A ping list dedicated to exposing the quality, safety and security issues of anything “Made in China”.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be on or off of the list.
(This can be a high volume ping list.)
Posted on 03/31/2009 9:30:25 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at usni.org ...
2) The US navy should be working very hard to do something about this threat, but as he promised in the election, Obama wants to cut weapons research.
3) This is one reason that I believe that the wealth that China accumulates in trading with us is dangerous.
Please PING China ping list, thanks.
Thank you Bill Clinton. Hope you enjoyed your campaign cash.
And if it is true, you know why it was developed — to counter any strike force that would protect Taiwan from an invasion from the ChiComs. But of course, that is no longer an issue for the ChiComs since the present administration would no lift a finger in conflict to protect an ally.
And then we lose L.A., San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle in return?
If that happens, those few surviving on the left will *still* "blame Bush". /sarc>
Cheers!
Exactly my reaction.
Mexico would retaliate over L.A.. The gays and Chinese would be upset over San Francisco and Seattle. The Democrats would be really angry over losing all those blue cities.
Super Carriers are awesome weapons systems but far to vulnerable to be relied upon a real shooting war.
By Obama? Give me a break.
So? This is the thread that I saw.
Obama will probably send them a thank you note for reducing his military expenses. I was talking about what mature adults would do in response to the threat.
If anything, it’d be a simple “Rod From God” kinetic kill system from which there IS no defense other than to blow it out of the sky before it gets deployment orders, or destroy the launch vehicle carrying it on the way up.
Oh, wait, Obama is going to cancel funding for that program. Scratch that. There’s no defense.
[2009] Russia, China plan new joint military exercises
By MARTIN SIEFF, UPI Senior News Analyst
Published: March 26, 2009
WASHINGTON, March 26 (UPI) -- The continuing tensions over Russia's refusal to sell its state-of-the-art land warfare advanced weapons systems to China hasn't interrupted the rhythm of major joint military exercises between the two major land powers on the Eurasian landmass. The latest in the regular, biennial series of exercises between the two nations has been confirmed for this summer.
The next in the now well-established series of exercises called Peace Mission 2009 will be carried out in northeastern China, the Russian Defense Ministry announced March 18, according to a report carried by the RIA Novosti news agency.
The first bilateral Peace Mission maneuvers -- described at the time as counter-terrorism exercises -- were held in Russia and the eastern Chinese province of Shandong in August 2005. As we reported at that time, they were a lot bigger than mere counter-terrorism exercises. Warships, squadrons of combat aircraft and more than 10,000 troops were involved carrying out landings against hypothetically hostile shores. The maneuvers also involved large-scale paratroops drops. The scale and nature of those exercises suggested a trial run for a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan with Russian support. ..."
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/03/26/Russia_China_plan_new_joint_military_exercises/UPI-25021238094858/
_____________________________________________________________
Russia, China flex muscles in joint war games
August 17, 2007
CHEBARKUL, Russia (Reuters) - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO.
"Today's exercises are another step towards strengthening the relations between our countries, a step towards strengthening international peace and security, and first and foremost, the security of our peoples," Putin said.
Fighter jets swooped overhead, commandos jumped from helicopters on to rooftops and the boom of artillery shells shook the firing range in Russia's Ural mountains as two of the largest armies in the world were put through their paces.
The exercises take place against a backdrop of mounting rivalry between the West, and Russia and China for influence over Central Asia, a strategic region that has huge oil, gas and mineral resources.
Russia's growing assertiveness is also causing jitters in the West. Putin announced at the firing range that Russia was resuming Soviet-era sorties by its strategic bomber aircraft near NATO airspace.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29030120070817?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
_____________________________________________________________
War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance
September 23, 2005
In foreign policy it’s critical to “know thine enemy.” So American policymakers should be aware that Russia and China are inching closer to identifying a common enemy — the United States.
