Posted on 02/14/2003 4:27:31 PM PST by vannrox
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Russia delivered the latest batch of advanced SU-30MKK fighter bombers to China within the past month and additional jets are on the way, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
Russia's arms exports used to be public. But under pressure from Beijing, Moscow agreed to keep secret its major weapons systems transfers to China.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
And you must, of course, ignore the longstanding hostility that the allegedly consorting nations have had towards each other in order to sustain your thesis...
I would view Germany as a far more likely military adversary in the next 20 years than China.
Anyone who thinks Russia and China would (a) ally together (China has irredentist claims on Siberia that are far more likely to start a war than not) and (b) would form some form of "great power" if they did magically set aside their differences needs to redefine "great power." By the new definition you're proposing, Chad and Nigeria would be a greater power than China and Russia.
China is Enron with nuclear weapons. Russia is a bankrupt nation with nuclear weapons. Pretty soon, China will hit the same great crash...and the question will be "will the first nuclear civil war be fought in Russia, or in China?"
If you're looking for an Axis...my bet would be on a German-South American Axis as the most likely one.
Red China and Russia unite to create New World Order says communist newspaper (6/18/01)
Russia, China sign historic friendship treaty (7/16/01)
Jiang calls for new order to counter US (7/17/01)
Russia to hold military drills with China:1st time in more than 30 years (4/28/02)
...and (b) would form some form of "great power" if they did magically set aside their differences needs to redefine "great power."
And, of course, communist newspapers are paragons of factual reporting.
Russia, China sign historic friendship treaty (7/16/01)
Russia and Germany sign non-aggression pact, August, 1939.
It's called "international relations" because it consists of countries playing "f*** your buddy."
Jiang calls for new order to counter US (7/17/01)
So do France and Germany.
Russia to hold military drills with China:1st time in more than 30 years (4/28/02)
Putin and Jiang hold knives to each other's backs while they smile for the cameras.
Actually, you're far more predictable than I ever will be.
I am beginning to wonder if you are a flesh and blood being, or, an AI program which design pattern is to automatically refute any and all claims of PRC military arms increase.
Kindly quit defaming me, good sir.
I don't deny that the PRC is increasing it's military capabilities. I point out that the PRC's military capabilities are, even at their improved levels, not very good--and that the PRC has serious structural problems associated with over five decades of Communist rule.
I wonder why you think that the PRC never makes the dumb mistakes endemic to totalitarian regimes. Perhaps you find their system of governance more congenial to your ideology.
You seemingly cannot encounter a thread on Chinese armament that you do not reflexively downplay.
You seemingly cannot encounter a thread on Chinese armament that you do not reflexively lose control of your sphincters and scream that the sky is falling.
The question I have is, why?
Because I know what I'm talking about, and you're a fearful, weak-kneed, wannabe cheese-eating surrender monkey.
I take a realistic view of ChiCom military prowess.
I recognize that until the ChiComs can successfully conquer the 100 miles of water between the mainland and Taiwan (read: until the ChiComs actually build a worthwhile navy, which will take longer than they have before the alarm clock of history goes off), they are forever trapped on the Eurasian landmass--and the only feasible route for their expansive energies is the territory of their alleged ally.
Absent a clear and present danger of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, you're not going to get that. (And, given what we've learned about the competence of the overly-vaunted Red Army since 1991, even a renewed threat of Soviet invasion won't gain us much of a plus-up in numbers.)
The present US military is many times more lethal than the US military of 1991.
And in terms of recent tactics, if anything, I think we surrendered a small and inexcusible amount when the ChiCOM bast#@# hit our EP-3, and, instead of using it as an unambiguous opportunity to set a boundary on behavior, we squirmed and negotiated.
It's very easy for you to be a macho chest-thumper. You don't get to deal with the consequences of f***ing up.
Yes, you have me read all wrong. I am an advocate of the views taken in the book "While America Sleeps" among others.
I respect Mr. Kagan's work; I disagree with his conclusions. He assumes that the historic failures of totalitarian regimes were accidental as opposed to systemic (the latter is true), and he further assumes that we can't give up peacekeeping missions in times of national urgency.
And, I am proudly Bismarckian, well beyond current (and pathetic) American norms. Someday, you will hopefully see the value of this. But I won't count on it....
