Definitionally inadequate description. State CONTROL is sufficient (i.e., think NAZI) under Chinese principle's of "scientific socialism". Check out their constitution. Explains it all.

Not clear what you are trying to tell me. Are you saying that China is still communist because they control some industries?

There may be alot of industries under their control, but the private sector is growing so much, that they now make up the majority of the GDP. And continuing to make a larger share.

Yes it is difficult for you. Not, however, because you are either "non-alarmist", well-rounded, knowledgeable or intellectually balanced or emotionally stable. Although you probably imagine those to be your traits. A similar mindset thought that Winston Churchill was an alarmist, and "war monger."

Lets steer clear of personal accusations and stick with the disagreement.

The eternal shame heaped upon the appeasers is not eternal enough apparently, so quixotic and ephemeral is the modern appeasers ability to remember accurately or apply the lessons of history faithfully. They won't see reality clearly...by choice. Just as liberalism is a mental disorder, so is one of its primary traits...appeasement.

Well, I'm not appeasing anyone. I want communism to end in China. I just don't think there is a grand plan to industrialize China for the reason that China can launch an assault on the world. I think the purpose is to provide a standard of living for the people to maintain stability.

BTW, that is one of the things the Chinese and Arabs both pride themselves on...is a superior grasp of those lessons of history over every other culture (so they imagine anyways). And they especially prize their duplicity against the enemy. And they truly despise weakness, which is how they perceive us intellectually and morally when we fail to perceive their enmity. And who is to gain say them today, with our Jay Walk Generation, who can't even point to the U.S. on the globe, let alone any other nations?

Wait a minute, I thought the issue was about communism and military build up? Are you really then, against China, whether free or not, increasing their standard of living? And aren't you making generalities of Chinese and Arabs in an argument about military?

Those who don't see what's coming have scales over their eyes. Most likely of a purpose. It could be spiritual hubris, and/or self-imagined wisdom or greatness. I should also note that you seem to be tilting against the DOD itself. Is it alarmist? With a raft full of Panda-Hugging Chinese apologists...they still are beginning to voice the very same concerns we have been making ever since China successfully stole all of our nuclear secrets...

Do you remember the PLA's hutzpah then? Apparently filled with self-confidence in their ultimate victory, they brazenly TOLD US they had done so. Perhaps knowing that their kept President Xlinton, and the China Import lobby would soon manage to make everyone in the U.S. forget what was really happening...and continuing to happen...and make the Cox Report of no effect. "Time heals all wounds" especially in an amnesiac society too self-absorbed.

You seem to be hard on a society that doesn't share your strong opinion of China...

They count on us being blinded, mesmerized by a weak understanding of China, and of the World in general...too proud to accept that we are in fact being mortally challenged. That we are on the receiving end of an undeclared war, which only temporarily remains covert and non-shooting. To appeasers, Winston Churchill ALWAYS appeared to be a foolish alarmist. "The Better View" was always condescending and disparaging towards the TRUTH, and they engaged in vitriolic personal condemnation of him. Have you ever once in your life wondered why that was so?

Don't forget every Winston Churchhill, there is many many more who are actually wrong, but history does not record these folks because they fade into history.

Do you think we are any brighter, smarter, or better educated than Stanley Baldwin or Neville Chamberlain in their day? In fact, as a society, and the officials in our government...are demonstrably less so. So because we are currently riding high...we imagine in vainglory that we always will be. Hubris.

You seem to think society is somehow living in a vacuum because the anti-China sentiment is not as strong as yours. I would think the measure of how self absorbed a society is, would be measure in areas such as how indifferent society is towards the 30,000 children that die everyday throughout the world rather than whether or not how China is industrializing or what they are spending on their military.

I Corinthians 1:27 " But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty..."

Well, I see that you are familar with the Bible. When I read that verse, this is in reference to being a witness for God. In what context are you using it?

Lets steer clear of personal accusations and stick with the disagreement.

Now that you have been called out on multiple disparagemeents, you try and claim the higher ground. Too late. You were caught red-handed. Mr. "Anti-Alarmist".

Well, I'm not appeasing anyone. I want communism to end in China.

So you are an anti-communist now? (Mr. 30,000 daily deaths of children) Not by any evidence of your policy of see-no-evil in China. Walter Duranty had nothing on you. Not appeasing? Prove it. Read some of the serious warnings about the Communist Chinese military potential...after it is allowed to "ascend peacefully" but without any fundamental ideological change...an unregenerate and bitterly hostile enemy to the West.

I just don't think there is a grand plan to industrialize China for the reason that China can launch an assault on the world.

Appeasement. Refusing to see the world as it is.

I think the purpose is to provide a standard of living for the people to maintain stability.

Typical self-justifying rationalization of appeasers. "Lebensraum"...was a similar pretext. If they want to improve their standard of living...then all they need do is adopt capitalism and FREE enterprise. Eliminate the Socialist superstructure...let wages float. Let people move. Let them organize for bettering their condition. Let them seek higher wages. Let them leave the country without being a Party apparatchik. Let them own property without the Party say so. Let them own their own inventions, and profit thereby. Let the currency float. Let freedom ring. But they will never do ANY of that so long as their ruling class fervently believes in "scientific socialism". Read their Constitution. It says it all. The western export sector is a managed "exception" that is rigorously maintained as such. And the wages are kept down not just for the national purpose of maintaining their economic black hole operation to suck in all the world's industry and technology. But to keep the peasants from becoming a true middle class (and hence ending your poverty issue)...and prevent democracy from finding fertile soil.

Does the living standard pretense soothe your conscience? While meanwhile a policy of see-no-evil endangers the existence of liberty all across the globe...and the very existence of the U.S.A.?

Are you really then, against China, whether free or not, increasing their standard of living?

No, obviously not. See the above explication. But you manifestly are, since you are opposed to challenging the Communists. You are opposed to evicting the communists, post-haste.

And aren't you making generalities of Chinese and Arabs in an argument about military?

Uh, I was responding to some of YOUR generalities...such as your latest, for example, the "living standard" pretextual justification to "see-no-evil". You denied that they were motivated by anything other than bettering their people's life styles. Not so.

The PRC pursues (in their value system) higher purposes than what you value in yours...which they would frankly deem petty. This is analogous to the distinction between Sparta and Athena. The Chinese as a whole understand (certainly the ones I have met) this militarized mindset perfectly well, as does the average jihadist, that they are at war with the United States. It is thus not surprising that Bejing's top military commanders thence met with Osama Bin Laden five times prior to 9-11. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So much for their just worrying about the living standards of their peasants...as they flagrantly risk getting all of them and us incinerated in a nuclear war.

You seem to be hard on a society that doesn't share your strong opinion of China...

Actually, not the society , no. Just the individuals who are invidious culprits in the mass delusion. The American society by and large does, fortunately, show it has a real concern about all these things. Just because the New York Times and the liberal elite don't does not account for the American majority. It never gets polled, if you'll note by the Gallup organization, or if so,never published.

WHY do you think the country ousted Al Gore in 2004? Because of "compassionate" conservatism? Give me a break. The public knew RINOism is not as good as the Real Thing. Authentic Conservatism. But they weren't offered that...no authentic Reaganism, anyways. But still, we all knew half a loaf was better than none. They wanted honesty. They wanted national security. And most of all, the people wanted their own government again, not one catering to every whim of China's communist rulers. GWB appeared certainly better than the alternative of leaving the culprits in power. And the second election was a re-run of the first with still another Marxist Turncoat pretending to be something else as the Rat candidate, but the Iraq war muddling the issues. Again the conservative Base saved GWB bacon.

I note you are fairly oblivious to the China-gate issue, and Los Alamos-gate, Lawrence Livermore-gate and the ongoing 3,000 PLA front companies and 450,000 spies and part-timers here. You don't answer any of the challenges, just try and pivot and play a new line. Typical.

Don't forget [for] every Winston Churchhill, there is [are] many many more who are actually wrong, but history does not record these folks because they fade into history.

Oh, really? Such as Demosthenes? Or Ronald Reagan? And of those you assert were wrong, how many influenced the policies successfully so that the collisions warned of were in fact averted? (Thus making them "wrong") I wouldn't mind be "wrong" under those circumstances. That's all we want. Policy change. Awareness. Stop tempting fate, and risking smugly blundering into a collossal strategic surprise. Not unlike Churchill. If he had been heeded, Hitler would have been ended without WW-II. He also warned us about the Soviets, and FDR laughed it off. So wave around your claim that there are "many" "wrong...folks" as if it in any way can apply to the real and growing threat of COMMUNIST China...which has openly declared itself an enemy at almost all levels but the diplomatic...where the arts of deception are feeding the self-delusory U.S. State-Dept types all the lines they want to hear. Suckers for the Lie of the Day.

I would think the measure of how self absorbed a society is, would be measure in areas such as how indifferent society is towards the 30,000 children that die everyday throughout the world rather than whether or not how China is industrializing or what they are spending on their military.

The liberals are always shrilly foisting this guilt trip on Americans. This is a false dichotomy. The U.S. already does more than the rest of the planet put together trying to feed "the poor." However, there is a graver threat. How many more people will starve or die far worse deaths still in WW-IV? Preventing WW-IV...on the cheap... is the best thing you can do for the global condition of mankind... Appeasement won't prevent it. It will merely feed the Dragon, and grow it, and make it more deadly. It merely postpones the day of reckoning.

When I read that verse, this is in reference to being a witness for God. In what context are you using it?

Literally. As a general truism. If the shoe fits, wear it.

The United States Navy is the most powerful military force the world has ever known. The Chinese will never be able to match us at sea, two Seawolf (or Los Angeles class) subs could destroy their entire operational fleet.

I have read this whole tread up to now and you have come close to my own theory. The Chinese may be trying to get a carrier in service but not for use against the U.S. They may want it to scare Vietnam or other local littoral competitors. This theory precludes trying to attack Taiwan for the foreseeable future or any other place the U.S. might deem it in interests to intervene. But what if they went after Burma for practice/prestige who would stop them and why.