The two would-be superpowers held unprecedented joint military exercises Aug. 18-25. Soothingly named “Peace Mission 2005,” the drills took place on the Shandong peninsula on the Yellow Sea, and included nearly 10,000 troops. Russian long-range bombers, the army, navy, air force, marine, airborne and logistics units from both countries were also involved.
Moscow and Beijing claim the maneuvers were aimed at combating terrorism, extremism and separatism (the last a veiled reference to Taiwan), but it’s clear they were an attempt to counter-balance American military might.
Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants. As the Pravda.ru Web site announced, “the reconciliation between China and Russia has been driven in part by mutual unease at U.S. power and a fear of Islamic extremism in Central Asia.”
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed092605a.cfm
Yep, I think the window of history is closing on the aircraft carrier just as it did on the battleship. Tanks aren’t far behind either, IMO.
The Chinese would get a big surprise if they thought it was possible that there was a study by the US to use biologicals like whales as weapons carriers, that they could be “steered” towards a fleet and detonated with a small nuclear device that was attached to the whale.
GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.
Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.
Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."
To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf
_______________________________________________________
Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs
February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
Full report: 18.4 MB on PDF file, 78 pages
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf
________________________________________________
Executive Summary
China’s rapid rise as a regional political and economic power with growing global influence has significant implications for the Asia-Pacific region and the world. The United States welcomes the rise of a stable, peaceful, and prosperous China, and encourages China to participate responsibly in world affairs by taking on a greater share of the burden for the stability, resilience, and growth of the international system. The United States has done much over the last 30 years to encourage and facilitate China’s national development and its integration into the international system. However, much uncertainty surrounds China’s future course, particularly regarding how its expanding military power might be used.
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration, high-intensity conflicts along its periphery against high-tech adversaries – an approach that China refers to as preparing for “local wars under conditions of informatization.” The pace and scope of China’s military transformation have increased in recent years, fueled by acquisition of advanced foreign weapons, continued high rates of investment in its domestic defense and science and technology industries, and far-reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms of the armed forces. China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited, but its armed forces continue to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those for anti-access/area-denial, as well as for nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region.
The PLA’s modernization vis-à-vis Taiwan has continued over the past year, including its build-up of short-range missiles opposite the island. In the near-term, China’s armed forces are rapidly developing coercive capabilities for the purpose of deterring Taiwan’s pursuit of de jure independence. These same capabilities could in the future be used to pressure Taiwan toward a settlement of the cross-Strait dispute on Beijing’s terms while simultaneously attempting to deter, delay, or deny any possible U.S. support for the island in case of conflict. This modernization and the threat to Taiwan continue despite significant reduction in cross-Strait tension over the last year since Taiwan elected a new president.
The PLA is also developing longer range capabilities that have implications beyond Taiwan. Some of these capabilities have allowed it to contribute cooperatively to the international community’s responsibilities in areas such as peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and counter-piracy. However, some of these capabilities, as well as other, more disruptive ones, could allow China to project power to ensure access to resources or enforce claims to disputed territories.
Beijing publicly asserts that China’s military modernization is “purely defensive in nature,” and aimed solely at protecting China’s security and interests. Over the past several years, China has begun a new phase of military development by beginning to articulate roles and missions for the PLA that go beyond China’s immediate territorial interests, but has left unclear to the international community the purposes and objectives of the PLA’s evolving doctrine and capabilities. Moreover, China continues to promulgate incomplete defense expenditure figures and engage in actions that appear inconsistent with its declaratory policies. The limited transparency in China’s military and security affairs poses risks to stability by creating uncertainty and increasing the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation. The United States continues to work with our allies and friends in the region to monitor these developments and adjust our policies accordingly. ..."
Full report: 18.4 MB on PDF file, 78 pages:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf
Source: Pentagon website:
http://www.pentagon.mil/
Your search - bill clinton October 1996, “There is not a single, solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not one. Not a single one.” did not return any results.
