U.S. at War With Beijing, Reports Cite China as No. 1 Threat

The U.S. government has cited China as the No. 1 threat to global security for the second time in less than a month.

Both the Pentagon and the Commission on U.S-China Economic and Security Review cited Beijing as a major threat to U.S. national security. The two reports noted the growing military capability of China combined with its predatory economic policy is aimed directly at the United States.

The latest report released by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission was approved by a "unanimous vote of all eleven Commissioners." According to the Commission China's co-operation on international security matters is "un-satisfactory."

According to the report, China is deliberately using economic warfare against America to seek a "competitive advantage over U.S. manufacturers."

"Economic fundamentals suggest that the Chinese yuan is undervalued, with a growing consensus of economists estimating the level of undervaluation to be anywhere from fifteen to forty percent. The Chinese government persistently intervenes in the foreign exchange market to keep its exchange rate pegged at 8.28 yuan per dollar, and through these actions appears to be manipulating its currency valuation," states the report.

The Commission also noted that China is violating its pledges to the World Trade Organization and that U.S. investors may actually be investing in the PLA military expansion.

"China has deliberately frustrated the effectiveness and debased the value of the WTO's TRM (Transitional Review Mechanism) which was intended to be a robust mechanism for assessing China's WTO compliance and for placing multilateral pressure on China to address compliance shortfalls."

"Without adequate information about Chinese firms trading in international capital markets, U.S. investors may be unwittingly pouring money into black box firms lacking basic corporate governance structures, as well as enterprises involved in activities harmful to U.S. security interests," noted the report.

The Commission report also noted that China continues to proliferate advanced weapons to many of its client states including North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran. In addition, China now appears to be willing to trade weapons for oil.

"China's growing energy needs, linked to its rapidly expanding economy, are creating economic and security concerns for the United States. China's energy security policies are driving it into bilateral arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to stabilize oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may involve dangerous weapons transfers," stated the report.

"China has sought energy cooperation with countries of concern to the United States, including Iran and Sudan, which are inaccessible by U.S. and other western firms. Some analysts have voiced suspicions that China may have offered WMD-related transfers as a component of some of its energy deals," noted the Commission.

The Commission report also revealed that Russia has sold China a more advanced version of the deadly SUNBURN (3M83 Moskit) cruise missile. Nikolay Shcherbakov, adviser to the director general of the Altair Naval Scientific Research Institute of Electronic Engineering, is reported as saying that "we are supplying China with new-generation equipment. We have been allowed to supply MOSKIT supersonic antiship cruise missiles with twice the range - 240km instead of the existing 120."

The Commission also noted a growing concern that China would use nuclear weapons to attack and defeat U.S. forces in the event of a war over Taiwan.

"Recognizing the possible involvement of the U.S. military, the current scholarship on China's R & D finds that PRC strategists believe that a superior navy could be defeated through the disabling of its space-based systems, as for example, by exo-atmospheric detonation of a nuclear warhead to generate an electromagnetic pulse," stated the report.

In addition, the Commission noted that China is pursuing an advanced laser weapon for use against Taiwanese and U.S. forces.

"It has recently been reported that China has successfully developed a laser cannon with a range of more than one hundred kilometers and might have already deployed it in Fujian Province facing Taiwan."

The Commission's report painted a deadly and growing picture of the Chinese threat with a possible conflict only a year away.

"The China Affairs Department of the Democratic Progressive Party published a report on China's basic military capabilities in which it said that Beijing had developed a 'sudden strike' strategy to attack Taiwan. This story discussed a scenario in which an attack would consist of an initial seven-minute shock and strike missile barrage that would paralyze Taiwan's command system, followed by seventeen minutes in which Taiwan's air space will be invaded by fighter jets. Within twenty-four hours of the strike, 258,000 Chinese troops could be deployed in Taiwan. China's fast-growing military modernization and expansion is aimed at a possible war between 2005 and 2010, according to the report," stated the Commission report.

In early June the Pentagon released a Congressionally mandated report on Chinese military developments. The Pentagon report outlined the double-digit increases in Chinese defense spending and major weapons purchases from Russia.

China currently is third in total defense spending, behind the U.S. and Russia, with nearly $100 billion a year now budgeted for the PLA. The Pentagon report noted that the PLA double-digit increases are expected to continue through 2010.

According to the report, the Chinese build-up of ballistic missiles has changed the balance of power in the Pacific, threatening to start a war over Taiwan. China currently has an estimated 550 short-range missiles opposite Taiwan.

"China most likely will be able to cause significant damage to all of Taiwan's airfields and quickly degrade Taiwan's ground based air-defenses and associated command and control through a combination of SRBMs (short range ballistic missiles), land-attack cruise missiles, special operation forces and other assets," stated the Pentagon report. The Pentagon report noted that China is increasing its long-range missile capability and is expected to expand its inventory to 30 such missiles by the end of 2005. The Pentagon anticipates the Chinese long-range nuclear missile force will exceed 60 before the end of the decade.

