US Faces Nuclear Threats From China, Russia As Never Before: US Admiral

Zubu Brothers ^ | 3-4-2022 | Frank Fang via The Epoch Times

[blam]

Adm. Charles Richard, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said it has become imperative for the United States to have the capability to defend against Russia and China at the same time.

“Today, we face two nuclear-capable near-peers who have the capability to unilaterally escalate a conflict to any level of violence in any domain worldwide, with any instrument of national power, and that is historically significant,” Richard told the House Armed Services Committee on March 1.

He pointed out that while the need to deter both China and Russia at the same time was only at the level of major concern in April last year, the concern “has now become a reality.”

“That need is now an imperative.”

In April 2021, he told lawmakers at another congressional hearing (pdf) that the United States for the first time in history was “on a trajectory to face two nuclear-capable, strategic peer adversaries at the same time.”

Months later, he said the United States was “witnessing a strategic breakout by China,” adding that the Chinese regime’s “explosive growth and modernization of its nuclear and conventional forces” was “breathtaking.”

“Last fall, I formally reported to the secretary of defense, the PRC’s [People’s Republic of China] strategic breakout,” Richard said. “Their expansion and modernization in 2021 alone is breathtaking.”

China and Russia pose a threat to the United States now more than ever, as the two neighboring countries currently boast a “no-limits” partnership, according to a statement released following a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Feb. 4.

Last summer, China reportedly tested nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles, prompting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley to say the tests were very close to a “Sputnik moment.” Additionally, there were reports that China was building hundreds of new nuclear silos.

In November 2021, the Pentagon warned that China might have as many as 1,000 deliverable nuclear missiles by 2030.

So far, China hasn’t slowed down in its pursuit of hypersonic weapons, according to Gen. Glen VanHerck, head of the U.S. Northern Command.

“They’re aggressively pursuing hypersonic capability, tenfold to what we have done as far as testing within the last year or so, significantly outpacing us with their capabilities,” he said at the hearing.

As for the current U.S. defensive posture, Richard said he felt quite confident.

“I am satisfied with the posture of my forces. I have made no recommendations to make any changes,” he said. “The nation’s nuclear command and control is in its most defended, most resilient lineup that it’s ever been in its history.”

However, Richard told lawmakers that it’s important to keep monitoring China’s development.

“We don’t know the endpoint of where China is going in terms of the capabilities it’s developing and the capacities that it’s developing,” he said.

“While I’m very confident we’re going to wind up with a very good strategy, I think it will need to be a question that we continue to ask ourselves as we see where China goes, as we see where others go. What are the overall capability and capacity that the United States requires in order to execute that strategy against a changing threat.

“We’re going to have to ask that question much more frequently than we have in the past.”

[Kazan]

Thus according to your logic Trump was wrong since Soros opposes Putin.

Selling Ukraine weapons as Trump did and instructing them to cutoff Russian access to the Black Sea as Obama did or instructing Ukraine to go on the offensive in Donbass as Biden had done are entirely different circumstances.

Trump didn't go out of his way to encourage Ukraine to aggressively harm Russia.

[GOPJ]

There are more people in China with the last name “Wang” than there are people in the United States.

[daniel1212]

" Selling Ukraine weapons as Trump did and instructing them to cutoff Russian access to the Black Sea as Obama did or instructing Ukraine to go on the offensive in Donbass as Biden had done are entirely different circumstances. Trump didn't go out of his way to encourage Ukraine to aggressively harm Russia. "

And pray tell, just when and why is Ukraine being encourage to aggressively harm Russia?

Is power-hungry Putin a threat to the US (he is and boasts he is) and NATO countries in the light of past and present aggression against countries that have not attacked Russia? YES.

It Putin lying or delusional in charging the West being a military threat to passive Russia by intentionally attacking first? YES.

Is Putin a threat to Ukraine? YES.

Is US and NATO aid Ukraine against Putin justified? YES.

Did Trump provide substantial AID to Ukraine and the European Deterrence Initiative against Putin? YES.

Are those who support Putin against the West indirectly aiding and abetting the enemy? YES.

[daniel1212]

That is irrelevant to the fact that he longs for the days of its evil glory

"How the hell would know that? You don't know the man. You don't live in Russia. All you know is what Deep State tells you, the same Deep State that lied about Donald Trump and tried to drive him from office."

Oh now I understand Mr. Deep Conspiratorialist. Meaning anything and everything negative that we read about Putin bemoaning the demise of the ol Soviet Union, by which what had been built up over 1,000 years was largely lost," and with a point being that "Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory," while in true Soviet doublespeak, falsely promising that "at the will of its own people, chose democracy for itself. It set out on this course itself and, observing all generally accepted political norms, will decide for itself how it will ensure that the principles of freedom and democracy are implemented," and "establish guarantees that state television and radio are as objective as possible," and hypocritically lecturing "new Nato and EU members in the post-Soviet area to show real respect for human rights," is false.

Even when reported by conservative outlets Most likely everything else we read negative that we read about Putin. All that stuff you read about banning the sharing your faith by any means unless via the RO, and of a free press and peaceful protesters being silenced must be bogus liberal propaganda. As with reports of Putin continuing (according more limited means) the tradition of repeated invasions of countries, and not as the US in liberation, while aiding countries against the US. while even liberals deny he was pining for a new USSR and with Ukraine as a prize as John Bolton had opined ("It’s clear he wants to re-establish Russian hegemony within the space of the former Soviet Union") as others have discerned, and anticipated his invasive action in Ukraine.

Thus you have chosen to defend an oppressor of real Christians, and basic American values (liberals oppose Putin mainly because he is rightly opposes the LGBTQ WOKE agenda, but do major Muslim terrorists), who has aligned himself with China against the US, while despite Clinton's disrespect after the Fall of the SU, Putin could work to be a partner with the West rather than a threat, and against China, with economic trade benefiting the country, while refusing to be WOKE, and even a refuge for conservatives. But that would require him to actually allow freedom of religion and speech as we use to have more of here, and cease from dictatorial repression, and instead maintain position based upon merit. But which, as here, requires a true evangelical revival. Maybe that will require hardship to foster.