That figures.
http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_foreign.html
Duncan Hunter was right years ago, when he argued against our other leaders (including top naval brass) in favor of our need for more smaller, stealthier vessels.
“And then we lose L.A., San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle in return?”
You say that like it’s a bad thing... ;O)
Sure they do, they are called Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers, equiped with the same missile that we used to shoot down that errant satellite, and may or coul use to shoot down Little Kim's bottle rocket.
He should have said:
Beijing all the Chinese missile launch sites disappear.
Anything that moves or radiates (and tanks radiate at least in the IR) is called "a target".
Won’t happen. The Chinese have ballistic missile subs.
Not against a “Rod From God” - the SM3 works by fragging out the warhead. Won’t do more than chip the paint on a kinetic projectile.
So did no one else who is freaking out actually read the blog paraphrased by the USNI? And notice the doubts raised? There’s been no discussion anywhere of actually seeing this system tested. There’s been a lot of discussion elsewhere of the fact that the Chinese do not have the sort of space-based systems claimed as part of this new weapons platform which are necessary for guiding such a missile. And there’s been plenty of other discussion on reasons to doubt this is actually a functioning system or, that if it is “IOC” there’s no evidence that it can do what is claimed.
Why is it that every time these days that there’s a story about a Russian or Chinese weapons system it’s so eagerly believed?
Regardless, if this is true and the Chinese have innovated this rapidly, leap-frogged us so dramatically in technology to produce something we not only can’t counter but can’t do ourselves, then we need to pack the whole “superpower” thing in - because they’re only going to get richer and better with time.
“The US navy should be working very hard to do something about this threat, but as he promised in the election, Obama wants to cut weapons research.”
If this system has been under development as long as claimed, we should have been working for a very long time on something to “do something about” this threat. Either the Chinese whipped this up in short time, in which case - see above and pack in the superpower rank. Or we tried and failed, based on the article describing the USN as running terrified. In which case - see above and pack in the superpower rank.
"As a globalist, [Bill] Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others."
From a 2003 Washington Post article:
"...a statement [Bill] Clinton made in February 2002, in which he told an audience in Australia, 'This is a unique moment in U.S. history, a brief moment in history, when the U.S. has preeminent military, economic and political power. It won't last forever. This is just a period, a few decades this will last.'
Clinton continued...
'In all probability, we won't be the premier political and economic power we are now' in a few decades, he said, pointing to the growth of China's economy and the growing economic strength of the European Union.
Whether the United States maintains its military supremacy, he said, depends in part on how much those other entities invest in their militaries, and Clinton said working cooperatively is essential to U.S. interests.
But he said he did not want to be misunderstood. 'I never advocated that we not have the strongest military in the world...I don't think a single soul has thought I was advocating scaling back our military.'
Source: Washington Post article from May 2003:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62253-2003Apr30¬Found=true
or find his remarks here (Talon News):
Clinton Predicts America's Decline:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/nw03/talonnews/0503/newswire-tn-050503d.htm
"'We like your president. We want to see him reelected', former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way."
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate
By Richard Poe
May 26, 2003
CHINA WILL LIKELY replace the USA as world leader, said Bill Clinton in a recent Washington Post interview. It is just a matter of time. Clinton should know. He has personally done more to build China’s military strength than any man on earth.
Most Americans have heard of the so-called "Chinagate " scandal. Few understand its deadly import, however. Web sites such as "Chinagate for Dummies" and its companion "More Chinagate for Dummies" offer some assistance. Unfortunately, with a combined total of nearly 8,000 words, these two sites – like so many others of the genre – offer more detail than most of us "dummies" can absorb.
For that reason, in the 600 words left in this column, I will try to craft my own "Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate," dedicated to all those busy folks like you and me whose attention span tends to peter out after about 750 words. Here goes.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented little threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art, solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.
China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do their dirty work, while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.
