resist a blockade. On the political level, Moscow continues to exert sway over the decisions made in the capitals of China’s Central Asian neighbors and could convince them to refuse Chinese entreaties to act as transit states. It could also guarantee that China’s two neighboring oil producers would no longer supply it with petroleum.

    Accordingly, for the United States to implement a strategically effective blockade of China, it would strive to build a “minimum coalition” with India, Japan, and Russia. If all three states made common cause with the American blockade, then China would be placed in both an economic and a political stranglehold. If not, however, a blockade strategy would regionalize a Sino-American war in a way that would be fundamentally unfavorable to American interests.

    Such a minimum coalition could only arise in one way: on the heels of an assertive Chinese push for regional hegemony that precipitates local support for a drastic American response. Short of anything but an aggressive China, collective embargo action will be deterred by the potential consequences of a blockade, not least of which is the possibility of a larger regional conflict with China. The four states are unlikely to coalesce together around an implicit containment policy until each feels that its national interests may be threatened by China in the future.

    While such a possibility may appear distant at present, the United States, Japan, India and Russia all fear that Beijing might someday conclude that it must use force in order to protect its interests and to resolve its security dilemma on favorable terms. All four powers have increasingly hedged their bets against this possibility. If China’s power and influence in Asia continues to increase, then the bonds between all four states will strengthen, not out of any conviction about China’s belligerent intentions, but rather because of a profound uncertainty as to their future disposition.

    The Central Operational Challenge

    Even assuming that the United States can rally the necessary coalition together, it would squarely face an operational challenge that bedevils all modern-day blockade strategies.

    Operationally, blockades are characterized by their distance from the coast of the blockaded state, and they come in two forms: close and distant. A close blockade is typically enforced by stationing a cordon of warships off an enemy’s shores to search all incoming or outgoing merchant ships and to impound those carrying contraband. Over the last century and a half, though, close blockades have become increasingly dangerous as belligerents developed the technology to project power from their coasts. In response, blockading powers have turned to distant blockades. A distant blockade avoids the military hazards of being located near the enemy’s shores by stationing itself at a distance, albeit still astride the enemy’s sea lanes, and it then chokes off the enemy’s trade in a similar manner to the close blockade.

    Neither a close nor a distant blockade of China alone would be successful thanks to the constraints imposed by military requirements and the nature of maritime commerce. On the one hand, a conventional close blockade would be severely complicated by the United States’ desire to minimize the military risk to American warships. As American forces came closer to China, they would increasingly place themselves within range of China’s A2/AD complex, possibly limiting their operational freedom and resulting in heavy losses. American forces could avoid the perils of China’s A2/AD system by implementing a close blockade enforced by submarines, long-range air power, and mines; but by so doing, the blockade would also lose much of its ability to differentiate between neutral and enemy commerce.

    On the other hand, the logic behind conventional distant blockades has similarly been undermined by the exigencies of modern commerce. Today’s cargoes of raw materials and merchandise can be sold and re-sold many times in the course of a voyage, so the ultimate ownership and destination of a ship’s cargo is often unknowable until the moment it docks. Although the United States might be able to set up a conventional distant blockade that quarantined all Chinese-owned or -flagged vessels, China could still simply buy neutral vessels’ cargoes after they had passed through the blockade, defeating its entire purpose.

    The Solution: A Two-Ring Blockade

    To remedy the infirmities of the two blockades, the United States would take the best of both worlds and implement a “two-ring” blockade made up of two concentric rings around China’s shores.

    The heart of the two-ring blockade would be its “inner ring,” which would be an unconventional close blockade primarily aimed at neutralizing vessels bound for China without having to board them first. This ring would establish an exclusion zone around China’s coast—an area that is declared off-limits to commercial shipping, and enforced by a “sink-on-sight” policy—through the use of attack submarines, long-distance airpower, and mines. Unlike other military assets, these three capabilities could operate with relative impunity within the range of China’s A2/AD complex by taking advantage of China’s feeble anti-submarine warfare capabilities and attenuated mine-countermeasure forces. While this trifecta of military assets would not guarantee total impassibility, the exclusion zone could still achieve the blockade’s aims because the fulcrum of the United States’ campaign would be grounded in deterrence rather than in force. As soon as American forces conspicuously sank several large merchant vessels, the majority of other shipping would be deterred from trying to run the blockade and much of the regular flow of China’s maritime commerce would quickly dry up.

    But while submarines, long-distance airpower and mines could effectively enforce an exclusion zone as part of the inner ring blockade, they are all blunt instruments that can neither tell the difference between a ship carrying Chinese cargo and one carrying Japanese cargo, nor stop, board, and search suspicious vessels. As a result, an inner ring blockade on its own would likely spawn considerable political problems as the United States unintentionally destroyed neutral vessels, and Washington could face further political consequences from the exclusion zone’s inability to allow medical care and basic necessities through to China.

    To combat these political consequences, the United States would implement a second, “outer ring” that would allow greater selectivity in applying force while also acting as a winnowing device. In contrast to the inner ring, the outer ring would be comprised largely of warships focused on both differentiating between different regional commerce with greater precision and adding a non-lethal component to the inner ring’s neutralization efforts. The outer ring would not be a prerequisite for the blockade’s operational success—although it would greatly help—but it would be vital in guaranteeing its strategic viability.

    The outer ring would be positioned at the periphery of China’s near seas—outside the range of its A2/AD complex—and would be concentrated around key passageways in Southeast and East Asia, including the Straits of Malacca. The United States would establish blockade checkpoints at those passageways (like Malacca) that are most important to international shipping, while the smaller passageways would be closed off to international shipping completely.

    At the outer ring’s checkpoints, the United States would need to set up and streamline a rigorous inspection regime. If the United States discovered that a vessel was destined for, owned by, or registered in China, then it could impound it.

    The United States could also implement a system similar to the British navicert system in World War II, which would give the United States a fairly accurate spatial map of the positions and trajectories of all commercial vessels in the region. The United States would then integrate the navicert spatial map with the inner ring’s firepower to exert deadly force against blockade runners while also decreasing the rate of accidental sinkings—especially of humanitarian vessels. While an imperfect process, the navicert system would nevertheless substantially raise the risks of deviation for vessels to the point where running the blockade was so sufficiently perilous that it was no longer attempted, except by the most risk-loving vessels. Perhaps more importantly, though, it would help mollify the political repercussions that would flow from the inner ring blockade’s non-discriminatory and lethal neutralizations.

    A Blockade’s Consequences

    Although the consequences of a blockade would be exceedingly complex, manifold, and interdependent, a blockade would likely prove to be a cogent instrument of exhaustion as part of the United States’ overall campaign.

    In the first place, however, it is worth recognizing that even the most effective blockade would not completely interdict Chinese trade, because even under ideal conditions, China would still be able to acquire the vital goods and resources courtesy of the inescapable laws of supply and demand. The more effectively the United States established a regional embargo, the higher the profit margins on selling imports to China. Even if all of China’s neighbors agreed to embargo, the United States would still have to resign itself to rampant smuggling at the substate level.

    A blockade would also not be able to directly debilitate the Chinese military. Simply put, China could use its reserves and stockpiles, along with a limited degree of imports and domestic production, to fuel its military machine for the length of the conflict.