Whether or not America could destroy China's military capability isn't really the question...we can... I don't think China is going to attack us with conventional weapons. I think they are going to use biological weapons. China and Israel have been working on such weapons together. Apparently China is working on bio weapons that target people of European descent and exclude Asians. Also, don't forget Israel was chastised for sharing missle technology with China. This coupled with the Clinton cabals betrayal of our military tech secrets means something is definitely up. Check out this speech by Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Chinese Defense Minister Gives Speech About WAR plans against the United States Says China can only afford to wait another 5 to 10 years before being forced to attack to gain "living space" Chi Haotian, China's Minister of Defense and vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, gave the following speech to his military leadership. What you are about to read is a VERBATIM translation of the actual speech; the original Chinese language text is also included below for verification! This is not a news story about the speech, but rather the actual text of the speech itself! oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Defense Minster Chi Haotian In it, he spoke openly about China's need for "more living space" and stated bluntly that The United States, Canada and Australia are the only places large enough to accommodate future Chinese needs. He notes the need for a quick, effective biological attack upon the U.S. to depopulate it as a prelude to conquest, and plainly states that China is working on genetic bio-weapons to kill everyone except "yellow people." His chilling remarks boast of a recent survey of the Chinese public wherein upwards of eighty percent (80%) were willing to "shoot and kill women, children and prisoners of war" as part of such an effort. More frightening was his admission of an ongoing deliberate deception of the U.S., with China portraying itself as a peaceful business partner, while actually planning to kill "one or two hundred million Americans." He also notes that thanks to trade, income from Chinese exports is providing the financing needed to vastly expand Chinese military might in preparation for an attack upon the U.S. which he seems to indicate will occur within "five to ten years." The speech is extremely lengthy, but I have emphasized the relevant parts in bold, below. References to directly attacking the United States are highlighted in RED BOLD below. Segments in red bold with underlining are extremely serious for the U.S. . If ever a nation needed to prepare for a true life and death struggle, clearly it is the U.S. As evidenced by this speech, China's leadership is already planning to kill us and take our land. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Actual Text of the speech: Comrades, I’m very excited today, because the large-scale online survey sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war,” more than 80 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations [1]. Today I’d like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time [2], during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [3], mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of “peace and development” had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. Today, I’ll speak more specifically on these two issues. The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non-combatants, they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war. Actually, however, this is not our genuine intention. The purpose of the CCP Central Committee in conducting this survey is to probe people’s minds. We wanted to know: If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries, will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? As everybody knows, the essence of Comrade Xiaoping’s [4] thinking is “development is the hard truth.” And Comrade Jintao [5] has also pointed out repeatedly and empathetically that “development is our top priority,” which should not be neglected for even a moment. But many comrades tend to understand “development” in its narrow sense, assuming it to be limited to domestic development. The fact is, our “development” refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which, of course, is not limited to the land we have now but also includes the whole world. Why do we put it this way? Both Comrade Liu Huaqing [6], one of the leaders of the old generation in our Party, and Comrade He Xin [7], a young strategist for our Party, have repeatedly stressed the theory regarding the shift of the center of world civilization. Our slogan of “revitalizing China” has this way of thinking as its basis. You may look into the newspapers and magazines published in recent years or go online to do some research to find out who raised the slogan of national revitalization first. It was Comrade He Xin. Do you know who He Xin is? He may look aggressive and despicable when he speaks in public, with his sleeves and pants all rolled up, but his historical vision is a treasure our Party should cherish. In discussing this issue, let us start from the beginning. As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore, no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. The Peking Man at Zhoukoudian that we are all familiar with represents a phase of our ancestors’ evolution. “The Project of Searching for the Origins of the Chinese Civilization” currently undertaken in our country is aimed at a more comprehensive and systematic research on the origin, process and development of the ancient Chinese civilization. We used to say, “Chinese civilization has had a history of five thousand years.” But now, many experts engaged in research in varied fields including archeology, ethnic cultures, and regional cultures have reached consensus that the new discoveries such as the Hongshan Culture in the Northeast, the Liangzhu Culture in Zhejiang province, the Jinsha Ruins in Sichuan province, and the Yongzhou Shun Emperor Cultural Site in Human province are all compelling evidence of the existence of China’s early civilizations, and they prove that China’s rice-growing agricultural history alone can be traced back as far as 8,000 to 10,000 years. This refutes the concept of “five thousand years of Chinese civilization.” Therefore, we can assert that we are the product of cultural roots of more than a million years, civilization and progress of more than ten thousand years, an ancient nation of five thousand years, and a single Chinese entity of two thousand years. This is the Chinese nation that calls itself, “descendents of Yan and Huang,” the Chinese nation that we are so proud of. Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans. During our long history, our people have disseminated throughout the Americas and the regions along the Pacific Rim, and they became Indians in the Americas and the East Asian ethnic groups in the South Pacific. We all know that on account of our national superiority, during the thriving and prosperous Tang Dynasty our civilization was at the peak of the world. We were the center of the world civilization, and no other civilization in the world was comparable to ours. Later on, because of our complacency, narrow-mindedness, and the self-enclosure of our own country, we were surpassed by Western civilization, and the center of the world shifted to the West. In reviewing history, one may ask: Will the center of the world civilization shift back to China? Comrade He Xin put it in his report to the Central Committee in 1988: If the fact is that the center of leadership of the world was located in Europe as of the 18th Century, and later shifted to the United States in the mid 20th Century, then in the 21st Century the center of leadership of the world will shift to the East of our planet. And, “the East” of course mainly refers to China. Actually, Comrade Liu Huaqing made similar points in early 1980s. Based on an historical analysis, he pointed out that the center of world civilization is shifting. It shifted from the East to Western Europe and later to the United States; now it is shifting back to the East. Therefore, if we refer to the 19th Century as the British Century, and the 20th century as the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century. To understand conscientiously this historical law and to be prepared to greet the advent of the Chinese Century is the historical mission of our Party. As we all know, at the end of the last century, we built the Altar to the Chinese Century in Beijing. At the very moment of the arrival of the new millennium, the collective leadership of the Party Central Committee gathered there for a rally, upholding the torches of Zhoukoudian, to pledge themselves to get ready to greet the arrival of the Chinese Century. We were doing this to follow the historical law and setting the realization of the Chinese Century as the goal of our Party’s endeavors. Later, in the political report of our Party’s Sixteenth National Congress, we established that the national revitalization be our great objective and explicitly specified in our new Party Constitution that our Party is the pioneer of the Chinese people. All these steps marked a major development in Marxism, reflecting our Party‘s courage and wisdom. As we all know, Marx and his followers have never referred to any communist party as a pioneer of a certain people; neither did they say that national revitalization could be used as a slogan of a communist party. Even Comrade Mao Zedong, a courageous national hero, only raised high the banner of “the global proletarian revolution,” but even he did not have the courage to give the loudest publicity to the slogan of national revitalization. We must greet the arrival of the Chinese Century by raising high the banner of national revitalization. How should we fight for the realization of the Chinese Century? We must borrow the precious experiences in human history by taking advantage of the outstanding fruition of human civilization and drawing lessons from what happened to other ethnic groups. The lessons include the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the defeats of Germany and Japan in the past. Recently there has been much discussion on the lessons of the collapse of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, so I will not dwell on them here. Today I’d like to talk about the lessons of Germany and Japan. As we all know, Nazi Germany also placed much emphasis on the education of the people, especially the younger generation. The Nazi party and government organized and established various propaganda and educational institutions such as the “Guiding Bureau of National Propaganda,” “Department of National Education and Propaganda,” “Supervising Bureau of Worldview Study and Education,” and “Information Office,” all aimed at instilling into the people’s minds, from elementary schools to colleges, the idea that German people are superior, and convincing people that the historical mission of the Arian people is to become the “lords of earth” that “rule over the world.” Back then the German people were much more united than we are today. Nonetheless, Germany was defeated in utter shame, along with its ally, Japan. Why? We reached some conclusions at the study meetings of the Politburo, in which we were searching for the laws that governed the vicissitudes of the big powers, and trying to analyze Germany and Japan’s rapid growth. When we decide to revitalize China based on the German model, we must not repeat the mistakes they made. Specifically, the following are the fundamental causes for the defeat of Germany and Japan: First, they had too many enemies all at once, as they did not adhere to the principle of eliminating enemies one at a time; second, they were too impetuous, lacking the patience and perseverance required for great accomplishments; third, when the time came for them to be ruthless, they turned out to be too soft, therefore leaving troubles that resurfaced later on. Let’s presume that back then Germany and Japan had been able to keep the United States neutral and had fought a protracted war step by step on the Soviet front. If they had adopted this approach, gained some time to advance their research, eventually succeeded in obtaining the technology of nuclear weapons and missiles, and launched surprise attacks against the United States and the Soviet Union using them, then the United States and the Soviet Union would not have been able to defend themselves and would have had to surrender. Little Japan, in particular, made an egregious mistake in launching the sneak strike at Pearl Harbor. This attack did not hit the vital parts of the United States. Instead it dragged the United States into the war, into the ranks of the gravediggers that eventually buried the German and Japanese fascists. Of course, if they had not made these three mistakes and won the war, history would have been written in a different fashion. If that had been the case, China would not be in our hands. Japan might have relocated their capital to China and ruled over China. Afterwards, China and the whole of Asia under Japan’s command would have brought into full play the oriental wisdom, conquered the West ruled by Germany and unified the whole world. This is irrelevant, of course. No more digressions. So, the fundamental reason for the defeats of Germany and Japan is that history did not arrange them to be the “lords of the earth,” for they are, after all, not the most superior race. Ostensibly, in comparison, today’s China is alarmingly similar to Germany back then. Both of them regard themselves as the most superior races; both of them have a history of being exploited by foreign powers and are therefore vindictive; both of them have the tradition of worshipping their own authorities; both of them feel that they have seriously insufficient living space; both of them raise high the two banners of nationalism and socialism and label themselves as “national socialism”; both of them worship “one state, one party, one leader, and one doctrine.” And yet, if we really are to make a comparison between Germany and China, then, as Comrade Jiang Zemin put it, Germany belongs to “pediatrics”—too trivial to be compared. How large is Germany’s population? How big is its territory? And how long is its history? We eliminated eight million Nationalist troops in only three years. How many enemies did Germany kill? They were in power for a transient period of little more than a dozen years before they perished, while we are still energetic after being around for more than eighty years. Our theory of the shifting center of civilization is of course more profound than the Hitler’s theory of “the lords of the earth.” Our civilization is profound and broad, which has determined that we are so much wiser than they were. Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race is superior to theirs. As a result, we have a longer history, more people, and larger land area. On this basis, our ancestors left us with the two most essential heritages, which are atheism and great unity. It was Confucius, the founder of our Chinese culture, who gave us these heritages. These two heritages determined that we have a stronger ability to survive than the West. That is why the Chinese race has been able to prosper for so long. We are destined “not to be buried by either heaven or earth” no matter how severe the natural, man-made, and national disasters. This is our advantage. Take response to war as an example. The reason that the United States remains today is that it has never seen war on its mainland. Once its enemies aim at the mainland, the enemies would have already reached Washington before its congress finishes debating and authorizes the president to declare war. But for us, we don’t waste time on these trivial things. Comrade Deng Xiaoping once said, “The Party’s leadership is prompt in making decisions. Once a decision is made, it is immediately implemented. There’s no wasting time on trivial things like in capitalist countries. This is our advantage.” Our Party’s democratic centralism is built on the tradition of great unity. Although fascist Germany also stressed high-level centralism, they only focused on the power of the country’s executive, but ignored the collective leadership of the central group. That’s why Hitler was betrayed by many later in his life, which fundamentally depleted the Nazis of their war capacity. What makes us different from Germany is that we are complete atheists, while Germany was primarily a Catholic and Protestant country. Hitler was only half atheist. Although Hitler also believed that ordinary citizens had low intelligence, and that leaders should therefore make decisions, and although German people worshipped Hitler back then, Germany did not have the tradition of worshipping sages on a broad basis. Our Chinese society has always worshipped sages, and that is because we don’t worship any god. Once you worship a god, you can’t worship a person at the same time, unless you recognize the person as the god’s representative like they do in Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, once you recognize a person as a sage, of course you will want him to be your leader, instead of monitoring and choosing him. This is the foundation of our democratic centralism. The bottom line is, only China, not Germany, is a reliable force in resisting the Western parliament-based democratic system. Hitler’s dictatorship in Germany was perhaps but a momentary mistake in history. Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us? If the common people don’t believe Comrade Hu Jintao is a qualified leader, question his authority, and want to monitor him, if the religious followers in our society question why we are leading God in churches, can our Party continue to rule China? Germany’s dream to be the “lord of the earth” failed, because ultimately, history did not bestow this great mission upon them. But the three lessons Germany learned from experience are what we ought to remember as we complete our historic mission and revitalize our race. The three lessons are: Firmly grasp the country’s living space, firmly grasp the Party’s control over the nation, and firmly grasp the general direction toward becoming the “lord of the earth.” Next, I’d like to address these three issues. The first issue is living space. This is the biggest focus of the revitalization of the Chinese race. In my last speech, I said that the fight over basic living resources (including land and ocean) is the source of the vast majority of wars in history. This may change in the information age, but not fundamentally. Our per capita resources are much less than those of Germany’s back then. In addition, economic development in the last twenty-plus years had a negative impact, and climates are rapidly changing for the worse. Our resources are in very short supply. The environment is severely polluted, especially that of soil, water, and air. Not only our ability to sustain and develop our race, but even its survival is gravely threatened, to a degree much greater than faced Germany back then. Anybody who has been to Western countries knows that their living space is much better than ours. They have forests alongside the highways, while we hardly have any trees by our streets. Their sky is often blue with white clouds, while our sky is covered with a layer of dark haze. Their tap water is clean enough for drinking, while even our ground water is so polluted that it can’t be drunk without filtering. They have few people in the streets, and two or three people can occupy a small residential building; in contrast, our streets are always crawling with people, and several people have to share one room. Many years ago, there was a book titled Yellow Catastrophes. It said that, due to our following the American style of consumption, our limited resources would no longer support the population and society would collapse, once our population reaches 1.3 billion. Now our population has already exceeded this limit, and we are now relying on imports to sustain our nation. It’s not that we haven’t paid attention to this issue. The Ministry of Land Resources is specialized in this issue. But the term “living space” (lebensraum) is too closely related to Nazi Germany. The reason we don’t want to discuss this too openly is to avoid the West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a threat. Therefore, in our emphasis on He Xin’s new theory, “Human rights are just living rights,” we only talk about “living,” but not “space,” so as to avoid using the term “living space.” From the perspective of history, the reason that China is faced with the issue of living space is because Western countries have developed ahead of Eastern countries. Western countries established colonies all around the world, therefore giving themselves an advantage on the issue of living space. To solve this problem, we must lead the Chinese people outside of China, so that they could develop outside of China. The second issue is our focus on the leadership capacity of the ruling party. We’ve done better on this than their party. Although the Nazis spread their power to every aspect of the German national government, they did not stress their absolute leadership position like we have. They did not take the issue of managing the power of the party as first priority, which we have. When Comrade Mao Zedong summarized the “three treasures” of our party’s victory in conquering the country, he considered the most important “treasure” to be developing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and strengthening its leadership position. We have to focus on two points to fortify our leadership position and improve our leadership capacity. The first is to promote the “Three Represents” theory [8], stressing that our Party is the pioneer of the Chinese race, in addition to being the pioneer of the proletariat. Many citizens say in private, “We never voted for you, the Communist Party, to represent us. How can you claim to be our representatives?” There’s no need to worry about this issue. Comrade Mao Zedong said that if we could lead our allies to victory and make them benefit, they would support us. Therefore, as long as we can lead the Chinese people outside of China, resolving the lack of living space in China, the Chinese people will support us. At that time, we don’t have to worry about the labels of “totalitarianism” or “dictatorship.” Whether we can forever represent the Chinese people depends on whether we can succeed in leading the Chinese people out of China. The second point, whether we can lead the Chinese people out of China, is the most important determinant of the CCP’s leadership position. Why do I say this? Everyone knows that without the leadership of our Party, China would not exist today. Therefore, our highest principle is to forever protect our Party’s leadership position. Before June 4, we realized vaguely that as long as China’s economy is developed, people would support and love the Communist Party. Therefore we had to use several decades of peacetime to develop China’s economy. No matter what -isms, whether it is a white cat or a black cat, it is a good cat if it can develop China’s economy. But at that time, we did not have mature ideas about how China would deal with international disputes after its economy is developed. Comrade Xiaoping said then that the main themes in the world were peace and development. But the June 4 riot gave our Party a warning and gave us a lesson that is still fresh. The pressure of China’s peaceful evolution makes us reconsider the main themes of our time. We see that neither of these two issues, peace and development, have been resolved. The western oppositional forces always change the world according to their own visions; they want to change China and use peaceful evolution to overturn the leadership of our Communist Party. Therefore, if we only develop the economy, we still face the possibility of losing control. That June 4 riot almost succeeded in bringing a peaceful transition; if it were not for the fact that a large number of veteran comrades were still alive and at a crucial moment they removed Zhao Ziyang and his followers, then we all would have been put in prison. After death we would have been too ashamed to report to Marx. Although we have passed the test of June 4, after our group of senior comrades pass away, without our control, peaceful evolution may still come to China like it did to the former Soviet Union. In 1956, they suppressed the Hungarian Incident and defeated the attacks by Tito’s revisionists of Yugoslavia, but they could not withstand Gorbachev thirty some years later. Once those pioneering senior comrades died, the power of the Communist Party was taken away by peaceful evolution. After the June 4 riot was suppressed, we have been thinking about how to prevent China from peaceful evolution and how to maintain the Communist Party’s leadership. We thought it over and over but did not come up with any good ideas. If we do not have good ideas, China will inevitably change peacefully, and we will all become criminals in history. After some deep pondering, we finally come to this conclusion: Only by turning our developed national strength into the force of a fist striking outward—only by leading people to go out —can we win forever the Chinese people’s support and love for the Communist Party. Our Party will then stand on invincible ground, and the Chinese people will have to depend on the Communist Party. They will forever follow the Communist Party with their hearts and minds, as was written in a couplet frequently seen in the countryside some years ago: “Listen to Chairman Mao, Follow the Communist Party!” Therefore, the June 4 riot made us realize that we must combine economic development with preparation for war and leading the people to go out! Therefore, since then, our national defense policy has taken a 180 degree turn and we have since emphasized more and more “combining peace and war.” Our economic development is all about preparing for the need of war! Publicly we still emphasize economic development as our center, but in reality, economic development has war as its center! We have made a tremendous effort to construct “The Great Wall Project” to build up, along our coastal and land frontiers as well as around large and medium-sized cities, a solid underground “Great Wall” that can withstand a nuclear war. We are also storing all necessary war materials. Therefore, we will not hesitate to fight a Third World War, so as to lead the people to go out and to ensure the Party’s leadership position. In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entire globe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a ‘nuclear bondage’ theory? It means that since nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is another kind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished. Our Party’s historical mission is to lead the Chinese people to go out. If we take the long view, we will see that history led us on this path. First, China’s long history has resulted in the world’s largest population, including Chinese in China as well as overseas. Second, once we open our doors, the profit-seeking western capitalists will invest capital and technology in China to assist our development, so that they can occupy the biggest market in the world. Third, our numerous overseas Chinese help us create the most favorable environment for the introduction of foreign capital, foreign technology and advanced experience into China. Thus, it is guaranteed that our reform and open-door policy will achieve tremendous success. Fourth, China’s great economic expansion will inevitably lead to the shrinkage of per-capita living space for the Chinese people, and this will encourage China to turn outward in search for new living space. Fifth, China’s great economic expansion will inevitably come with a significant development in our military forces, creating conditions for our expansion overseas. Even since Napoleon’s time, the West has been has been alert for the possible awakening of the sleeping lion that is China. Now, the sleeping lion is standing up and advancing into the world, and has become unstoppable! What is the third issue we should clinch firmly in order to accomplish our historical mission of national renaissance? It is to hold firmly onto the big “issue of America.” Comrade Mao Zedong taught us that we must have a resolute and correct political orientation. What is our key, correct orientation? It is to solve the issue of America. This appears to be shocking, but the logic is actually very simple. Comrade He Xin put forward a very fundamental judgment that is very reasonable. He asserted in his report to the Party Central Committee: The renaissance of China is in fundamental conflict with the western strategic interest, and therefore will inevitably be obstructed by the western countries doing everything they can. So, only by breaking the blockade formed by the western countries headed by the United States can China grow and move towards the world! Would the United States allow us to go out to gain new living space? First, if the United States is firm in blocking us, it is hard for us to do anything significant to Taiwan and some other countries! Second, even if we could snatch some land from Taiwan, Vietnam, India, or even Japan, how much more living space can we get? Very trivial! Only countries like the United States, Canada and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization. Therefore, solving the “issue of America” is the key to solving all other issues. First, this makes it possible for us to have many people migrate there and even establish another China under the same leadership of the CCP. America was originally discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave credit to the white race. We the descendents of the Chinese nation are entitled to the possession of the land! It is said that the residents of the yellow race have a very low social status in United States. We need to liberate them. Second, after solving the “issue of America,” the western countries in Europe would bow to us, not to mention to Taiwan, Japan and other small countries. Therefore, solving the “issue of America” is the mission assigned to CCP members by history. I sometimes think how cruel it is for China and the United States to be enemies that are bound to meet on a narrow road! Do you remember a movie about Liberation Army troops led by Liu Bocheng and Deng Xiaoping? The title is something like “Decisive Battle on the Central Plains.” There is a famous remark in the movie that is full of power and grandeur: “The enemies are bound to meet on a narrow road, only the brave will win!” It is this kind of fighting to win or die spirit that enabled us to seize power in Mainland China. It is historical destiny that China and United States will come into unavoidable confrontation on a narrow path and fight each other! The United States, unlike Russia and Japan, has never occupied and hurt China, and also assisted China in its battle against the Japanese. But, it will certainly be an obstruction, and the biggest obstruction! In the long run, the relationship of China and the United States is one of a life-and-death struggle. One time, some Americans came to visit and tried to convince us that the relationship between China and United States is one of interdependence. Comrade Xiaoping replied in a polite manner: “Go tell your government, China and the United States do not have such a relationship that is interdependent and mutually reliant.” Actually, Comrade Xiaoping was being too polite, he could have been more frank, “The relationship between China and United States is one of a life-and-death struggle.” Of course, right now it is not the time to openly break up with them yet. Our reform and opening to the outside world still rely on their capital and technology, we still need America. Therefore, we must do everything we can to promote our relationship with America, learn from America in all aspects and use America as an example to reconstruct our country. How have we managed our foreign affairs in these years? Even if we had to put on a smiling face in order to please them, even if we had to give them the right cheek after they had hit our left cheek, we still must endure in order to further our relationship with the United States. Do you remember the character of Wuxun in the movie the “Story of Wuxun”? In order to accomplish his mission, he endured so much pain and suffered so much beating and kicking! The United States is the most successful country in the world today. Only after we have learned all of its useful experiences can we replace it in the future. Even though we are presently imitating the American tone “China and United States rely on each other and share honor and disgrace,” we must not forget that the history of our civilization repeatedly has taught us that one mountain does not allow two tigers to live together. We also must never forget what Comrade Xiaoping emphasized “refrain from revealing the ambitions and put others off the track.” The hidden message is: we must put up with America; we must conceal our ultimate goals, hide our capabilities and await the opportunity. In this way, our mind is clear. Why have we not updated our national anthem with something peaceful? Why did we not change the anthem’s theme of war? Instead, when revising the Constitution this time, for the first time we clearly specified “March of the Volunteers” is our national anthem. Thus we will understand why we constantly talk loudly about the “Taiwan issue” but not the “American issue.” We all know the principle of “doing one thing under the cover of another.” If ordinary people can only see the small island of Taiwan in their eyes, then you as the elite of our country should be able to see the whole picture of our cause. Over these years, according to Comrade Xiaoping’s arrangement, a large piece of our territory in the North has been given up to Russia; do you really think our Party Central Committee is a fool? To resolve the issue of America we must be able to transcend conventions and restrictions. In history, when a country defeated another country or occupied another country, it could not kill all the people in the conquered land, because back then you could not kill people effectively with sabers or long spears, or even with rifles or machine guns. Therefore, it was impossible to gain a stretch of land without keeping the people