The Pentagon report also warned that Chinese military strategists are considering the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. and Taiwanese forces. According to the Pentagon, a nuclear weapon detonated at high altitude would create an "electromagnetic" shock wave that will disrupt U.S. communications and scramble sophisticated military computers. "PLA theorists who have become aware of these electromagnetic effects may have considered using a nuclear weapon as an unconventional attack option," stated the Pentagon report.

Chinese authorities have reacted explosively to the recent reports, especially over the U.S. commitment to Taiwan. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao underscored the unstable nature of China's relationship by threatening to use military force to seize control of the tiny island nation.

According to the official PRC news Xinhua, China will never tolerate "Taiwan independence", neither will China allow anybody to split Taiwan from the motherland with any means.

"The Taiwan independence activities are the greatest threats to the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait," stated Liu. The official PRC spokesman also asked the United States to stop selling advanced weapons to Taiwan under any pretenses and refrain from sending wrong signals to Taiwan.

Has the Chinese ever test-fired their missiles?

I believe the answer is "yes'

The first report came from TIME mag in 1969, (under the headlines "scaring the hell out of a lot of neighbours") which said that the PRC had successfully test-fired a missile with a 700 mile range

Recently, iinternational news agencies like AFP, REUTERS, etc had been reporting (1999-2004) Chinese ICBMs test-firing. Interestingly enough, A few of these tests co-incided with the official visits of US Chairmans of Joint-Chiefs to China(eg Gen Meyers) (DF-31s).....a pychological message?
The American Foreign Policy Council's SANTOLI also reported in Sept-2002, that China tested -fired (successfully, I'm afraid) three "JL-2" SLBM from three subs, and all 3 hit their targets 5000 lm away

Has the Chinese ever test-fired their missiles?

I believe the answer is "yes'

Note that I did not say "test-fire." I said "live fire."

There is a world of difference between the two terms.

And test-firing A missile just tells you that you could successfully test-fire THAT missile. Given the endemic corruption within China, and especially within the PLA, it says nothing about any of the OTHER missiles from that production line.

My posts were based on facts and you ignored that part. Laughing is not a rebuttal. My facts still stand.

WHAT "facts" might those be?

If you're serious about your belief that a blockade can force China to send its COSCO containerships out of their home ports, out to sea, to make deliveries to the USA, then you either have -zero- concept of the meaning of the word "blockade", or, you are off the charts delusional.

In either case, I stand by my laughter.

I guess i didnt make myself clear. If we want to stop importing chinese goods then we'd simply use sanctions. A naval blockade prevents the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce. But a blockade is an act of war. I never claimed that we could force trade. Is that clear enough for you? Do I have to give the definitions of the words 'prevent' and 'force'? How about the word 'sanctions'?

WHAT "facts" might those be?

They were in the rest of my post that you either ignored by choice or had no ability to comprehend it. If it's the former, then stop reading here. In case it's the latter: In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China. Rather, it could be said that it's the other way around. Go to the source I provided.

This is my second post of trying to explain to you what I said in my first post. If you don't get it now, then you'll never get it. Go back to all the teachers you've ever had and slap them. Hard.

I never claimed that we could force trade. Is that clear enough for you?

Then why did you argue that a Naval blockade could do exactly that?

I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you may not have read my initial post before dashing off your reply. I extend this act of kindness, because the alternative would be a defict in your basic reading comprehension skills.

In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China.

Well, I tell you what. You stop that "1%" from hitting the shelves for a while and then see how "the masses" take it.

It's not merely a numbers game. It's what that "1%" consists of that matters.

You could probably get along just fine with 21% less air -- unless that "21%" is the "21%" that comprises the O2 content in the air.

In a nutshell, the amount of chinese imports to the US accounts for 1% of the US economy in terms of GDP. The US is not dependent on China.

Try not to be such a snotty little upstart and maybe you'll be able to learn something. Like, for example, the definition of "a stern chase".

To help you in that goal, I'll give you the answer: A stern chase is a long chase.

If you want to know the meaning of that axiom, well, you're on your own. Fish, cut bait, or learn to dance with your hands in your pants. I don't care.

It's what that "1%" consists of that matters.

Commodity/ $ billions (Source: US Department of Commerce)

Power generation equip/ $31
ele. machinery & equip/ $30
Toys and games/ $17.4
Furnature/ $13.6
Footware/ $11.1
Apparel/ $9.1
Leather & travel goods/ $5.4
Plastics/ $4.8
Iron & steel/ $3.8
medical instruments/ $3.4

Sorry for my lack of HTML skill. I can't make a table. These are the major commodities from China that the US imports. Which one is so vital to the US we couldn't find elsewhere (Mexico for example) or produce ourselves for a little more cost? Personally I don't see a blaring security issue on this list.

In the long-run, trading will hurt communist china and may even end it. Trade with France? they get Wal-Mart. Trade with Saudi Arabia? They get McDonalds. Because when the US trades with another country our culture goes with it whether we like it or not. Examples of this are european hatred toward the US; our culture helped when over the eastern block (blue jeans and MTV, Reagan's ideas). The only reason Cuba and NK are still communist is that they have remained isolated. Now our culture is invading china via the internet. The internet is waging our war against communism for us.

Karl Marx summed up communism in a simple sentence: The abolition of private property. A couple of years back China introduced private property.

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.