    Therefore, the real value of a blockade would be its ability to exact an incredibly high financial toll on Beijing. In particular, a blockade would send the Chinese economy into a tailspin by hitting three distinct pressure points: China’s dual dependency on both intermediate and raw material imports and its low levels of domestic innovation. China has structured much of its export-oriented economy around the importation of intermediate goods, a phenomenon particularly evident in its high-technology sectors. This vulnerability is further compounded by its incredible dependence on raw materials (including oil) and foreign innovation as the basis of its production processes.

    Because a blockade targets all three areas, it would exact a staggering cost. Of course, China might discover ways as time passed to substitute for its inability to trade and it might rebuild its economy from the ground up, but an ongoing conflict could nevertheless impose a devastating rate of economic attrition that exceeds Beijing’s compensating abilities.

    Conclusion

    The context, conduct, and consequences of an American blockade of China would be deeply embedded in the mire of global politics. To overcome the blockade’s various challenges successfully, the United States and its allies would have to carefully balance the strategic repercussions of their actions with their contribution to the efficacy of the overall blockade. In almost any context, this trade-off would be extremely difficult politically, and would require a high degree of flexibility and innovation on the United States’ part. The exact trade-offs would be made with a variety of considerations in mind, above all the value of the American interests implicated in the conflict.

    Nevertheless, despite considerable challenges, a naval blockade is both operationally and strategically possible, albeit only within certain limits. Even against a maximally effective blockade, China would be able to meet its military needs indefinitely, and it could survive on its strategic petroleum reserves, stockpiles, and massive foreign-exchange reserves for an extended period of time. As a result, the effectiveness of a blockade would turn on its ability to impose debilitating economic costs on China.

    If the United States were able to assemble its minimum coalition of India, Japan and Russia—a task that would hinge on China’s aggressive behavior—then China’s rate of economic exhaustion would sharply accelerate even as the United States gained the political support it would need to continue a blockading strategy indefinitely. In this context, while the United States would not be able to use Beijing’s dependence on maritime trade to defeat China decisively in one short blow, it would still be able to help sap Chinese strength until Beijing eventually submitted.

    Sean Mirski is co-editor of Crux of Asia: China, India and the Emerging Global Order [6]. This article is based on a longer piece originally published in the Journal of Strategic Studies [7].
    More by
    Sean Mirski [2]
    Topics:

    Defense [8]
    Grand Strategy [9]
    Great Powers [10]
    Military Strategy [11]
    Security [12]

    Regions:

    China [13]
    United States [14]

    Source URL (retrieved on Nov 2, 2013): http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...war-china-9346

    Links:
    [1] http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?...tionalinterest
    [2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/sean-mirski
    [3] http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...war-china-8896
    [4] http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...challenge-9099
    [5] http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...tary-back-9181
    [6] http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/01...bal-order/f0gw
    [7] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...5#.UnO2JFPFZz8
    [8] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security/defense
    [9] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/se...grand-strategy
    [10] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security/great-powers
    [11] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/se...itary-strategy
    [12] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/security
    [13] http://nationalinterest.org/region/a...ast-asia/china
    [14] http://nationalinterest.org/region/a.../united-states

  32. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    For links see article source.....
    Posted for fair use......
    http://thediplomat.com/china-power/w...a-goes-to-war/

    Why China Will Determine If Asia Goes to War
    By Ankit Panda
    November 1, 2013
    Comments 14

    In understanding China's rise in Asia, it's worth reflecting on what the United States' post-Cold War “unipolar moment” might have to teach us about power transitions, war, and peace. The U.S. could have used its undisputed spot as the global hyperpower to abrasively pursue its strategic goals worldwide, pushing over weaker states in the process. Indeed, some critics of U.S. policy would argue that it did do exactly that in response to 9/11, but I'm hesitant to go that far.

    Instead, what the U.S. did was show weaker states that as long as they abided by the post-Second World War liberal order, and did not actively attempt to undermine U.S. national security, it would, for the most part, engage with them peacefully. The United States' prosperity during the Clinton-era reminds us that this posture largely succeeded. The Bush years are more uncertain given that U.S. strategy underwent shock-therapy in late 2001, but on balance, the argument stands that the U.S. has been more friendly than abrasive in the two decades following its unipolar moment (North Korea and Iran may disagree).

    Princeton's G. John Ikenberry made this argument most completely in "Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and Persistence of American Post-War Order." According to Ikenberry, the reason for our era of liberal-democratic peace and prosperity since the early 1990s is the U.S. decision to secure its position as superpower by moderating its potential for unilateral domination. In effect, the U.S. chose to be less powerful than it could have been in the 1990s in exchange for securing global trust. If we believe Stephen Walt's assertion — and I do — that states balance against perceived threats and not against mere power itself, then the U.S. couldn't have played its cards better. It mitigated the resurgence of a global arms race among weaker states to "hedge" against the U.S. going rogue.

    Now what's a Chinese strategist to learn from all this? True, China won't have its global “unipolar moment” anytime soon, but its position in greater Asia has bestowed on it a sort of “local unipolarity.” China is powerful, and every Asian foreign ministry cares about its position vis-à-vis Asia's great economic hub. In the story of its rise, more so than the U.S. case, raw economic performance is key. If you believe that China's elites — certainly the Communist Party leadership — derive their legitimacy from China's economic performance, then a stable, peaceful and prosperous Asia should be at the top of China's strategic agenda for Asia. War did help the U.S. exit its Great Depression, but for an economy attempting to wean itself off its reliance on manufacturing and exports, and move into demand-driven growth, China has little to gain from war. China’s military capabilities, while increasingly impressive, remain untested.

    As readers will be aware, Chinese strategy has largely been the opposite of much of what I've argued for here. This doesn't particularly make good sense for China; its current policies, particularly regarding its territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas, have curried nationalist sentiment at home which does benefit the national leadership in the short term. But, if the CCP leadership is interested in its own long-term survival, it needs to steer Chinese policy in a direction that will result in an Asian environment where China is seen as less of a threat and as more of a willing partner. A counterargument, of course, is to look at the economic numbers that have been coming out of China for the past decade. Asia has been willing to do business with China, just as the world was with the United States after the Cold War. A key difference, however, is the almost ubiquitous balancing against China across Asia.

    From India through to Japan, the Asia-Pacific is distrustful of China. The PRC's promise of a "peaceful rise" should not only focus on the means of its rise, but also on the ends. It’s evident in China’s approach to territorial disputes that one can be peaceful and yet destabilizing. One important exception that significantly complicates China’s story is the deep endurance of historical pain in Asia. Asian international relations have resisted the rational elegance of a Bismarckian game of chess. Despite its propensity for abrasion with its Asian neighbors, Beijing continues to have a choice in its rise to power. Its foreign policy choices, more so than those of any other state in the Asia-Pacific, will determine whether Asia heads towards war or towards peace and prosperity.

    Ankit Panda is Associate Editor of The Diplomat. You can follow him on Twitter at @nktpnd.