on that land. However, if we conquered America in this fashion, we would not be able to make many people migrate there. Only by using special means to “clean up” America will we be able to lead the Chinese people there. This is the only choice left for us. This is not a matter of whether we are willing to do it or not. What kind of special means is there available for us to “clean up” America? Conventional weapons such as fighters, canons, missiles and battleships won’t do; neither will highly destructive weapons such as nuclear weapons. We are not as foolish as to want to perish together with America by using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that we have been exclaiming that we will have the Taiwan issue resolved at whatever cost. Only by using non-destructive weapons that can kill many people will we be able to reserve America for ourselves. There has been rapid development of modern biological technology, and new bio weapons have been invented one after another. Of course we have not been idle; in the past years we have seized the opportunity to master weapons of this kind. We are capable of achieving our purpose of “cleaning up” America all of a sudden. When Comrade Xiaoping was still with us, the Party Central Committee had the perspicacity to make the right decision not to develop aircraft carrier groups and focus instead on developing lethal weapons that can eliminate mass populations of the enemy country. From a humanitarian perspective, we should issue a warning to the American people and persuade them to leave America and leave the land they have lived in to the Chinese people. Or at least they should leave half of the United States to be China’s colony, because America was first discovered by the Chinese. But would this work? If this strategy does not work, then there is only one choice left to us. That is, use decisive means to “clean up” America, and reserve America for our use in a moment. Our historical experience has proven that as long as we make it happen, nobody in the world can do anything about us. Furthermore, if the United States as the leader is gone, then other enemies have to surrender to us. Biological weapons are unprecedented in their ruthlessness, but if the Americans do not die then the Chinese have to die. If the Chinese people are strapped to the present land, a total societal collapse is bound to take place. According to the computation of the author of Yellow Peril, more than half of the Chinese will die, and that figure would be more than 800 million people! Just after the liberation, our yellow land supported nearly 500 million people, while today the official figure of the population is more than 1.3 billion. This yellow land has reached the limit of its capacity. One day, who knows how soon it will come, the great collapse will occur any time and more than half of the population will have to go. We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the United States, the Chinese people will be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the United States. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliation from the United States, China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we need to be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone! In Chinese history, in the replacement of dynasties, the ruthless have always won and the benevolent have always failed. The most typical example involved Xiang Yu the King of Chu, who, after defeating Liu Bang, failed to continue to chase after him and eliminate his forces, and this leniency resulted in Xiang Yu’s death and Liu’s victory (during the war between Chu and Han, just after the Qin Dynasty (221-206BC) was overthrown). Therefore, we must emphasize the importance of adopting resolute measures. In the future, the two rivals, China and the United States, will eventually meet each other in a narrow road, and our leniency to the Americans will mean cruelty toward the Chinese people. 　　 Here some people may want to ask me: what about the several millions of our compatriots in the United States? They may ask: aren’t we against Chinese killing other Chinese? These comrades are too pedantic; they are not pragmatic enough. If we had insisted on the principle that the Chinese should not kill other Chinese, would we have liberated China? As for the several million Chinese living in the United States, this is of course a big issue. Therefore in recent years, we have been conducting research on genetic weapons, i.e. those weapons that do not kill yellow people. But producing a result with this kind of research is extremely difficult. Of the research done on genetic weapons throughout the world, the Israeli’s is the most advanced. Their genetic weapons are designed to target Arabs and protect the Israelis. But even they have not reached the stage of actual deployment. We have cooperated with Israel on some research. Perhaps we can introduce some of the technologies used to protect Israelis and remold these technologies to protect the yellow people. But their technologies are not mature yet, and it is difficult for us to surpass them in a few years. If it has to be five or ten years before some breakthroughs can be achieved in genetic weapons, we cannot afford to wait any longer. Old comrades like us cannot afford to wait that long, for we don’t have that much time to live. Old soldiers of my age may be able to wait for five or ten more years, but those from the period of the Anti-Japanese War or the few old Red Army soldiers cannot wait any longer. Therefore we have to give up our expectations about genetic weapons. Of course, from another perspective, the majority of those Chinese living in the United States have become our burden, because they have been corrupted by the bourgeois liberal values for a long time and it would be difficult for them to accept our Party’s leadership. If they survived the war, we would have to launch campaigns in the future to deal with them, to reform them. Do you still remember that when we had just defeated the Koumintang (KMT) and liberated Mainland China, so many people from the bourgeois class and intellectuals welcomed us so very warmly, but later we had to launch campaigns such as the “suppression of the reactionaries” and “Anti-Rightist Movement” to clean them up and reform them? Some of them were in hiding for a long time and were not exposed until the Cultural Revolution. History has proved that any social turmoil is likely to involve many deaths. Maybe we can put it this way: death is the engine that moves history forward. During the period of Three Kingdoms [9], how many people died? When Genghis Khan conquered Eurasia, how many people died? When Manchu invaded the interior of China, how many people died? Not many people died during the 1911 Revolution, but when we overthrew the Three Great Mountains [10], and during the political campaigns such as “Suppression of reactionaries,” “Three-Anti Campaign,” and “Five-Anti Campaign” at least 20 million people died. We were apprehensive that some young people today would be trembling with fear when they hear about wars or people dying. During wartime, we were used to seeing dead people. Blood and flesh were flying everywhere, corpses were lying in heaps on the fields, and blood ran like rivers. We saw it all. On the battlefields, everybody’s eyes turned red with killing because it was a life-and-death struggle and only the brave would survive. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths. But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Party’s life has always been above all else! History will prove that we made the right choice. Now, when I am about to finish my speech, you probably understand why we conducted this online survey. Simply put, through conducting this online survey we wanted to know whether the people would rise against us if one day we secretly adopt resolute means to “clean up” America. Would more people support us or oppose us? This is our basic judgment: if our people approve of shooting at prisoners of war, women and children, then they would approve our “cleaning up” America. For over twenty years, China has been enjoying peace, and a whole generation has not been tested by war. In particular, since the end of World War II, there have been many changes in the formats of war, the concept of war and the ethics of war. Especially since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and Eastern European Communist states, the ideology of the West has come to dominate the world as a whole, and the Western theory of human nature and Western view of human rights have increasingly disseminated among the young people in China. Therefore, we were not very sure about the people’s attitude. If our people are fundamentally opposed to “cleaning up” America, we will, of course, have to adopt corresponding measures. Why didn’t we conduct the survey through administrative means instead of through the web? We did what we did for a good reason. First of all, we did it to reduce artificial inference and to make sure that we got the true thoughts of the people. In addition, it is more confidential and won’t reveal the true purpose of our survey. But what is most important is the fact that most of the people who are able to respond to the questions online are from social groups that are relatively well-educated and intelligent. They are the hard-core and leading groups that play a decisive role among our people. If they support us, then the people as a whole will follow us; if they oppose us, they will play the dangerous role of inciting people and creating social disturbance. What turned out to be very comforting is they did not turn in a blank test paper. In fact, they turned in a test paper with a score of over 80%. This is the excellent fruition of our Party’s work in propaganda and education over the past few decades. Of course, a few people under the Western influence have objected to shooting at prisoners of war and women and children. Some of them said, “It is shocking and scary to witness so many people approving of shooting at women and children. Is everybody crazy?” Some others said, “The Chinese love to label themselves as a peace-loving people, but actually they are the most ruthless people. The comments are resonant of killing and murdering, sending chills to my heart.” Although there are not too many people holding this kind of viewpoint and they will not affect the overall situation in any significant way, but we still need to strengthen the propaganda to respond to this kind of argument. That is to vigorously propagate Comrade He Xin's latest article, which has already been reported to the central government. You may look it up on the website. If you get on the website using key words to search, you will find out that a while ago, comrade He Xin pointed out to the Hong Kong Business News during an interview that: "The US has a shocking conspiracy." According to what he had in hand, from September 27 to October 1, 1995, the Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachëv Foundation, funded by the United States, gathered 500 of the world’s most important statesmen, economic leaders and scientists, including George W. Bush (he was not the US president at the time), the Baroness Thatcher, Tony Blair, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as George Soros, Bill Gates, futurist John Naisbitt, etc., all of the world’s most popular characters, in the San Francisco Fairmont hotel for a high-level round table conference, discussing problems about globalization and how to guide humanity to move forward into the 21st century. According to what He Xin had in hand, the outstanding people of the world in attendance thought that in the 21st century a mere 20% of the world’s population will be sufficient to maintain the world’s economy and prosperity, the other 80% or 4/5 of the world’s population will be human garbage unable to produce new values. The people in attendance thought that this excess 80% population would be a trash population and "high-tech" means should be used to eliminate them gradually. Since the enemies are secretly planning to eliminate our population, we certainly cannot be infinitely merciful and compassionate to them. Comrade He Xin's article came out at the right time, it has proven the correctness of our tit for tat battle approach, has proven Comrade Deng Xiaoping’s great foresight to deploy against the United States military strategy. Certainly, in spreading Comrade He Xin’s views, we cannot publish the article in the party newspapers, in order to avoid raising the enemy’s vigilance. He Xin's conversation may remind the enemy that we have grasped the modern science and technology, including "clean" nuclear technology, gene weapons technology as well as biological weapons technology, and we can use powerful measures to eliminate their population on a large-scale. The last problem I want to talk about is of firmly seizing the preparations for military battle. Currently, we are at the cross road of moving forward or backward. Some comrades saw problems flooding everywhere in our country—the corruption problem, the state-owned enterprise problem, the bank’s bad accounts problem, environmental problems, society security problems, education problems, the AIDS problem, various appeals problem, even the riots problem. These comrades vacillated in the determination to prepare for the military battle. They thought; they should first grab the political reform problem, that is, our own political reform comes first. After resolving the domestic problems, we can then deal with the foreign military battle problem. This reminds me of the crucial period in 1948 in the Chinese revolution. At that time, the People's Liberation Army’s “horses were drinking water” in Yangtze River, but they faced extremely complex situations and difficult problems everywhere in the liberated areas, and the central authority received emergency reports daily. What to do? Should we stop to manage rear areas and internal matters first before moving forward, or press on to pass the Yangtze River with one vigorous effort? Chairman Mao, with his extraordinary wisdom and mettle, gave the marching order "Carry on the revolution to the end," and liberated all of China. The previously thought "serious" conflicting problems were all resolved in this great forward moving revolutionary wave. Now, it seems like we are in the same critical period as the “horses were drinking water” in the Yangtze River days in the revolutionary era, as long as we firmly seize the most basic principle of preparing for the military battle. The central committee believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparation appears to aim at Taiwan, but in fact is aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites. Marxism pointed out that violence is the midwife for the birth of the new society. Therefore war is the midwife for the birth of China’s century. As war approaches, I am full of hope for our next generation. *** Notes: [1] Sina.com is one of the largest on-line media corporations in China. The on-line survey was launched by sina.com’s branch Sina Military (jczs.sina.com.cn). It started on February 2 and ended on March 1, 2004 and there were 31,872 persons who filled out the survey. The web page for this on-line survey is at “http://jczs.sina.com.cn/2004-02-02/1644180066.html” but this page has been removed and cannot be viewed. The question was “If you are a solider, and if are under the orders of your commanding officers, will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war?” 34% of the visitors answered they would shoot under any circumstances even without permission from their commanding officer. 48.6% of the visitors replied that they would shoot when the lives of themselves or their companies are threatened. Only 3.8% of the participants held they would not shoot under any circumstances. Those who agreed to shoot were mostly under the age of 25. [2] “War Is Approaching Us” [3] “Three islands” refer to Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands, and Spratly Islands. [4] Deng Xiaoping (1904-1997). Officially, Deng was the leader of the CCP and China from 1978-89. Actually, after Mao's death in 1976 Deng became the de facto leader of China until Deng finally died in 1997. [5] Hu Jintao (1942-). Leader of the "fourth generation" of CCP officials. In 2003, Hu became President of the People's Republic of China. [6] Liu Huaqing (1916-). Commander of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy from 1982 through 1988, vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission (until 1997). Liu is considered to be responsible for the PLA’s modernization efforts. [7] He Xin (1949-). Senior Fellow of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. [8] “Three Represents” states that the CCP represents the requirement to develop advanced productive forces, an orientation towards advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the people in China. It was put forward by Jiang Zemin, former Chinese president. [9] Three Kingdoms refer to Wei, Shu, and Wu, three countries that overlapped the land of China during the period A.D. 220-80. [10] “Three great mountains” were said according to the CCP to have weighed on the backs of the Chinese people—imperialism, feudalism and bureaucratic-capitalism.

