Obama Won't Back Down After Chinese Threat, Sends U.S. Warships [Trunc]

The article has been re-posted on Zero Hedge at the following location:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-12/obama-wont-back-down-after-chinese-threat-sends-warships-china-islands-matter-days

Agree. Another example is Hillary (and her gf) improperly handling thousands of classified documents and to date not charged with anything, while CIA director David Petraeus was sentenced to two years' probation and fined $100,000 for allowing his biographer (and gf) access to only his personal notebook.

The original link was broken, it is fixed now.

Very good! Thank you!!

How weird!
Thanks very much for remembering me!!
You are most kind and thoughtful.
God bless.

All right!
Thank you!

Thanks for your kind words.

:-)

The US has already flown (as indicated in the article) P-8 aircraft near the islands and you can watch the video where Chinese personnel warned the P-8s off and to, "go now." The P-8 did not divert away but continued on.

The US has also sent the USS Ft. Worth, LCS-3,a nd a Burke destroyer into the area and they were tailed by a Chinese frigate.

The new bases the Chinese have created through reclamation efforts (there are seven of them and three of them have 3,000 meter runways), are impressive. But they are clearly artificial constructs on top of reefs that were mostly covered before at high tide.

See my photo album:

PRC South China sea Artificial Islands

Therefor, by international law they are not "islands," and not afforded a 12-mile limit.

I expect US vessels to sail up to possibly a four mile limit recognized in such instances. I expect the Chinese will bluster and say that they "wanre" us, and that we will announce that we maintained Freedom of Navigation. I do nto expect much more than that. sort of old cold war tactics but now in the South China Sea with China.

I would have responded to the chinese, I will take a number 1 with extra soy. LMAO. Here is the vid.

Hahaa. Please send Wrong Way Wang Wei to deliver my take out.

These “islands” are 500 freaking miles off China’s mainland - and they are claiming them as “territorial” waters? Give me a break! The big issue is that militarizing those islands gives China a way to launch a two-pronged attack against Taiwan ... Even Obama cannot be dumb enough to allow that to happen. It would also give China control over a major shipping lane ... And then Japan is at risk. This is one time I agree with the Administration - the U.S. must not back down on this confrontation.

“Ooh, wook at dat - he weally is bwack!”

So, you’d prefer $4 or $5 a gallon gasoline at the pumps, eh?

In your world, it’s quite acceptable to bankrupt the American people - specifically the middle class ... Funny how so many of the “elitists” here seem to have no problem with kicking the working stiff in the balls over and over again. I guess you get your effing jollies off of that, eh?

I really do not feel bad for the oil industry. They made a killing on we of the “less connected” peasantry class - and I rather enjoy not spending half my paycheck to fill my tank every other day. When you live in the sticks, and your job is 80 miles away (800 miles per week), that entails filling the tank every other day!

So you’d prefer it cost me 50-60 dollars for 14 gallons of gas, rather than 25-30, just to keep your buddies in the petroleum business rolling in the doe. Nice guy - Thanks a lot.

An armed Village People?

ANOTHER RED LINE
ANOTHER RED LINE RETREAT

From the campaign trail, 2008...

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090412030633/http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
___________________________________________________

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.
___________________________________________________

Also from 2008...

2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008

GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."

To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090326011643/http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf

*******************************************************************

From the Sino-Russian Joint Statement of April 23, 1997:
"The two sides [China and Russia] shall, in the spirit of partnership, strive to promote the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international order."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HI29Ag01.html
______________________________________________________________

"Joint war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Friendship and Cooperation Treaty signed in 2001, and reflect the shared worldview and growing economic ties between the two Eastern Hemisphere giants."

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2005/09/war-games-russia-china-grow-alliance

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170287,00.html
______________________________________________________________

Sept 11, 2014

China and Russia to build major seaport: report

China and Russia will build one of the largest ports in north-east Asia on Russia’s Sea of Japan coast, reports say, in a further sign of the powerhouses’ growing alliance.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-11/china-and-russia-to-build-major-seaport-report/5738036
______________________________________________________________

Obama: "We Welcome China's Rise"
CBS News ^ | January 19, 2011 | Stephanie Condon
______________________________________________________________

"According to the Washington Free Beacon, Russia’s nuclear arsenal how has over 100 nuclear warheads above the limit set by the treaty.

Since the treaty was launched, Russia has deployed 111 new nuclear warheads, bringing its total number of deployed warheads to 1,648. That treaty limit is 1,550 warheads — a number that must be reached in 2018.

Comparatively, the numbers of U.S. nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers have fallen dramatically and are already below the limits set by the treaty. Additionally, the United States has decreased the number of warheads in its deployed nuclear arsenal by 250.