    Comments 14

    Little Helmsman
    November 2, 2013 at 5:09 am

    As I have always said China and Chinese are 2 centuries behind the rest of the world. I don't know why that is but Chinese seem to never learn. The age of European imperialism ended in the last century and modern Europeans and Japanese no longer accept that type of policy as a rational policy to formulate in the 21st Century. Such type of behavior is finding acceptance in the Chinese psyche in this century. Chinese seem to not want to live in this century, thus, they have an outdated, one party dictatorship that looks like it will go into the dustbin of history. Look how long it took for China to go through the Industrial Revolution!!! LOL. 1978 is when China began to industrialize while the West went through it over 150 years ago!!!

    Now that the world is developing in the Information Age, China again is clueless, but instead insist on living in the last century.
    Reply
    George
    November 2, 2013 at 4:47 am

    China is at the top of the list and by far,the nation which can Do what US does and not what it tells others to do. And once the precedence is estabished…others will follow…in some ways…it has already started….and no amount of American military bases and phone tappings can reverse the trend.
    Reply
    Siddharta
    November 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    "From India through to Japan, the Asia-Pacific is distrustful of China".

    What nonsense. You talk like John Kerry. Lying does not truth nor fact maketh. Shame. Shame your deplorable behaviour. Like John Kerry, you disrepute yourself even before you can begin.
    Reply
    Matt
    November 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm

    "China has little to gain from war."

    First, there is no China. There is the leadership, the communist party and the people. And the leaders might have a lot to gain from war – like their necks. China is aleady on the path toward revolution. The leaders are already worried about revolution. So war just might be a better option than hanging from the end of a rope. And, I might add, it is the leaders who push the button – not the people. So let's talk about the people who matter when we talk about war.


    Reply
    Justin
    November 2, 2013 at 12:36 am

    How will war save their necks? If anything, a major war, even if it did become nuclear, would devastate China's infrastructure and economy. China cannot win a war against the U.S. alone or a combination of the U.S.-Japan-Australia-India, and nothing would be gained by that. And in the end, the Chinese people would blame their leaders for a humiliating defeat and they would certainly not have saved their necks.
    Reply
    Bankotsu
    November 1, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    "…it's worth reflecting on what the United States' post-Cold War “unipolar moment” might have to teach us about power transitions, war, and peace…"

    For basic understanding of U.S. grand strategy and foreign policy aims since 1945 and 1991 and 2001, see below:

    On U.S. foreign policy

    https://archive.org/details/PeterGowanInterview2009

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/132781206/...er-Peter-Gowan

    http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio..._hegemony_5381

    http://newamerica.net/node/13515

    http://www.u.arizona.edu/~volgy/Layn...nHegemony.html

    http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs...rz/schwarz.htm

    U.S foreign policy is clearly defined in above sources. They are very good in explaining U.S. grand strategy and foreign policy goals.
    Reply
    Dan
    November 2, 2013 at 2:17 am

    Bankotsu,

    Six peaceful decades + with stability & prosperity in the region are mostly thanks to the Americans' presence there. Now, what does China want? To disrupt the peace & alter the status quo in its favor?
    Reply
    Calvin Chua
    November 1, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    This is a debate between using liberalism vis constructivist argument of using history versus neoclassical liberal policies for world order.

    I would side with the constructivist framework and still come out with a radically different answer.

    China will not go to war due to the following historical precedents.

    1. Chinese are not known to be great at war, all the Chinese empires are weak against the Mongolians, and other minority group.

    2. China has their unipolar moments in the region and beyond, yet there was no intention to send armies to even south east asia for conquer and conquest.

    3. The South China Seas, is like a gambling den opened by the Chinese government, observing their enemies and friends. Appease the enemy and reward the friends in the long run. The truth is China is not a bit interested in territories except Taiwan and Mongolia.

    4. The previous unipolar moments of China was not created through war but inter marriage, cultural hegemony and also granting HAN surname to the minorities.
    Reply
    Socrates
    November 1, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Oh my fengdu !!!

    China (Han ethnic ) is Expansionist/Chauvinism in nature. Since Warring States era and Qin dynasty to the last dynasty (Qing) .Chinese empires always invade their weaker neigbouring states and demands attributions from the vanquisheds .

    Viet Nam,Korea, Myanmar. Thailand have fought hundred wars with several Chinese empires in the last millennium that people around the world know by just clicking the mouse at Google.

    China (Qing dynasty) had to give up its land to Russia because Russia defeated it in many wars between it and Russia.

    I dunt want to waste more time to argue with you as you appeared NOT to know anything about Chinese and Asian countries histories.
    Reply
    BSBA
    November 1, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    The problem with China's relations with it's neighbours is the matter of PR and inability to convey their intentions properly without nationistic rhetoric rather than being outright imperialistic and unreasonable.

    In the case of territory disputes, China has actually given away most of it's contested territories. There was ~7,381 square kilometers of territory that China basically just relinquished to Afghanistan. China also gave up 74% of the territory in its border dispute with India, and the only frontier dispute China has even gotten a half-decent share of is its dispute with Russia, where China only gave up 48% of the disputed territory.

    China so far has been very generous to it's neighbours regarding land, that is an indisputable fact. It's just that the few mistep are far more publicised than their record of goodwill.

    Reply
    Bankotsu
    November 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    Yes, China gave away a lot of land to its neighbours, I am finding references to those deals, do you have any sources to cite?
    Reply
    Kristoph Lennen
    November 1, 2013 at 9:17 am

    I agree with everything that your article has laid out, thought I feel that explaining the historical motivations for the USA's behaviour as a unipolar superpower would be benefitial.

    As a revolutionary state, founded by dissidents and underdogs, the USA no matter how brash or swaggering they are seen to be, are ultimately distrustful of empire & therefore the tyranny which goes along with it. The appropriate mechanisms of checks and balances within their legislature help to keep this sense ever present.

    China however for 2000 years of its history has had the "mandate of heaven" and a confutian order of top down authoritarianism. Something that has carried through to the modern CCP in all but name (though some might argue that the CCP is more dictatorial than the old imperial order). Coupled with a deep sense of injustice it will be interesting to see how differently the CCP wields its growing influence.
    Reply
    Socrates
    November 1, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    Hi Lennen ! You are absolutely right .However , let me correct some of your misspelling words and ideas.

    Confucian (Confucianism) assumed Chinese emperor is 'heaven son" and he is mandated to rule the people.

    In practice, Imperial authoritarianism is less harsher than CCP totalitarianism because CCP has 35 million party members plus their hundreds million kins as its foundation as well as protectors and interest-sharing partners of the CCP.That means CCP can contol the populace tighter with its huge number of party members and their kins.
    Reply
    Mishmael
    November 2, 2013 at 4:43 am

    Americans claim they do not want empire, but everyone else looks at them and tells them that no, they have created in fact exactly that. The NSA and CIA and Pentagon and who knows what ither secret killing organizations the US has spawned, as well as the unapologetic priviledging of US security at the expense of others' proves that the US is as imperialistic as any other self-obssessed empire.
    Reply

  33. #73
    US Is the Enemy, Says Chinese Military Documentary
    By Lu Chen, Epoch Times | October 31, 2013
    Last Updated: November 1, 2013 12:36 am



    A screenshot of the film “Silent Battle” shows a tough-looking eagle, representing America, with the national flag of the United States in the background. The documentary says that the United States is China's enemy, despite American policy that attempts to prove the contrary. (National Defense University/Screenshot/Epoch Times)

    President Clinton’s call to cooperate with China is taken as part of a secret plot to subvert it.