Now that you have been called out on multiple disparagemeents, you try and claim the higher ground. Too late. You were caught red-handed. Mr. "Anti-Alarmist".

You’re an ornery one.

So you are an anti-communist now? (Mr. 30,000 daily deaths of children) Not by any evidence of your policy of see-no-evil in China. Walter Duranty had nothing on you. Not appeasing? Prove it. Read some of the serious warnings about the Communist Chinese military potential...after it is allowed to "ascend peacefully" but without any fundamental ideological change...an unregenerate and bitterly hostile enemy to the West.

Actually, I have nothing to prove. The American policy is to continue to expand trade with China. Our President and much of Congress have paved the way for further trade with China. CEO’s rush in to expand production there. Banks are lining up to get into China once the WTO 2006 deadline is here. AMERCIAN businessmen are the ones going to China and seeking for ways to source more goods there. My argument is simply stating that those who are the China Hawks have ulterior motives. Since you want to stop this expanded trade, YOU are the one that need to prove your point that all this trade that China is ALLOWING to come into their country is a big and grand scheme to launch a hostile attack onto the world. If everyone was as convinced as you are, I’m sure they would stop what they are doing.

Also, keep in mind that the Chinese government, at the moment, is the one who is slowing all the spending that is occurring in China. They are the ones that are slowing investments, including foreign sources. It is the WTO and their major member countries who are PUSHING China to open her markets further. Gee Chinese sure seem incredibly clever to orchestrate a world in which they come to China and push their way in.

You also need to confront Former President Bush Sr. himself when CEO’s of American corporations bring him to Beijing to use his connections to ensure the most influential decision makers are present to secure the best business deals they can. You need to tell his son, the current President, to get out of Iraq and quite wasting American military resources on such a small country and focus them on China. You need to convince the American public to institute a draft to be ready for a conflict with China, because at this point, ending American trade isn’t going to prevent China from developing their industries.

You are the one that need to prove your point to the trade representatives that “appease” China in negotiating trade agreements.

Since you feel so threatened, you are the one that need to campaign China Hawks such as Pat Buchanaan to not give up running for office. Oh, and also convince the public that he is a level headed thinker and that he has the best interest of America in mind. I don’t think he is and I’ll never be convinced of that, but you need to convince the American public that.

You are the one that need to confront the many securities firms like Morgan Stanley that bring investments into China. You need to convince the security firms that send billions over there to help set up wafer fabrication facilities and other high tech industries in China. You need to convince people in General Motors that have already spent billions building large auto plants over there and have further ambitions to double, maybe triple capacity to stop what they are doing.

You are the one that need to confront the many engineering firms that trek on over there to help build China’s huge infrastructure, from ports, to roads, to nuclear reactors. You are the one that need to convince Westinghouse not to solicit their reactor design to the Chinese……oh….and tell the French, Japanese, Russians, and Canadians to stop going over their with plan in toe with their reactor designs.

You are the one that need to tell Bill Gates to not invest building a developmental center in Beijing. You need to tell Boeing not to solicit their airplanes to China and thereby offloading work to them.

And lets not forget Walmart......a Walmart that has it’s vendors sit in a room to bid against one another. And after finding the lowest bidder, encourage that bidder to go to China and build it even cheaper. And they don’t stop there either. Walmart gets their other vendors to go to China also to see if they can use China sources better than the one that wins the bid.

Oh, and lets not forget the many credible business magazines like Businessweek, Forbes, and Fortune magazine that treat business with China like doing business with any other country. Any negative view of China will only be found in the China Hawk sources, but then again, many of them aren’t mainstream sources.

And everything I’ve described is just scratching the surface in which Americans are going over there. I can also describe more if I include the Japanese, Russians, Europeans, Canadians, Australians, Koreans, etc., activities. Not to mention many OPEC nations who have opened up to China.

YOU……have a lot of people to convince……oh….and ..best wishes!!

By your definition, all these people are NOT anti-communist when they go about doing their daily duties.

Another group you will have to confront (and I see your claim to Christianity) is the many mission groups and organizations that go over there to promote the gospel.

Billy Graham himself has been highly criticized for his efforts in convincing swing voters in congress to continue trade with China. This is from a man who has stayed away from politics for many years because he has been badly burned whenever he ventures in the political arena. But he couldn’t keep silent about further opening China up to the outside, so he has stepped up to bat speaking on behalf of expanding trade with China. He feared a backlash, got it, and still kept speaking up on behalf of expanding trade with China. A man I truly respect because he spoke for what he felt was right. He himself has questioned the motives of the China Hawks as do I.

Appeasement. Refusing to see the world as it is.

Typical self-justifying rationalization of appeasers. "Lebensraum"...was a similar pretext.

Wow, that’s a big leap.

If they want to improve their standard of living...then all they need do is adopt capitalism and FREE enterprise. Eliminate the Socialist superstructure...let wages float. Let people move. Let them organize for bettering their condition. Let them seek higher wages. Let them leave the country without being a Party apparatchik. Let them own property without the Party say so. Let them own their own inventions, and profit thereby. Let the currency float. Let freedom ring. But they will never do ANY of that so long as their ruling class fervently believes in "scientific socialism". Read their Constitution. It says it all. The western export sector is a managed "exception" that is rigorously maintained as such. And the wages are kept down not just for the national purpose of maintaining their economic black hole operation to suck in all the world's industry and technology. But to keep the peasants from becoming a true middle class (and hence ending your poverty issue)...and prevent democracy from finding fertile soil.

There are income disparities in China. But then again, it is typical when a country builds industry as fast as China has. Also, I hope you realize, there is no such thing as a purely capitalistic society. Every country has some degree of government intervention. China’s government reaches further than Western countries, but it is retrenching. As I’ve stated earlier, I believe, in the near future, France will have more industries controlled by government than China. The government in China is retrenching and combined with a growing private sector, China could someday be more capitalistic than most countries in Europe. I also believe democracy will come to China someday the way it did in South Korea and Taiwan.

One admission I will make, is that the China Hawks actually bring about a better China. However, I doubt that is their intentions.

Does the living standard pretense soothe your conscience?

Soothe my conscience? I didn’t know that if wasn’t an opinionated China Hawk, I should feel guilty about my views.

While meanwhile a policy of see-no-evil endangers the existence of liberty all across the globe...and the very existence of the U.S.A.?

You do know how to live life on the offensive.

No, obviously not. See the above explication. But you manifestly are, since you are opposed to challenging the Communists. You are opposed to evicting the communists, post-haste.

I am opposed to bringing the economic progress of China to a grinding halt, which I believe the China Hawks want to do. However, I do believe democracy will one day come to China, so in the meantime, why slow progress?

Also, another thing I am opposed to, are individuals that really couldn’t care less on how China is doing, but pretends to be so concerned about human rights and democracy over there. But when China modernizes and begins to make improvements, all of a sudden, appears a great concern about democracy and human rights in China (from the Hawks). Especially given that there are scores of countries out there that abuse human rights significantly more. Throughout the African continent, children are being forced into military conscription. In Afghanistan, women were forced to cover their whole bodies when they go out in public and beaten if they do not do so. No, it didn’t raise an eyebrow amongst the China Hawks who are so concerned about human rights in China. Not until 9/11.

Uh, I was responding to some of YOUR generalities...such as your latest, for example, the "living standard" pretextual justification to "see-no-evil". You denied that they were motivated by anything other than bettering their people's life styles. Not so.

The PRC pursues (in their value system) higher purposes than what you value in yours...which they would frankly deem petty. This is analogous to the distinction between Sparta and Athena. The Chinese as a whole understand (certainly the ones I have met) this militarized mindset perfectly well, as does the average jihadist, that they are at war with the United States. It is thus not surprising that Bejing's top military commanders thence met with Osama Bin Laden five times prior to 9-11. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So much for their just worrying about the living standards of their peasants...as they flagrantly risk getting all of them and us incinerated in a nuclear war.