In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal respectively, thus controlling access both ways. A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California’s Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from their bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.
How did China catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness are to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose.
As a globalist, Clinton promotes "multipolarity" – the doctrine that no country (such as the USA) should be allowed to gain decisive advantage over others.
To this end, Clinton appointed anti-nuclear activist Hazel O’Leary to head the Department of Energy. O’Leary set to work "leveling the playing field," as she put it, by giving away our nuclear secrets. She declassified 11 million pages of data on U.S. nuclear weapons and loosened up security at weapons labs.
Federal investigators [Cox Report] later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes. Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.
In his book The China Threat, Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz describes how the system worked. Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton’s campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs.
Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.
"We like your president. We want to see him reelected," former Chinese intelligence chief General Ji Shengde told Chinagate bagman Johnny Chung. Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton’s way.
Clinton’s top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.
Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James and Mochtar Riady who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; Ted Sioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton’s front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown’s Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash.
Needless to say, China does not share Clinton’s enthusiasm for globalism or multipolarity. The Chinese look out for Number One.
"War [with the United States] is inevitable; we cannot avoid it," said Chinese Defense Minister General Chi Haotian in 2000. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war." Bill Clinton has given them a good start.
The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate:
http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=125
or,
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml
(this version hasn't the necessary hyperlinks, but the above doesn't seem to be available any longer)
_________________________________
Related Stories
Richard Poe, "Chinagate: The Third-Way Scandal" (June 3, 1999)
Christopher Ruddy, "Russia and China Prepare for War: Parts I - VIII," NewsMax.com (March 9 -18, 1999)
That report is from this year (2009). It was released just last week. I mistakenly chopped off the year in my earlier posting.
U.S. Department of Defense: China Military Power Report 2009:
Full report: 18.4 MB on PDF file, 78 pages
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Power_Report_2009.pdf
I can't be certain one way or another, since AFAIK we have not even seen this system tested, let alone in a real military conflict. I hope it does not take another Pearl Harbor to demonstrate that we need to take China more seriously.
It's not a good sign that a Chinese stealth sub surprised the US Kitty Hawk and its screening vessels in 2007.
Thanks for your insight.
The Russians developed such a weapon named SS-NX-13. It was unsuccessful
SS-NX-13 SLBM - Russian / Soviet Nuclear Forces
Aug 15, 2000 ... The SS-NX-13 submarine-launched ballistic missile is a short-range, two-stage, storable liquid-propellant missile apparently designed for an ...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/theater/ss-n-13.htm
Thanks. More reminders... Just what I need... ;^)
I was looking for a video of crinton as he was reassuring the loving dumbasses there was not one missile pointed at their children.
In crinton world he was probably speaking the truth. There no longer was one pointing at US. There were a hundred.
I think you meant to reply to my post #33...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2219550/posts?page=33#33
I am sure our current administration will help them out with that just as the Clinton Administration did during their 8 years in office.
Russia already has such ballistic missile technology with the modified Iskander M system (Ones that violate the IRBM treaty).
Modified Iskanders can fly over 1800 KM and have a ship killing warhead, besides the SS-NX-13’s, which are probably functional now.
That may well be, but this isn't one. It's a relativley short range ballistic missile, made shorter range still by the size of it's "warhead". It wouldn't have enough delta to become a true kinetic weapon. But at the closing velocities, the warhead/seeker is a kinetic weapon. No explosives, just a homing seeker. It's "hit to kill" and it would even kill a "Rod From God", if it could hit it.
Very noisy ones. They'd not last long enough to get their missile silo doors open.
All it takes is for our soon to be massively downsized, underfunded, and undercrewed Navy to miss one, which seems likely.
While not a Good Thing, the notion of the US losing one or two West Coast cities, to the Chinese losing virtually all of theirs, has got to give them pause.
You’re right I did. It’s amazing how crinton can still anger me to the point of blindness.
Thnks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.