    A documentary film produced by top personnel in the Chinese military says that the United States has for decades been attempting to subvert China and bring down the Communist Party.

    The film, which runs for 92 minutes and was produced by the National Defense University, first appeared on Chinese video websites in late October, and was taken down several days later. Titled Silent Battle, it sounds a somber warning bell against what it says are American designs to attack the ideology and culture of China’s communist system, through such nefarious means as “economic infiltration.”

    The chief producers of the film, which was made in June, are two senior generals of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA): Liu Yazhou, a general and the political commissar of the PLA’s National Defense University, and Wang Xibin, also a general.

    Many of the views in the documentary are not new inside the hawkish ideological factions of the Chinese military; but it is unusual for them to be presented in such a public manner. Analysts said that leftist forces in the Chinese military may be attempting to put pressure on the Communist Party leadership, to have it adopt more hard-line policies, or to send a warning signal to liberal intellectuals inside China who wish to see the Communist Party play less of a central role in Chinese economic and political life.
    Struggle Inevitable

    “Conflict and struggle with the American hegemonic system is inevitable on the path of China’s national rejuvenation,” the film declared in its opening. “It is a century-long battle that does not depend on one’s will.”

    The documentary argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was China that fell into the United State’s crosshairs. A grim-faced eagle stares into the camera.

    In this view, even United States attempts to engage with China have the underhanded purpose of trying to undo the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, something that U.S. policymakers deny.

    The video quotes President Bill Clinton’s Berlin Wall theory to show America’s purported real intentions: “I don’t think there is any way that anyone who disagrees with that in China can hold back that [liberty], just as eventually the Berlin Wall fell. I just think it’s inevitable.”

    In the United States, this was taken to mean that Clinton was adopting policies that avoided confrontation with China.

    The documentary, however, takes them as damning evidence of the underhanded U.S. plot.
    The Hard-Line

    “The people that produced this documentary are the most representative of the orthodox communist ideology in the Party,” said Shi Cangshan, an independent analyst of Party affairs based in Washington, D.C.

    He noted that similar noises had been made in the 1980s during the Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign, another leftist reaction to the forces of economic modernization.

    “I don’t think these views are too representative of those of the central leadership, but more the people in the military.” Shi said that they may have deliberately leaked the video in order to publicly pressure the leadership, and at the same time put some of the more well-known liberal voices in China on notice.

    The documentary names certain newspapers, such as the Southern Metropolis Daily, and individuals, like He Weifang, as being tools for hostile Western forces. This, Shi said, indicates that it may have been more about domestic, rather than foreign, propaganda.

    The National Defense University does not appear to have its own website, so it was not possible to contact it to verify whether it indeed produced the documentary. The interviews with senior military personnel, which had not been previously public, and the official narration, however, left little doubt of its origins.
    Online Reaction

    Many of the inhabitants of China’s online world were not impressed with the arguments floated in the film, or the style of its delivery.

    He Weifang, one of the scholars named and attacked as a tool for U.S. subversion, responded in a post online: “This Silent Battle is full of cold war mentality and language of incitement. It demonizes the pursuit of freedom and democracy in other countries, and even blames a U.S. conspiracy for its own corruption and lack of democracy and rule of law. It’s extremely ridiculous.”

    Internet users said it was a “brain damaged” and “brainwashing film.” Chiqingxiangqu Zuonongfu remarked: “It’s a garbage feature film. The tone of the film is just like the Cultural Revolution. It’s not even worth arguing against. But I’m surprised that it’s produced by the National Defense University, which means there are a lot of people there that are remnants of the Cultural Revolution. They don’t do research on military affairs but make films about politics. What’s their goal?”

    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/3383...y-documentary/

  34. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    51,566
    Quote Originally Posted by China Connection View Post
    US Is the Enemy, Says Chinese Military Documentary
    By Lu Chen, Epoch Times | October 31, 2013
    Last Updated: November 1, 2013 12:36 am



    A screenshot of the film “Silent Battle” shows a tough-looking eagle, representing America, with the national flag of the United States in the background. The documentary says that the United States is China's enemy, despite American policy that attempts to prove the contrary. (National Defense University/Screenshot/Epoch Times)

    President Clinton’s call to cooperate with China is taken as part of a secret plot to subvert it.


    A documentary film produced by top personnel in the Chinese military says that the United States has for decades been attempting to subvert China and bring down the Communist Party.

    The film, which runs for 92 minutes and was produced by the National Defense University, first appeared on Chinese video websites in late October, and was taken down several days later. Titled Silent Battle, it sounds a somber warning bell against what it says are American designs to attack the ideology and culture of China’s communist system, through such nefarious means as “economic infiltration.”

    The chief producers of the film, which was made in June, are two senior generals of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA): Liu Yazhou, a general and the political commissar of the PLA’s National Defense University, and Wang Xibin, also a general.

    Many of the views in the documentary are not new inside the hawkish ideological factions of the Chinese military; but it is unusual for them to be presented in such a public manner. Analysts said that leftist forces in the Chinese military may be attempting to put pressure on the Communist Party leadership, to have it adopt more hard-line policies, or to send a warning signal to liberal intellectuals inside China who wish to see the Communist Party play less of a central role in Chinese economic and political life.
    Struggle Inevitable

    “Conflict and struggle with the American hegemonic system is inevitable on the path of China’s national rejuvenation,” the film declared in its opening. “It is a century-long battle that does not depend on one’s will.”

    The documentary argues that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was China that fell into the United State’s crosshairs. A grim-faced eagle stares into the camera.

    In this view, even United States attempts to engage with China have the underhanded purpose of trying to undo the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, something that U.S. policymakers deny.

    The video quotes President Bill Clinton’s Berlin Wall theory to show America’s purported real intentions: “I don’t think there is any way that anyone who disagrees with that in China can hold back that [liberty], just as eventually the Berlin Wall fell. I just think it’s inevitable.”

    In the United States, this was taken to mean that Clinton was adopting policies that avoided confrontation with China.

    The documentary, however, takes them as damning evidence of the underhanded U.S. plot.
    The Hard-Line

    “The people that produced this documentary are the most representative of the orthodox communist ideology in the Party,” said Shi Cangshan, an independent analyst of Party affairs based in Washington, D.C.

    He noted that similar noises had been made in the 1980s during the Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign, another leftist reaction to the forces of economic modernization.

    “I don’t think these views are too representative of those of the central leadership, but more the people in the military.” Shi said that they may have deliberately leaked the video in order to publicly pressure the leadership, and at the same time put some of the more well-known liberal voices in China on notice.

    The documentary names certain newspapers, such as the Southern Metropolis Daily, and individuals, like He Weifang, as being tools for hostile Western forces. This, Shi said, indicates that it may have been more about domestic, rather than foreign, propaganda.