Well, comparing the Chinese people to a small group of Jihadist, now I know the type of person I’m debating with.

Actually, not the society , no. Just the individuals who are invidious culprits in the mass delusion.

The American society by and large does, fortunately, show it has a real concern about all these things.

Yes, I agree, they do. Many go to China to work in the orphanages there. Many also go to adopt too. And, many are congressmen who vote for expanded trade with China.

Just because the New York Times and the liberal elite don't does not account for the American majority. It never gets polled, if you'll note by the Gallup organization, or if so,never published.

You seem to keep harping on the fact that the liberals are such China supporters. The reality is, they probably would partner with you in regards to China as a Hawk.

WHY do you think the country ousted Al Gore in 2004? Because of "compassionate" conservatism? Give me a break. The public knew RINOism is not as good as the Real Thing. Authentic Conservatism. But they weren't offered that...no authentic Reaganism, anyways. But still, we all knew half a loaf was better than none. They wanted honesty. They wanted national security. And most of all, the people wanted their own government again, not one catering to every whim of China's communist rulers. GWB appeared certainly better than the alternative of leaving the culprits in power. And the second election was a re-run of the first with still another Marxist Turncoat pretending to be something else as the Rat candidate, but the Iraq war muddling the issues. Again the conservative Base saved GWB bacon.

You like labeling people as either conservative or liberal, as being for or against communism, as either a Reaganist or Marxist.

I note you are fairly oblivious to the China-gate issue, and Los Alamos-gate, Lawrence Livermore-gate and the ongoing 3,000 PLA front companies and 450,000 spies and part-timers here. You don't answer any of the challenges, just try and pivot and play a new line. Typical.

I’m familiar with the topics. I also know that a lot of issues are blown out of proportion by the China Hawks when it concerns China.

Oh, really? Such as Demosthenes? Or Ronald Reagan? And of those you assert were wrong, how many influenced the policies successfully so that the collisions warned of were in fact averted? (Thus making them "wrong") I wouldn't mind be "wrong" under those circumstances. That's all we want. Policy change. Awareness. Stop tempting fate, and risking smugly blundering into a collossal strategic surprise. Not unlike Churchill. If he had been heeded, Hitler would have been ended without WW-II. He also warned us about the Soviets, and FDR laughed it off. So wave around your claim that there are "many" "wrong...folks" as if it in any way can apply to the real and growing threat of COMMUNIST China...which has openly declared itself an enemy at almost all levels but the diplomatic...where the arts of deception are feeding the self-delusory U.S. State-Dept types all the lines they want to hear. Suckers for the Lie of the Day.

I was just trying to be easy on you. But, the reality, how can you make a claim and compare yourself to Winston Churchhill? Anyone can make any kind of claim and then compare themselves to someone famous. That’s what a lot of people do with fad diets. They make outrageous claims on diet, and compare themselves to Louie Pasteur. Louie Pasteur made claims about bacteria, but his contemporaries mocked him. Louie Pasteur turned out to be right about bacteria. So the individual who thinks up these fad diets feels he’s in good company and thinks “When others mock my diet theory, I’m in the same boat as Louie Pasteur because they mocked him and he turned out to be right. So therefore I’m going to be right.” It’s flakey logic and that’s what you were doing.

The liberals are always shrilly foisting this guilt trip on Americans. This is a false dichotomy. The U.S. already does more than the rest of the planet put together trying to feed "the poor."

The issue of dying children throughout the world, is neither a liberal cause nor a conservative cause. If anything, it is a Christian cause. All those ads on TV about feeding the children have Christian backing and not partisan backing. I was merely making a point that you seem to believe that society is living in a vacuum just because the anti-China sentiment is not as strong yours. And my point is, there are other more significant or accurate measures that determine the level of indifference in a society than the China issue. And I gave an example of the 30,000 children who die every day as one measure. How about the human rights abuse in Sudan? Or the genocide in Rwanda? Has it gotten your goat up or are you still going to stew about China?

However, there is a graver threat. How many more people will starve or die far worse deaths still in WW-IV? Preventing WW-IV...on the cheap... is the best thing you can do for the global condition of mankind... Appeasement won't prevent it. It will merely feed the Dragon, and grow it, and make it more deadly. It merely postpones the day of reckoning.

Once again, you’re the one that has to prove the WWIII scenario. You’re going to have to convince a long list of “appeaser”, from the President of the United States to the Venezuelan oil tycoons to the Australian iron ore miners.

Literally. As a general truism. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I don’t see the connection…at all. .

There is no doubt our navy is the strongest on the planet. But it is foolish to underestimate any foe, particularly one with the monetary and personnel resourcs that the Chinese have. To assert that we are unassailable and never will be, is to invite a lack of vigilance.

We must take what the Chinese are currently doing in their shipyards right now seriously. If the imbalance in development and construction continues, one day we will wake up to a potential surprize similar to Dce 7, 1941.

We can avoid that possibility by doing what we must do to not only maintain our advantage, but by taking steps to undercut and negatively impact the PLAN activities. Right now that would involve painful economic decisions...but that would be less painful than military conflict that may well result if we do not.

See:

The Bush administration itself of late is making the case itself of the dangers posed by Red China and their military buildup. There are numerous articles on it including direct statements by Rumsfeld and this year's department of defense analysis of the growing Red Chinese military.

I believe what they are saying is both justified and overdue. But that is just my own personal opinion.

I take the Chinese economic/military threat very seriously, most notably their threats against Taiwan. This is precisely why I support a strong US military (I was a submariner in the US Navy so I know the capabilities of our fleet), and that is also why I know the last thing in the world the Chinese want is military conflict with us.

I believe the truth is that the last thing they should want is conflict with us...but I do not believe that they see it that way. They are rapidly developing their forces right now for that very eventuality.

I expect...unless there is a significant change in the economic and/or geo-political situation, that they will test that poremise by 2010. I pray I am wrong and feel that in order to avoid that scenario that we need to respond strongly and forthrightly to the emerging threat.

I was an XO aboard a nuclear attack sub (please forgive my vanity), I know the capabilities of our fleet (present and future) and those of our enemies', and in any confrontation with us the Chinese and Russian navies do not have a prayer, trust me.

The United States Navy is the most powerful military force the world has ever known.

This was once said of the British Navy. What happened? And what are the vectors of change for us even now? Be honest. No shading the truth, or evasion. Look at the numbers.

Actually, I have nothing to prove

Yes, you do. I see you haven't read their Constitution. And your assertion that my observations of the communists pretexts analogous to NAZI propaganda is somehow a "big leap"? Get real. If anything, my comparison was extremely tame...and inarguably accurate. Yet you try. And you completely fail to. Completely. You have no substantive argument at all. Bereft of any persuasive argument or theory even. You just standpat claiming that you stand for what the status quo is espousing. Well, you have a problem then. That same status quo you assert is pushing for open trade in China, is the same status quo that notes China is unreconstructed politically or culturally, and becoming increasingly a military threat. It is not the conservatives that have to explain the contradictions. It is the RINOs and globo-liberals...and their schills. Are you admitting being such? I note that you call anyone who observes there is a real chinese military threat is a "China HawK" and somehow has an ulterior motive. Whereas you see nothing wrong with people who try to profit by selling the U.S. out to China.... h'mmm. Appears you have an hypocrisy problem, as well.

In addition, you argue that China is obstructing the Western interests pushing for opening up more of the Chinese economy. Well, la dee da.

That is precisely consistent with what the conservatives would expect. And it confounds the liberals in the status quo. GM is going to have a major shareholder upheaval if they continue to let China steal its designs and technology. The plans to treble expansion is a clear fraud against those shareholders. The confounding actions of the Communist Party to isolate the bulk of its economy and populace from the West is not a contradiction to conservatives...but it is to liberals. And especially your beloved Senior GHWB . He is an unreconstructed globalist, and learned very little from Reagan.

I do believe democracy will one day come to China, so in the meantime, why slow progress?

Because it is your "progress" which is in fact preventing REAL progress. You are enabling the continued communist regime and its oppressions, not to mention the gathering threat. You have no idea if the trade activity, totally managed from their end, will ever upend their regime...although you piously bleat that this chimera prospect justifies your policies. The policies propping up the bad guys. Roooooight...

As for my having to convince a lot of these people, I am not surprised. That is what the Chinese Government has deliberately designed, if they could suborn and coopt \ our own investors and capitalists against our own national interest. That they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, all while keeping their communist slave system, is not a surprise to me or any conservative.

As for Billy Graham...let's face it. He has dementia...and has for some time. He has been brazenly putting the perverted phonies such as Bill and Hillary right up next to him, and then giving the microphone to Bubba. Yes, let's send missionaries to China. But not technology or industrial know-how. Graham is a fool in his dotage. He endorsed successively, Al Gore and John Kerry.

You're the one that has to prove the WW-III scenario

Not really. The Chinese say it all themselves:

China Threatens Nuclear War

The Financial Times reports a Chinese general said on Thursday that China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. if China is attacked by the U.S. during a confrontation over Taiwan:

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.

According to the Financial Times, General Zhu is a self-acknowledged “hawk” who has warned that China could strike the US with long-range missiles.

The article also quotes Rick Fisher, a former senior US congressional official and an authority on the Chinese military, as saying "the specific nature of the threat 'is a new addition to China's public discourse'. China's official doctrine has called for no first use of nuclear weapons since its first atomic test in 1964. But Gen Zhu is not the first Chinese official to refer to the possibility of using such weapons first in a conflict over Taiwan."

The United States Navy is the most powerful military force the world has ever known. The Chinese will never be able to match us at sea, two Seawolf (or Los Angeles class) subs could destroy their entire operational fleet.

That's a fact. The US Navy is not just more powerful than any other country’s navy, it is more powerful than the sum of the world's navies.

Developing US-Chinese Nuclear Naval Competition In Asia

email Email this article
print Print this article

by Richard Fisher, Jr.
Published on January 16th, 2005
ARTICLES

Recent revelations from Washington that China has launched its first second generation nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) point to the revival of a very Cold War style of military competition. As it did versus the former Soviet Union and does to a lesser extent against Russia today, the United States can be expected to counter China’s SSBN build up. So too can the Japanese, the Koreans, the Russians, the Indians, and others who are directly threatened. Chinese actions to date suggest that it may attempt to use its growing nuclear naval assets to enforce highly dubious territorial claims in her neighborhood, setting the stage for future naval "incidents," or even clashes.

China’s Submarine Build-Up

On December 3 the Washington Times revealed that in late July this year China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) had launched the first of its long-awaited second generation SSBN, called the Type 094.^[1] The first Type 094 followed the launching of only two second generation Type 093 nuclear attack submarines (SSN), indicating that after decades of preparation, China has accumulated the technologies and methods to begin series production of new modern nuclear submarines. The Type 094 is believed to be an extension of the Type 093, but with section containing 16 tubes for the new JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM).