While the United States intends to eliminate heavy bombers and launchers, Russia has launched a strategic nuclear force expansion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also recently announced a new doctrine that placed priority on nuclear forces.

If this raises concern for you, you are not alone.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, said Russia “is in the business of violating treaties.”

Rogers said Putin has violated several agreements and treaties in the past, and he simply “violates any treaty or agreement that puts limits on capabilities that Mr. Putin and his cronies desire.”

“Russia’s arguable adherence to the New START Treaty just indicates how bad a deal it is for the United States,” he said.

Adm. William Gortney, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, said Wednesday that Russia has read our play book and is “fielding cruise missiles that are very, very accurate, very long range.”

Gortney said these missiles have the ability to reach targets in Canada and the United States. He added that Russia has been participating in war game scenarios recently that simulate cruise missile strikes in Alaska.

This news is serious because it appears Russia has no intention of abiding by New START or any other treaty. We should therefore be building up our military and our arsenals instead of depleting them.

source:
http://theminorityreportblog.com/2015/10/11/red-alert-russia-just-did-this-to-its-nuclear-arsenal-and-it-should-put-us-on-high-alert/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

===============================================================

From the FreeBeacon:

Russia Adds 111 Warheads Under Arms Treaty
Moscow warheads above New START treaty limit

By: Bill Gertz
October 9, 2015

Russia has now deployed more than 100 nuclear warheads in its strategic arsenal above the limits set by the New START arms treaty limits—two years before it must meet treaty arms reduction goals.

New START nuclear warhead and delivery system numbers made public Oct. 1 reveal that since the 2010 arms accord went into force, Moscow increased the number of deployed nuclear warheads by a total of 111 weapons for a total of 1,648 deployed warheads. That number is 98 warheads above the treaty limit of 1,550 warheads that must be reached by the 2018 deadline of the treaty.

At the same time, U.S. nuclear warheads, missiles, and bombers have fallen sharply and remain below the required levels under the New START pact.

The United States during the same period of the Russian increases cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by 250 warheads. ..."(more...)

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-adds-111-warheads-under-arms-treaty/

************************************************

The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions
Congressional Research Service

Summary

The United States and Russia signed the New START Treaty on April 8, 2010. After more than 20 hearings, the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification on December 22, 2010, by a vote of 71-26. Both houses of the Russian parliament—the Duma and Federation Council— approved the treaty in late January 2011, and it entered into force on February 5, 2011, after Secretary of State Clinton and Foreign Minister Lavrov exchanged the instruments of ratification.

New START provides the parties with 7 years to reduce their forces, and will remain in force for a total of 10 years. It limits each side to no more than 800 deployed and nondeployed land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers and deployed and nondeployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments.

Within that total, each side can retain no more than 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments. The treaty also limits each side to no more than 1,550 deployed warheads; those are the actual number of warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, and one warhead for each deployed heavy bomber.

New START contains detailed definitions and counting rules that will help the parties calculate the number of warheads that count under the treaty limits. Moreover, the delivery vehicles and their warheads will count under the treaty limits until they are converted or eliminated according to the provisions described in the treaty’s Protocol. These provisions are far less demanding than those in the original START Treaty and will provide the United States and Russia with far more flexibility in determining how to reduce their forces to meet the treaty limits. ..."

New START Treaty: PDF:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf

And further, didn’t we just announce that we are shutting down the last facility that could make enriched uranium?

Don’t know. But I’ve been warning here about the growing Russia-China alliance and their stated “new international order” quest for years, with barely a response.

I laughed so hard when I first seen this. I swear one of those chinese on there sounds like Kim Jong Il on Team America. Herro! LMAO

So you’d prefer it cost me 50-60 dollars for 14 gallons of gas, rather than 25-30, just to keep your buddies in the petroleum business rolling in the doe. Nice guy - Thanks a lot.

The buddies I have who work in the oil industry are working stiffs just like you. Most with a family to feed and school children to clothe. I'm for free markets, as devoid of manipulation as possible, setting prices. Not some "ultra elite" like Soros having connections to your president, and the Saudis, setting those prices.

If the price of oil is forced below the point where private US companies are unable to make a profit, many will go bankrupt, eliminating competition for the OPEC countries. What do you think will happen then? They'll raise the price to what ever want. And if we do something they don't like, like in 70's they'll cut the supply of oil to us. Then how are you going to get to work?

Soros, since the days of his youth by all accounts, has benefited from the misery of others. Most of his wealth he accumulated by manipulation of one market or another.