    The National Defense University does not appear to have its own website, so it was not possible to contact it to verify whether it indeed produced the documentary. The interviews with senior military personnel, which had not been previously public, and the official narration, however, left little doubt of its origins.
    Online Reaction

    Many of the inhabitants of China’s online world were not impressed with the arguments floated in the film, or the style of its delivery.

    He Weifang, one of the scholars named and attacked as a tool for U.S. subversion, responded in a post online: “This Silent Battle is full of cold war mentality and language of incitement. It demonizes the pursuit of freedom and democracy in other countries, and even blames a U.S. conspiracy for its own corruption and lack of democracy and rule of law. It’s extremely ridiculous.”

    Internet users said it was a “brain damaged” and “brainwashing film.” Chiqingxiangqu Zuonongfu remarked: “It’s a garbage feature film. The tone of the film is just like the Cultural Revolution. It’s not even worth arguing against. But I’m surprised that it’s produced by the National Defense University, which means there are a lot of people there that are remnants of the Cultural Revolution. They don’t do research on military affairs but make films about politics. What’s their goal?”

    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/3383...y-documentary/
    We all know the saying..."Be careful what you wish for...." This is a repeat of the run up to the crisis with Japan. So who gains and for how long?

    ETA: What the PLA/PRC leadership may be forgetting is that the US in recent history hasn't had the political will to "really" fight to win LIC/COIN, it has however the history and capability to fight and win a peer or "big war" conflict, just ask Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Saddam's Iraq.

    As to gaining the political support, the PRC in publishing this stuff, along with human rights (de oppresso liber/RtP), support for North Korea, trade and US jobs, the PRC is set for "a frame" of its own making if it keeps it up. It might not happen with the current Administration, but if they continue on this path, they're only helping to get a replacement one much less "disposed" to them.

  35. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    New England region
    Posts
    6,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Vtshooter View Post
    Ok, I'm going out on a limb here and calling BS on this map. Nuking Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Mass, but not hitting any major military installations, or DC, is absurd. Unless the map is supposed to show they have the CAPABILITY to hit the east coast.
    I'm not sure of my deepest, darkest inner response to this story. The map is certainly suspect (in my mind) showing a curious display of target selection - the pie cut and the relative selection or non selection of targets is bizarre in my opinion.

    Firing nukes at Vermont is like bombing your country cousin's outhouse. Big noise, big mess and what have you accomplished?

    I AM concerned about the CONUS West Coast however. That is a threat of an entirely more possible, plausible and deadly stripe.

    The Chinks must be getting pissed holding the bag with all of that American debt paper in it.
    "Talking is easy and everyone is wise after the event."

    Ernest Joyce

  36. #76
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    yankee baptist land
    Posts
    14,240
    they may be holding a lot of US paper, but they also now possess virtually all our technology and manufacturing. they've come a long ways in a very short time, thanks to Bush and Clinton and Congress.
    "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."
    - Ronald Reagan

    Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding,
    acknowledge Him in all your ways and He will direct your path.

  37. #77
    Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.

    By Miles Yu

    Thursday, October 31, 2013

    Chinese state-run media revealed for the first time this week that Beijing’s nuclear submarines can attack American cities as a means to counterbalance U.S. nuclear deterrence in the Pacific.

    On Monday, leading media outlets including China Central TV, the People’s Daily, the Global Times, the PLA Daily, the China Youth Daily and the Guangmin Daily ran identical, top-headlined reports about the “awesomeness” of the People's Liberation Army navy’s strategic submarine force.

    PHOTOS: Take that, China — check out the U.S. Navy's nuclear submarines

    “This is the first time in 42 years since the establishment of our navy’s strategic submarine force that we reveal on such a large scale the secrets of our first-generation underwater nuclear force,” the Global Times said in a lengthy article titled “China for the First Time Possesses Effective Underwater Nuclear Deterrence against the United States.”

    The article features 30 photos and graphics detailing, among other things, damage projections for Seattle and Los Angeles after being hit by Chinese nuclear warheads and the deadly radiation that would spread all the way to Chicago
    .

    China’s sub fleet is reportedly the world’s second-largest, with about 70 vessels. About 10 are nuclear-powered, and four or more of those are nuclear ballistic submarines capable of launching missiles.

    Heavily influenced by Soviet naval models that stressed underwater forces, China’s nuclear submarine development began with the reverse-engineering of a Soviet Golf-class conventional-powered sub in the 1950s.

    In the 1980s, China developed its first ballistic missile sub, the Type 092 Xia-class, which has 12 launch tubes for the Julang (Giant Wave)-1 missiles. The JL-1 had a limited range and failed multiple test launches.

    In 2010, a new class of missile sub, the Type 094 Jin class, entered the service. It is capable of launching 12 to 16 JL-2 missiles with a range of about 8,700 miles, covering much of the continental U.S. with single or multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicle warheads.

    PHOTOS: See the Navy's biggest, baddest, destroyer

    Chinese calculations for nuclear attacks on the U.S. are chillingly macabre.

    “Because the Midwest states of the U.S. are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego,” the Global Times said.

    “The 12 JL-2 nuclear warheads carried by one single Type 094 SSBN can kill and wound 5 million to 12 million Americans,” the Global Times reported.


    China also has developed land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles — notably the DF-31A, which has a range of 7,000 to 7,500 miles.

    If we launch our DF 31A ICBMs over the North Pole, we can easily destroy a whole list of metropolises on the East Coast and the New England region of the U.S., including Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore and Norfolk, whose population accounts for about one-eighth of America’s total residents,” the Global Times said.

    All the state-run press reports stressed the point that the PLA’s missile submarines are now on routine strategic patrol, “which means that China for the first time has acquired the strategic deterrence and second strike capability against the United States.”

    “Our JL-2 SLBMs have become the fourth type of Chinese nuclear missiles that threaten the continental United States, after our DF-31A, DF-5A and DF-5B ICBMs,” said the Global Times.

    • Miles Yu’s column appears Fridays. He can be reached at mmilesyu@gmail and @Yu_miles.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2jTZS4Cj5
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  38. #78
    We can nuke American cities to counterbalance US forces in the Pacific China accuses Japan of ‘dangerous provocation’ at sea – Regional | The Star Online
    China-Japan tensions are likely to drag the US into a nuclear war
    By Matt On November 1, 2013 · In Asia, China, Collapse, Conflict, Fav-Asia, Fav-China, Fav-US, Fav-War, Japan, U.S., War

    Washington is betting that “cooler heads will prevail” so the building China-Japan tensions over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands do not drag the US into a nuclear war with China. But there are signs that cooler heads just might not prevail this time. To make matters worse, China has a habit of launching bolt out of the blue preemptive strikes.

    Look at some of the events over the last year:

    A Chinese vessels locks its firing radar onto a Japanese ship.
    China sends a drone near the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. Japan threatens to shoot down Chinese drones.
    If Japan shoots down its drone, then that would be considered an act of war, says Beijing.
    Japan asserts that it will not accept a change in status quo by force. U.S. won’t tolerate changed status quo change in Senkakus as well.
    Abe says Japan ready to counter China’s power.
    Japan states that China is threatening the peace in the region.

    To get more background information about the conflict watch the following video (subtitles are in English):

    What’s at Stake for China and Japan in the Diaoyu Island Dispute?