Both submarines are believed to incorporate significant foreign technology, especially from Russia. Russia’s Rubin design bureau was reported to have assisted in the design of the Type 093^[2], which would have in turn influenced the Type 094. It is also reported that Russia has aided the PLAN with nuclear reactor propulsion technology^[3], an area where China needed help. Occasionally there have been suggestions, mainly in the Russian press, that the PLA would purchase new Russian SSNs like the very capable Akula-class, or the 24 large anti-ship missile carrying Oscar-class cruise missile submarine (SSGN). By purchasing either the PLA would be accelerating the capabilities of its nuclear submarine fleet.


	A 1997 U.S. Navy projection of the Type 094 SSBN, the first of which was launched in July 2004. Photo credit: U.S. Navy

In terms of performance, the Pentagon has described the Type 093 as comparable to the Russian Victor III SSN.^[4] This would present a remarkable advance over China’s first generation Type 091 Han class SSN-four of which are in PLAN service. The latter has a reported diving depth of 300 meters while the Victor III may be able to dive to 600 meters.^[5] The Victor III has also been described by the U.S. as nearly as quiet as early U.S. SSN 686 Los Angeles class SSN. Diving depth and stealth are among the key measures of submarine capability, conferring the tactical advantages needed to attack first or to avoid detection and stay alive. It is likely that China has also incorporated advanced Russian technology in the areas of sonar, combat systems and weapons on to both of its new nuclear submarines. The remaining Type 091 SSNs are suspected of having been improved by Russian nuclear propulsion and combat system technologies.

While no one suggests that the Type 093 or Type 094 are as capable as modern U.S. submarines, like the just-launched SSN 701 Virginia-class SSN or the Ohio class SSBN, China can be credited for having significantly closed the gap in nuclear submarine capabilities. But this achievement combined with the projected numbers of new Chinese submarines points to period of growing stress for the U.S. attack submarine fleet. In late 2003 China started building its third Type 093 SSN and some sources predict that six 093s and five to six 094s could be build by 2010. If true, this constitutes a rapid build-up of nuclear submarines.


	On the left, an early 2004 internet-source image of what appears to be the sail of a new Type 093 SSN. On the right, from the PRC magazine Modern Ships, a potentially accurate Chinese artist’s projection of the new Type 093 and Type 094 SSBN. The 093 in the rear is launching a cruise missile.

Non-Nuclear Sub Build-Up

But this is only half the story; China’s build-up of new non-nuclear submarines is proceeding faster. This year the PLAN is expected to take delivery of the first of eight new Russian Kilo 636M non-nuclear submarines, that will be armed with the unique 220km range Novator Club anti-ship missile. These are expected to be delivered by 2007. This is in addition to four Kilos already delivered, three of which reportedly will also be back fitted with the Club. This year China started producing in a second shipyard its indigenous Type 039A Song non-nuclear submarine. While the prototype experienced early difficulties, these were solved by the end of the 1990s, and series production now stands at about 11, and could easily reach 20 by 2010.

Then in June the PLAN launched the first of a brand new type of non-nuclear submarine, dubbed the Yuan class by the U.S. Navy.^[7] Suspected of incorporating technologies from Rubin’s new Amur class non-nuclear submarine, the Yuan appears to feature Russian-style double-hull construction which greatly aids combat survival. Internet-source photos of the Yuan also indicate it may incorporate a modern Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) system.^[8] Modern AIP systems can extend the underwater endurance of a non-nuclear sub by two or more weeks, reducing its vulnerability to detection by having to surface to recharge batteries. This confers the same tactical advantages of nuclear propulsion for much less cost. Operating silently and for weeks at a time, the Yuan would offer an inexpensive platform able to ambush more expensive U.S. SSNs or newly converted Ohio class cruise missile carrying submarines (SSGNs). The latter can carry up to 154 Tomohawk-class land-attack cruise missiles, and thus would be a major target for PLA submarines.


	An early 2005 internet-source image of the PLAN’s new “Yuan” class conventional attack submarine. First seen in the summer of 2004, two reportedly have been completed.

By 2010 the U.S. could be facing a new PLAN submarine fleet of about 10 SSNs, 5-6 SSBNs, and assuming the production of 5 Yuans, about 27 new very capable non-nuclear submarines. In addition, the PLAN may retain most of about 20 older but still effective Type 035 "Ming" class non-nuclear submarines, for a potential total approaching 50 to 60 attack submarines alone. Today the U.S. Navy only has 55 attack submarines to cover its global security commitments. Shockingly, there were suggestions from within the Navy in early 2004 that this fleet could be reduced to 37 in order to pay for newer submarines.^[9] While three Los Angeles class SSNs have been moved to Guam, this is only sufficient to support one submarine continuously deployed. According to some sources budget cutters apparently reduced this number from six. However, China’s projected submarine fleet build-up makes the current U.S. SSN fleet of 55 SSNs seem inadequate.

China’s Possible SSBN Bastion Strategy

China now has two choices for employing its SSBNs. It can sail them out to deep sea as single stealthy combatants, U.S.-style, or keep them close to base and build a navy to protect them. It was the latter doctrine that was pioneered by the former Soviet Union; it build a navy designed to protect "Bastions" within its geographically restricted seas which sought to ensure that SSBNs could carry out their mission to launch their missiles against the U.S., NATO or China. This bastion doctrine deftly sought to turn unfavorable geography into an advantage as well as compensate for the inferiority of its submarines compared to the Americans. The Soviet Navy was made submarine-heavy, with surface warships and land-based bombers designed to cooperate with them to defend SSBN operating areas in the Bering Sea and in the Sea of Okhotsk near the Kamchatka Peninsula. When the Soviet Navy built aircraft carriers for vertical take-off fighters in the 1970s, and then for conventional take-off aircraft in the 1980s, they too were designed principally to defend SSBNs. This doctrine was intended to ensure the Soviet leadership a secure nuclear second-strike capability.

China’s Army-dominated military leadership faces challenge and opportunities similar to those faced by the Soviets. The opportunity is presented by the emergence of the new JL-2 SLBM, which the U.S. Department of Defense in 1998 estimate would have a range of 7,500 nautical miles^[10], or 13,890km. As the Cox Report noted in 1999: "The long range of the JL-2 submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile will allow the PRC to conduct patrols close to its base, and under the protective cover the PLA Navy and Air Force."^[11] The PLAN’s current major nuclear submarine base is at Huludao on the Yellow Sea, which is surrounded mainly by Chinese territory. In areas near Chinese territory, the Yellow Sea is rarely deeper than 50 meters, but drops to 100 meters closer to the Korean peninsula. Even if all the PLA intends to do is let their SSBNs rest on the sea-bed mud, this is rather shallow for SSBN operations. The PLA would have to devote considerable resources to defend the Yellow Sea or fight forces that would bloc PLA SSBN access to deeper waters in the East China Sea.


	The JL-2 SLBM will enable new Type 094 SSBNs to simply patrol in the Bohai Sea, surrounded by PRC territory. However, this is also a shallow sea and will require heavy defenses, to include many mines, surface ships and fighters.

This unfavorable ocean topography may be one reason why the PLA has decided to build a second nuclear submarine base in the South. Sources in three Asian governments have told the author that this new nuclear submarine base will be at the existing sub base at Yulin, on Hainan Island, while a PLA source notes it is merely an expansion of the existing base.^[12] Going Southeast of Hainan a Type 094 SSBN can quickly find deep operating zones that go beyond 1,000 meters. This base would reduce the time needed for surface ships to defend SSBN access to deep water, and when there Type 093 SSNs could more effectively combat U.S. SSNs. Basing Type 094s at Yulin would ensure "second-strike" coverage for India but may only allow limited JL-2 coverage of the U.S.


	PLA sources confirm that the PLA Navy is building new facilities for nuclear submarines at Yulin base, on the Southwest of Hainan Island. This base will allow PLAN nuclear submarines rapid access to deep waters in the South China Sea.

Given that there is an active lobby within the PLA and the Chinese government to build conventional take-off aircraft carriers, it remains to be determined whether the Chinese leadership will build a pro-SSBN navy or one more suited to conventional power-projection. Nevertheless, China is now rapidly building three new classes of modern air defense destroyers and the PLA Navy Air Force is buying two new types of advanced fighter-bombers that will give it the option of combining sub, surface and land-based airpower to defend potential Bastions in the Yellow or South China Seas. And looking to the future, the PLA is also investing in new advanced ship-based sonar anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems. These include modern towed-array sonar, which consist of hundreds of transducers embedded in a flexible tube, technology the U.S. has perfected for prosecuting deep-sea submarines. Such sonar would allow future PLA Navy destroyers and frigates to move SSBN operations to deeper sea areas near China.

But at the same time the PLA Navy may be refurbishing the old Soviet-era carrier Varyag, which has resided in Dalian port since 2002. The irony is that this carrier was originally designated for the Soviet Pacific Fleet-to fulfill bastion defense missions. It is known that the architect of China’s current naval build-up, former Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Liu Huaqing, was an ardent admirer of Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, who ran the Soviet Navy with an iron hand for 30 years and led it to its independent nuclear mission. Liu very likely admired Gorshkov’s wisdom in justifying a naval build up around a pro-nuclear mission that would then lay the groundwork for a larger power-projection Navy that would serve to defend more distant future interests.^[13]

It is likely that the PLA will become more "aggressive" about defending peripheral areas that may become potential Type 094 SSBN operating areas. In October 1994 a Type 091 SSN came close to the carrier USS Independence when it entered the Yellow Sea. When the carrier sent S-3 Viking ASW aircraft to shadow the SSN, PLA Navy fighters were sent to shadow the U.S. aircraft. And in 2001 and 2002, PLA Navy forces harassed the survey ship USS Bowditch as it surveyed areas in the Yellow Sea.^[14] On April 1, 2001 a PLA Navy Shenyang J-8II fighter collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 electronic intelligence aircraft, killing the Chinese pilot, but leading to Chinese exploitation of the EP-3 which made an emergency landing on Hainan. And then from October to early November 2004, U.S. and Japanese naval forces monitored the voyage of a Type 091 SSN, which circumnavigated Guam, before making a brief but high-profile incursion into Japanese territorial waters. Such sorties are likely to increase as Type 093 SSNs enter service.

To support SSBN and SSN operations it is likely that there will be a general PLA naval and air build-up around the Yellow Sea and on Hainan. PLA Air Forces and Naval Air Forces being focused on Taiwan could easily be shifted North to support pro-submarine operations in the Yellow Sea. This area will also likely see intensive distribution of naval mines, a weapon in which the PLA Navy has invested heavily. Taiwanese sources expect that a future unit of PLA Navy Su-30MKK2 fighter-bombers will be based on Hainan Island. The PLA can be expected to further build up its based in the Paracel Island chain, especially its airbase on Woody Island. In addition, both areas will benefit from new maritime patrol aircraft the PLA intends to purchase. These may include up to 10 Russian Beriev Be-200 turbofan-powered amphibious transports outfitted for patrol missions.^[15]

Will The US Respond As It Has Done Before ?