    Clearly, the building of tension is serious. The chance of a military conflict between China and Japan is high. One analyst in the above video said that on a scale of 1 to 10 the chance of a military conflict between China and Japan rates from 4 to 6. But will it lead to a nuclear war with the US?

    The above video reports that the PLA has recently been instructed to “prepare for war”. In this case it is against Japan. Below is an article excerpt on this topic.

    It has been revealed that the General Staff Department which commands the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has instructed the entire army that the army’s mission for 2013 is to ‘prepare for war’. This was reported in the January 14 edition of the military bulletin, the PLA Daily, among other places. Furthermore, state-sponsored media, such as China Central Television (CCTV) has recently broadcast special programmes on successive days that envision war with Japan, creating a sense of military tension.

    Chinese Military Instructed to ‘Prepare For War’ With Japan | 1913 Intel

    China says the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are a “core interest.” A core interest of China means it is willing to wage war.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping told U.S. President Barack Obama during their recent talks in California that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea are a “core interest” of China, a source close to U.S.-China ties said Tuesday.

    Japan’s Abe says Japan will not back down on Senkakus issue with China – “not budge an inch.”

    As the campaign for the Upper House elections intensifies, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe paid a visit to an island near the disputed Senkaku Isles to check on the Japan Coast Guard, the ones who are designated to protect Japan’s sovereignty over the territory, which is also being claimed by China and Taiwan. He stated that the country will “not budge an inch,” even as China continues to press the issue.

    Surely someone will back down. The vast majority of experts say that “cooler heads will prevail.” This implies to the US and Japan that China will back down because it is the aggressor. But there is a problem. China can’t really back down. And Japan won’t back down.

    Simmering Chinese Anger at Japan Is Now on the Boil – NYTimes.com

    “Japan has never sincerely admitted its past sins of aggression and still clings to the notion of one day retracing its past error of militarism,” the paper wrote. “It’s wrong and risky to continue playing with the Diaoyu Islands by naively relying on strengthening its military alliance with the United States.”

    Anti-Japanese feelings are ever-present in China, with the bitterness linked directly to World War II: The brutality of Japanese soldiers is a significant historical refrain in school curricula in China, notably the 1937 Nanking Massacre and the sexual enslavement of the so-called “comfort women” by Japanese imperial troops all across Asia.

    Even now the Chinese Communist Party stakes a good bit of its legitimacy to its defeat of Japanese occupying forces, and there’s a steady (if usually muffled) anti-Japanese drumbeat in the state-controlled media.

    Backing down to the Japanese is going to be very difficult for Chinese leaders. It could even push the regime to the brink of collapse as a revolution.

    Threat of Revolution

    In an article I wrote this year titled, “A System Collapse Framework for Societies“, I argue that long periods of stability are actually dangerous for societies. That long period gives societies time for all kinds of problems to grow. In a very rigid society, like China, that time pushes the regime to the brink of collapse. And a regime very worried about its own survival, the threat of revolution may push it in the direction of war.

    China’s government is approaching an age that has often proven fatal for other single-party regimes. Will Xi Jinping make the necessary reforms to avoid a crisis?

    Chinese Communism and the 70-Year [Revolution] Itch – Larry Diamond – The Atlantic | 1913 Intel

    Don’t blow off this type of warning. Length of relative stability is hugely important in determining when a society might run into problems, or a wall for that matter. Now we look to other signs as confirmation that there really is a problem.

    Two China experts predict that China could be in for a rough time, and the threat of revolution is increasing.

    The country risks turning into a “giant North Korea”, held down by repression alone. “People are losing faith in their ability to engineer a (political) soft landing. The likelihood of a revolutionary event is increasing”, said Minxin.

    China turning into ‘giant North Korea’ say panda pundits – Telegraph Blogs

    Talk of the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party is happening right now inside and outside of China.

    As the economy slows and middle-class discontent grows, it is the question that’s now being asked not only outside but inside the country. Even at the Central Party School there is talk of the unthinkable: the collapse of Chinese communism

    How long can the Communist party survive in China? – FT.com

    The list of articles discussing the threat of revolution in China goes on and on. You can find more articles on topic here.

    It is not the Chinese people who decide whether to go to war. It is the leaders. If they are very worried about a revolution, and their own deaths, then war with Japan and the US might be a better option.

    A Superpower in Crisis – What it Means

    The building of tension is not an accident. It is a consequence of China’s growing economic power approaching that of a declining US. The decline of a superpower is one important sign of danger ahead.

    Imperial collapse may come much more suddenly than many historians imagine. A combination of fiscal deficits and military overstretch suggests that the United States may be the next empire on the precipice.

    Empires on the Edge of Chaos

    This next article gives us a sense that something big is coming, but it’s not entirely clear what will happen. Historically, the US runs into a crisis every 80 to 100 years since the beginning of the last crisis period. The last crisis period ran from 1925 to 1945, and the next one goes from 2005 to 2025. It’s based on demographics. About the time most survivors from the last crisis have died out then the country becomes susceptible all over again.

    Thus might the next Fourth Turning end in apocalypse – or glory. The nation could be ruined, its democracy destroyed, and millions of people scattered or killed. Or America could enter a new golden age, triumphantly applying shared values to improve the human condition. The rhythms of history do not reveal the outcome of the coming Crisis; all they suggest is the timing and dimension.

    Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning [1997]



    Lastly, there is the Fourth Turning, called a Crisis. We are currently on the verge of a Fourth Turning. This is a time of great turmoil, when society’s basic institutions are torn down and rebuilt, and seemingly intractable problems are addressed. The apparently unsolvable financial dilemma of the country along with comprehension that Peak Oil has occurred will trigger the Crisis. The ultimate resolution could be rational and well thought out or it could end in a fiery fight to the death between countries or generations. During Fourth Turnings, America engages in a struggle for its very survival and redefines its identity as a nation. Large wars are often a part of this process. The American Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression, and World War II were all facets of past Fourth Turnings. During this period Old Artists disappear, Prophets enter elderhood, Nomads enter midlife, Heroes enter young adulthood—and a new generation of child Artists is born.According to Strauss & Howe past Fourth Turnings in U.S. history we have overcome intractable problems and forged a new beginning:

    Winter’s Coming for the Boomers: Part 1 — Seeking Alpha

    Currently, tidal forces are at work pushing the international order in a new direction. Big changes are in the process of taking place.

    The Global Trends 2025 report suggests that the international system as we know it today – created out of the ashes of World War II – “will be almost unrecognizable by 2025?. The last international system broke-down during World War I – 1914 to 1918. Trends in place today suggest major discontinuities, shocks, and surprises. In other words, we should not be surprised by great upheaval to everything we know.

    Entering the Age of Great Upheaval

    Will these big changes happen in a peaceful manner? If history is any guide then the answer is no. Historically, when a rising power approaches a hegemonic power then the probability of war soars up to a range of 75% to 100% depending on how one counts.

    In history the probability of war is high when a powerful rival approaches or passes a hegemonic leader. Depending on how you count one gets the following probabilities: 10/13 (77%), 11/15 (73%) or 6/7 (86%). With China approaching the US today, the real probability of war is higher. That’s because historical results are heavily weighted by the US passing Britain without a war. Two democracies with similar cultures passing without a war. That doesn’t exactly describe the US-China situation. Also, one could argue that the rivalry between the US and Soviet Union (Russia) continues today. That means we don’t know the true outcome.

    Probability of World War III: 75% or more

    When might you expect a major war to happen? Would you expect it to happen when everything is just about to fall apart? Or would you expect it during stable times when most things are functioning just fine? Just looking at the big picture tells us that if something big is going to happen, then it is going to happen during times like this.

    Rumors of War

    Let take a look at what other people are saying about the prospect of war.

    Is the idea of nuclear doomsday really unthinkable? Maybe not.

    The specter of economic doomsday makes war between China and the United States as unthinkable as fear of nuclear doomsday made Soviet-U.S. war. Or does it? In fact, Chinese and American military planners are thinking in exquisite detail, as they are expected to do, about how to win such a conflict. The problem is that the specific plans being concocted could make hostilities less unthinkable, and two great powers with every reason to avoid war could find themselves in one.

    U.S., China and an unthinkable war – latimes.com | 1913 Intel

    The PLA is focused on war and countering the US.

    Fanell, in comments that went largely unnoticed outside the small circle of China military specialists, spelled out in rare detail the reasons the United States is shifting 60 percent of its naval assets — including its most advanced capabilities — to the Pacific. He was blunt: The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy is focused on war, and it is expanding into the “blue waters” explicitly to counter the U.S. Pacific Fleet. “I can tell you, as the fleet intelligence officer, the PLA Navy is going to sea to learn how to do naval warfare,” he said. “My assessment is the PLA Navy has become a very capable fighting force.”

    Xi’s War Drums – By John Garnaut | Foreign Policy | 1913 Intel

    The situation is “extremely dangerous.”

    Internal Japanese documents say the situation has become “extremely dangerous” since the Chinese locked their weapons-guiding fire-control radar on a Japanese helicopter and then a destroyer in January, a dramatic escalation. The claim is denied by Beijing.

    The dangerous drift towards world war in Asia – Telegraph | 1913 Intel

    Historic parallels cast the Chinese regime in the same lot as Nazi Germany or Japan in the 30s and 40s.

    In searching for historical parallels, the current Chinese regime most resembles the Nazis and the Japanese militaristic regime of the 1930s-40s. All three regimes became intensely nationalistic.


    Second, strong dictatorship characterises all three regimes. Even non-violent protest leads to jail. The Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo is only one well-known case among thousands.



    Like the Nazi and the Japanese regimes in the 1930s, the Chinese today have become territorially expansionist. Like the Nazis and the Japanese militarists in World War II, the Chinese today perceive “appeasement” as weakness on the part of their opponents and push their claims with even more inflexibility.



    The lessons of World War II teach us that appeasement of such regimes does not lead to peace.

    China’s Expansionism Echoes History: Appeasement does not lead to peace | 1913 Intel

    Tension is very high. The prospect of war is real.

    China and Japan, along with North and South Korean troops at the DMZ, appear one step away from armed combat and tensions don’t look likely to ease any time soon.

    New developments within both regions illustrate how close to open combat the four countries are, and how quickly one incident could expand to war among very powerful nations.

    The Likelihood of War In Asia Grows – Business Insider | 1913 Intel

    Will 2014 be like 1914?

    The flickering black and white films of men going “over the top” in the first world war seem impossibly distant. Yet the idea that the great powers of today could never again stumble into a war, as they did in 1914, is far too complacent. The rising tensions between China, Japan and the US have echoes of the terrible conflict that broke out almost a century ago.



    “The mechanism in 1914 is instructive. Who could imagine that Serbian terrorists could kill an archduke no one had heard of and trigger a great war, at the end of which all contestants were devastated?

    The shadow of 1914 falls over the Pacific – FT.com | 1913 Intel

    The list goes on and on. To read more on this topic: zWar | 1913 Intel.

    There is a lot of concern by people following events that the situation could rapidly spin out of control, then escalate to a full-on nuclear war between China and the US. Or will it? It’s always an accident that spins out of control. But what if there is no accident? What if China just decides that it has had enough, and it is time to launch a nuclear preemptive nuclear attack on Japan and the US? What if there were a Sarajevo moment, and you didn’t notice?

    China’s Intentions

    As far as China’s intentions go, we got a sense of that a couple of days ago thanks to the Chinese media.

    Chinese state-run media revealed for the first time this week that Beijing’s nuclear submarines can attack American cities as a means to counterbalance U.S. nuclear deterrence in the Pacific.



    Chinese calculations for nuclear attacks on the U.S. are chillingly macabre.

    “Because the Midwest states of the U.S. are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego,” the Global Times said.

    “The 12 JL-2 nuclear warheads carried by one single Type 094 SSBN can kill and wound 5 million to 12 million Americans,” the Global Times reported.

    We can nuke American cities to counterbalance US forces in the Pacific | 1913 Intel

    That is not the first time China has used submarines to threaten the US. In 2010 a Chinese submarine just off the coast of California launched a ballistic missile. This is China telling us to stay out of their backyard, or else.

    “That Is A Missile Shot From A Submarine!”

    While China didn’t fess up about launching a missile off the coast of California, our experts are taking this theory seriously. It could have been Russia, but China is much more likely given tension in the South China Sea and East China Sea.

    … So far a missile expert from MIT, a leading analyst from the Jane’s Defence Group and a former US ambassador to Nato have all said that it was most likely to be a missile launch. And, according to my UK defence sources, the backroom boys in the US Navy and Royal Navy are taking seriously the theory that it was the Chinese Navy.

    California Mystery Missile: US Navy and Royal Navy Take the Chinese Missile Theory Seriously

    Preemptive Nuclear Strike

    This time we just might not get a warning from China. One day everything is fine. No hint of what is to come. Then the next day the US no longer exists. During the night China launched a preemptive nuclear strike on both the US and Japan. How realistic is that scenario?

    As a 2010 Pentagon report citing the 1962 war, among others, put it, “The history of modern Chinese warfare provides numerous case studies in which China’s leaders have claimed military pre-emption as a strategically defensive act.” In fact, a 2010 essay in the Qiu Shi Journal — the ideological and theoretical organ of the Chinese Communist Party’s central committee — underscored the centrality of “offense as defense” in Chinese policy by declaring that “Throughout the history of new China, peace in China has never been gained by giving in, only through war. Safeguarding national interests is never achieved by mere negotiations, but by war.“



    Here are six of the 1962 principles China replicated in its subsequent aggressions: (1) take the adversary by surprise to maximize political and psychological shock; (2) strike only when the international and regional timing is opportune; (3) hit as fast and as hard as possible by unleashing “human wave” assaults; (4) be willing to take military gambles; (5) mask offense as defense; and (6) wage war with the political objective to “teach a lesson” — an aim publicly acknowledged by Beijing in the 1962 and 1979 attacks.

    The art of war, Chinese style | The Japan Times Online

    This next article makes the case that since China is much weaker than the US, it will be forced to make a preemptive strike.