During the Cold War the U.S. Navy did not let the Soviet Navy rests secure in its Bastions, a message that the PLA should heed well. During the 1980s the Reagan Administration’s "Maritime Strategy" sought to take a future war into the Soviet submarine bastions in order to defend the U.S. from Soviet SLBM strikes.^[16] U.S. nuclear attack submarines stressed sonar and stealth capabilities so as to excel in anti-submarine warfare. The SSN-21 Seawolf epitomized the U.S. quest for the most quiet, deep diving and well armed nuclear attack submarine for the mission of prosecuring Soviet SSBN bastions. It is likely that the U.S. Navy continues to undertake SSN patrols near potential Russian SSBN operating areas; it was rumored that a U.S. Los Angeles class SSN was nearby when the Russian Oscar-class SSBN Kursk suffered a fatal internal explosion in August 2000.^[17]

In Asia, during the length of the Cold War, the U.S. stationed air and naval forces in Japan that also could have prosecuted Soviet SSBNs stationed with the Soviet Pacific Fleet operating bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka. These included an aircraft carrier, nuclear attack submarines and Lockheed-Martin P-3 Orion ASW patrol aircraft assigned to the 7th Fleet. But U.S. Air Force strike aircraft based in Japan and South Korea would also have attacked Soviet naval forces, both submarines and the ships designed to support them.

Partially in response to the PLA Navy submarine build-up, the U.S. Navy has revived its interesting ASW, which had been flagging during the 1990s. Over the last decade the U.S. had decided to mothball its Spruance class destroyers, perhaps one of the best ASW ships ever built. The Navy also ended the ASW mission of the S-3 Viking in 1998 and will not even replace this platform when it is withdrawn from service in about two years. Perhaps more alarming are budget driven pressures to reduce the overall numbers of the U.S. SSN fleet. The U.S. Navy now has 55 attack submarines, but in mid-2004 the Navy considered reducing this to 37 in part to help pay for new Virginia-class SSNs.^[18] To compensate, the Navy was considering basing up to 9 SSNs at Guam. And in early 2005 U.S. defense budget reductions have raised concerns that the Navy can afford the new Boeing-737 based Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft selected in 2004 to replace P-3C ASW aircraft.^[19] The Navy may also be forces to relinquish two planned Virginia-class SSNs.^[20]


	Current defense budget cutbacks threaten the Navy’s Boeing Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft, which is slated to replace the aging P-3C ASW patrol aircraft. Credit: Boeing Photo

Near-term pressures on the U.S. Navy come from the need to maintain carriers deployed in the Persian Gulf to support Coalition forces in Iraq, but also from a potential requirement to be able to immediately respond to a PLA attack on Taiwan, and to counter future PLA SSBNs. The Taiwan requirement is in part spurring the U.S. Navy and Air Force to build up forces on Guam. But looking toward the future the U.S. must also respond to the rapid build up of PLA SSBN and SSN forces. As during the Cold War, sustaining a capability to prosecute PLA SSBNs constitutes a form of missile defense for the American people. In addition, the ability to threaten the PLA’s nuclear second-strike platforms serves to degrade Chinese leadership confidence in their nuclear forces, which can reduce the incentives for these leaders to use force against the U.S. or its allies.

However, building a credible capability to defend against new PLA SSBNs will require a sizable investment. It would be very unwise to consider deep cuts in U.S. SSN numbers at this time or in the future. Indeed, it is correct to consider that the U.S. may have to increase SSN numbers, to include building more than the current three Seawolf-class SSNs. The Seawolf is more expensive than the Virginia, but can also dive deeper and carry more weapons: 50 vs. 38. The Navy also needs a new carrier-based long-range ASW aircraft to counter the ability of PLA submarines to launch the 220km-range Russian Club anti-ship missile. Absent such a new ASW aircraft, then the Navy’s Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft takes on greater urgency, as its greater speed will make it more survivable in PLA bastion areas sure to be defended by many PLA jet fighters. This turbo-fan powered jet transport based aircraft will be faster and more survivable than the slower turboprop powered P-3C, and must be available to offer a successor to other P-3 users.

There is also a need to invest in new technologies that can increase ASW capabilities without necessarily increasing personnel commitments. For example, some of the new ASW aircraft could be unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) with data links to ships and aircraft. In addition, to penetrate possible PLA SSBN bastions, the U.S. might develop new large unmanned underwater combat vehicles. These might simply be stationed on the seabed near PLA SSBN bases for years, to be activated during times of tension. In addition, there should be an additional effort to develop space based surveillance systems able to penetrate shallow waters around PLA nuclear sub bases. Platforms like the Virginia SSN and the Boeing Multi-Mission Maritime Aircraft will also be essential to the employment of future long-range unmanned weapons.

US Geographic-Maritime Imperatives

The rise of the Chinese SSBN challenge serves to reemphasize enduring Asian maritime imperatives for Washington. As the lack of access to Western Pacific bases lengthened the U.S. war against Japan after 1941, access to Japanese and Philippine bases served to constrain Soviet Cold War naval ambitions in Asia, and allow for Reagan’s successful Maritime Strategy against Soviet SSBN bastions.^[21] Should the U.S. decide as a matter of contributing to strategic missile defense, to contest future PLA SSBN operating zones, then Washington will also have to make sure its allies accept this new mission as part of normal alliance cooperation.

As it sought during the 1990s to prevent U.S. missile defense cooperation in Asia in the face of its growing missile forces, as its nuclear naval forces grow, Beijing can be expected to put political pressure on Japan Australia and Singapore to constrain their naval cooperation with the U.S SSBNs. Access to Japanese and Australian bases for U.S. forces, in addition to their acceptance of increasing U.S. forces at Guam, will provide protection to our Asian allies from PLA nuclear-armed SLBMs.

By its location Taiwan serves to sever the sea lines of communication between the Straits of Malacca, through which nearly all Asian energy supplies pass, and Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. It also lies between the PLAN’s North Sea Fleet and South Sea Fleet nuclear submarines. Access to Taiwan’s harbors, in case of conquest or unification, would place the PLA in a position to threaten key Sea Lines of Communication, for example by Type 094s operating from deep seas off of Taiwan’s East Coast, and control energy supplies to all of Asia to the north. Or, to deter the United States, the PLAN could conduct SSBN patrols further east of Taiwan to allow JL-2 SLBMs to cover all of the United States.

Taiwan as future SSBN base: Should it conquer Taiwan the PLA is sure to move SSBN bases there to exploit Taiwan’s quick access to deep-water operating areas, in dark blue, that can also be defended by land-based aircraft.

For these reasons, it makes sense for Taiwan to have submarine and ASW capabilities. Furthermore, given the increasing utility of conventional submarines, it probably makes sense for the U.S. Navy to consider moderating is taboos, and cooperating, say with the Japanese, so that we can master the rapidly advancing technology of conventional, ultra-quiet, AIP submarines. Given European unwillingness to cooperate, the best option is for the US and Japan to develop a world-beating conventional submarine of their own, and put the others out of business.

[1] Bill Gertz, "China Tests Ballistic Missile Submarine," The Washington Times, December 3, 2004

[2] "Russia Helps China Take New SSNs into Silent Era," Jane’s Defence Weekly, August 13, 1997, p. 14.

[3] Gertz, op-cit.

[4] Report to Congress Pursuant to the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. July 28, 2003, p. 27, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf, hereafter referred to a "DoD PLA Report."

[5] "Victor III (Project 671RTM(K))," IMDS 2003, International Maritime Defense Show, St. Petersburg 25-29 June 2003.

[6] Interviews, Taipei, November 2004.

[7] Bill Gertz, "Chinese produce new type of submarine," The Washington Times, July 16, 2004.

[8] Internet-source pre-launch pictures of the Yuan hull show engine-area openings that may be consistent with AIP cooling ports.

[9] Bryan Bender, "Navy eyes cutting submarine force," The Globe, May 12, 2004.

[10] "Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat," Department of Defense, 1998, cited in Report of the Select Committee On U.S. National Security And Military/Commercial Concerns With The People’s Republic of China, Submitted by Mr. Cox of California, Chairman, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999, p. 187, Footnote 26, p. 256.

[11] Report of the Select Committee…op cit., p. 193.

[12] Interviews, 2002 to 2004.

[13] See author, "China’s Carrier Of Chance," China Brief, Jamestown Foundation, March 14, 2002, http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=18&issue_id=646&article_id=4621

[14] "US, China in new naval dispute," MSNBC, September 19, 2002.

[15] "Chinese BE-200," Flight International, November 23-29, 2004, p. 24.

[16] For a thorough examination of the evolution of the U.S. Maritime Strategy in the 1980s, see, John B. Hattendorf, The Evolution of the U.S. Navy’s Maritime Strategy, 1977-1986, Newport, RI: Naval War College Press, 1999, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/npapers/np19/NP19.pdf

[17] Some reports note a PLA Navy officer also perished on the Kursk.

[18] Bryan Bender, "Navy eyes cutting submarine force," Globe, May 12, 2004.

[19] David A. Fulghum and Robert Wall, "About-Face," Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 3, 2005, p. 20.

[20] William Matthews, Gopal Ratnam, and Megan Scully, "DoD Cuts Not What They Seem," Defense News, January 10, 2005, p. 6.

[21] For a recent review of enduring maritime strategic imperative for the U.S., see Robyn Lim and James Auer, "The Maritime Basis Of American Security In Asia," Naval War College Review, Winter 2001, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Winter/art3-w01.htm

back to top ^

You esteem the U.S. Navy. Then listen to one of its top advisers from the Reagan Adminstration forward to this day...:

"However, building a credible capability to defend against new PLA SSBNs will require a sizable investment. It would be very unwise to consider deep cuts in U.S. SSN numbers at this time or in the future. Indeed, it is correct to consider that the U.S. may have to increase SSN numbers, to include building more than the current three Seawolf-class SSNs."

Chess Lover Since Aug 23, 2005

Welcome to Free Republic. Excellent material in your post. I noticed you hit the Chinese "lebensraum" issue dead-bang on. No doubt PonderLife will equivocate whether he had called that same exact point I made "quite a leap." He has a lot of crow to eat. LOL !! Almost everything he has said he will have to eat.

But seriously, You need to visit the HTML boot camp. Also, Organizational Headings and margins are our friends! Especially paragraph breaks and spacing....from all indications, you have a valuable potential to contribute. You could just use a little help on some stylistic conventions.

Thanks again for your contribution to the discussion.

The Chinese may be trying to get a carrier in service but not for use against the U.S. They may want it to scare Vietnam or other local littoral competitors. This theory precludes trying to attack Taiwan for the foreseeable future or any other place the U.S. might deem it in interests to intervene. But what if they went after Burma for practice/prestige who would stop them and why.

It may turn out that these smaller countries feel threatened, but I really doubt that is their intention. I think China does have to deal with the fears of neighbors. The Chinese may resent having to always explain themselves, but being such a large country with military to boot, they may have to do that.

That carrier will look great as an artificial reef at the bottom of the Taiwan Straits.