    The first article, from the good folks over at Breaking Defense, discusses the well-worn subject in defense circles revolving around China striking U.S. forces first in a possible conflict—namely a massive conventional strike (most scholars argue by missiles of various types). The scary part according to the piece: “Because China believes it is much weaker than the United States, they are more likely to launch a massive preemptive strike in a crisis.” Yikes.

    The second article is brought to us by distinguished University of Pennsylvania Professor Avery Goldstein courtesy of Foreign Affairs. Goldstein explains that “For at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak compared to the United States, there is a real danger that Beijing and Washington will find themselves in a crisis that could quickly escalate to military conflict.”

    Would China Strike the US Preemptively? | Flashpoints | The Diplomat

    So it appears that it is not unrealistic at all to assume that China might launch a preemptive nuclear attack on the US – with no warning what so ever.

    Why this time is different

    The biggest reason that this time is different is that the US is in decline. It’s military is being gutted through sequestration. It’s nuclear forces have been gutted and are just a small portion of what they were. US leaders are pushing for even greater reductions in nuclear forces. It’s military generals suffer from mediocrity or worse – incompetence. The American people and most experts too find the idea of nuclear war difficult to imagine. The American people see China as more friend than foe. And expert predictions are generally not so good.

    This next article is from June, 2013.

    A majority of Americans see China as a friend than foe, a new poll has found.According to the Gallup Poll, nearly 55 percent of respondents said that China was either an ally or friendly nation.

    The poll found that a total of 40 percent Americans however viewed China unfavorably, with 26 percent saying it is an unfriendly nation and 14 percent labeling it an enemy.

    Majority of Americans view China as friend than enemy: Poll – Yahoo News

    What about the experts? Well, it turns out the experts are terrible at predicting surprises. You have a better shot at getting it right than the experts.

    Christina Fang, a professor of management at NYU’s Stern business school, also gives us a good empirical take on predictive failure. She wanted to know about the people who make bold economic predictions that carry price tags in the many millions or even billions of dollars. Along with co-author Jerker Denrell, Fang gathered data from the Wall Street Journal’s Survey of Economic Forecasts to measure the success of these influential financial experts. (Their resulting paper is called “Predicting the Next Big Thing: Success as a Signal of Poor Judgement.”) The takeaway: the big voices you hear making bold predictions are less trustworthy than average:

    Freakonomics » New Freakonomics Radio Podcast: The Folly of Prediction

    Conclusion

    After over 65 years of stability since the end of World War II, the world is on the brink of a new international order. The US is in decline and competitors (China and Russia) are starting to challenge it. Historically, these kinds of power transfers don’t go well.

    Now China is confronting Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. China calls it a ‘core interest’, but Japan won’t budge. Since the confrontation has started it has continued to escalate. Now more and more people are pondering the idea of war between the two. The overall situation does not look good. One must conclude that this conflict is at risk of involving China, Japan and the US in a nuclear war.

    Do NOT assume that a nuclear war will start by an accident that escalates. More likely China will just decide that it has had enough and plan a preemptive nuclear strike.

    I do not believe China has reached the point where it has had enough. However, it may reach that point within the next few years depending on how events play out.

    http://www.1913intel.com/2013/11/01/...g-nuclear-war/

  39. #79
    China Retaliates Against US Naval Presence with Ships in Hawaiian Waters

    China appears to feel that its naval buildup has progressed sufficiently to allow it to retaliate against the US naval presence in the East China Sea by sending surveillance ships to Hawaiian waters.

    The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) electronic reconnaissance ship spotted in Hawaiian waters is most likely of about 4,000-ton displacement and is equipped with various electronic gear for eavesdropping on radio communications and tracking ships and aircraft. It is also believed to have jamming equipment to interfere with the radio communications of other ships.

    The ship apparently sailed inside the US 200-nautical mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) though there is no indication it violated the US 12-nautical mile (13.8-mile) territorial waters defined by the 1982 UN convention on the Law of the Sea. The US has been sending recon ships and planes inside China’s EEZ for decades, but this is the first time that China has acknowledged sending a surveillance ship into the US EEZ.

    Under the Law of the Sea, which the US hasn’t ratified but abides by, any nation is free to sail or fly within the EEZ of other nations. Indeed even the 13.8-mile territorial waters can be entered by foreign ships as long as it can be considered “innocent passage”. Sending a military surveillance ship into territorial waters, however, would likely be deemed a provocative act by both the US and China. In the past China has protested incursions into its EEZ by US ships and aircraft but had simply lacked the military muscle to block the incursions or to retaliate with incursions of its own.

    The recent deployment of a PLAN surveillance ship into Hawaiian waters is seen as Beijing’s message to the US and the rest of the world that China can now contest the waters of the western Pacific and that the US Navy no longer has a free pass in the region. It is also seen as a form of retaliation for what Beijing considers the provocative naval exercises the US recently conducted in the Yellow Sea jointly with the navies of South Korea and Japan’s Self-Defense Force. China’s three major fleets are currently also conducting the Mobile 5 naval exercise in undisclosed western Pacific waters.

    In the parlance of PLA military strategists the Hawaiian islands are considered the center of the “third island chain” extending from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands to Australia and demarks the “strategic rear” of the US Asia-Pacific military forces. Being only about 2,400 miles from San Francisco, the crossing of the third island chain by PLAN would represent a potential for offensive actions against the US by the Chinese military — Beijing’s perspective, roughly analogous to the regular encroachments by the US navy across the second island chain which is deemed to stretch from Japan to Indonesia.

    Even more disconcerting to China’s military brass is the regular incursions by US ships across the so-called first island chain defined by the Diaoyudao (Senkakus) Taiwan and the Spratlys. For that reason the PLA has assiduously built up an arsenal meant to keep US carrier groups at a distance. Among them are so-called carrier-killer ballistic missiles, the J-20 stealth attack jet, stealthy drones equipped with missiles and precision munitions, the Liaoning and other aircraft carriers, destroyers equipped with advanced battle-management radar systems, attack submarines, and surveillance ships and planes.

    As China’s naval buildup continues apace, the western Pacific will begin to look more like a chessboard rather than a wide-open field into which the US can position its fleet at will.


    http://goldsea.com/Text/index.php?id=14775

  40. #80
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South of Valhalla
    Posts
    8,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Palmetto View Post
    Looks an awful lot like a prophetic invasion map of the US with China taking the West coast and Russia taking the East coast.

    Detailed in Jeremiah 50 and 51. An invasion that follows decimation and all the "king" does is nothing... What would we expect of Obama?


    For, lo, I will raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country: and they shall set themselves in array against her; from thence she shall be taken: their arrows shall be as of a mighty expert man; none shall return in vain...Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed: behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert. Because of the wrath of the Lord it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly desolate: every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished, and hiss at all her plagues...A sound of battle is in the land, and of great destruction. How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations! Come against her from the utmost border, open her storehouses: cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly: let nothing of her be left...Therefore shall her young men fall in the streets, and all her men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the Lord... And the most proud shall stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up: and I will kindle a fire in his cities, and it shall devour all round about him... The king of Babylon hath heard the report of them, and his hands waxed feeble: anguish took hold of him, and pangs as of a woman in travail.
    Ephesians 5:11 - " Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. ”

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.