I'm careful to remember that Bismarck put Germany onto the path that resulted in their losing World Wars I and II.
By and large, the dismissive attitudes of these cheap so called "hawks," seen on this thread, remind me of those published back in the late 1860s by various French pundits, which labeled anyone calling attention to the Prussian arms build ups as "alarmist." Naturally, this was to be expected in a nation where accountants defined the military and no one dared call for any real public sacrifice. In contrast, to the northeast, in Prussia, the military defined the military... and told the accountants how much they needed to spend in order to be victorious)
Reference materials:
[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17].
I don't recall seeing YOU anywhere near where the fecal material was impacting the rotating impeller, son.
By and large, the dismissive attitudes of these cheap so called "hawks," seen on this thread, remind me of those published back in the late 1860s by various French pundits, which labeled anyone calling attention to the Prussian arms build ups as "alarmist."
By and large, your insults are quite dismissable, as is what passes for "analysis" in your mental world.
Naturally, this was to be expected in a nation where accountants defined the military and no one dared call for any real public sacrifice.
When folks like you talk of "public sacrifice," I start getting suspicious.
In contrast, to the northeast, in Prussia, the military defined the military... and told the accountants how much they needed to spend in order to be victorious)
Well, we have this odd concept that the American military remains under the authority of the civilian government instead of the other way around. Kindly note that Prussia bought short-term success at a ghastly long-term price. What worries me is that the usual suspects in Germany are starting to ignore the lessons of that experience.
Reference materials:
Let's see. We have someone who doesn't know the difference between a SAM and a ballistic missile; we have the charlatan Stanislav Lunev (who somehow has access to the most secret Russian documents published AFTER his alleged defection); and, finally, we have Yossef Bodansky (who, absent hard facts on Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, makes stuff up).
I might take you a tad more seriously if you actually engaged in something resembling real analysis instead of cutting, pasting, linking, and panicking (in that order).
February 18, 2003
Ship gets arms in and out
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The North Korean ship that last year delivered Scud missiles to Yemen transferred a large shipment of chemical weapons material from Germany to North Korea recently, U.S. intelligence officials said.
The ship, the Sosan, was monitored as it arrived in North Korea earlier this month carrying a shipment of sodium cyanide, a precursor chemical used in making nerve gas, said officials familiar with intelligence reports.
The same ship was stopped by U.S. and Spanish naval vessels Dec. 9 as it neared Yemen. It was carrying 15 Scud missiles and warheads. After a brief delay and assurances from the Yemeni government, the ship was allowed to proceed to Yemen with the missile shipment.
After unloading the missiles in Yemen, the Sosan then traveled to Germany, where it took on a cargo of sodium cyanide estimated to weigh several tons. The ship then was tracked as it traveled to North Korea. It arrived at the west coast seaport of Nampo on Thursday, the officials said.
Disclosure of the chemical shipment comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea over Pyongyang's nuclear activities. The North Koreans were found to have violated a 1994 agreement to freeze plutonium production and other agreements prohibiting it from making nuclear arms.
The Bush administration is planning in the coming months to impose sanctions aimed at halting weapons shipments to North Korea and cutting off funds sent to the communist state by Korean residents in Japan, said an administration official. The plans were first reported yesterday by the New York Times.
North Korea's official media have said that any sanctions imposed on the country would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
The official Korean Central News Agency confirmed that the Sosan arrived at Nampo on Thursday.
At a press conference, the captain and crew answered questions for reporters and said that the Dec. 9 incident was an act of U.S. piracy.
The Sosan's captain, Kang Cholryong, told the news agency that the crew, not wanting to surrender their cargo to the United States, tried to set the ship on fire and sink it but were stopped by U.S. commandos who boarded from helicopters.
"The United States should be fully responsible for this piratical act and make a formal apology and due compensation to the [North Korean] government for it," the KCNA report stated.
The action against the ship was "part of the premeditated and brigandish moves of the U.S. imperialists to isolate and stifle [North Korea] and dominate the world with their policy of strength," it stated.
Sodium cyanide is a dual-use chemical. It is used to make the nerve gas sarin, as well as commercial products including pesticides and plastics.
The chemical is controlled by the 34-nation Australia Group, a voluntary coalition of states that agree to curb exports of dual-use chemicals that can boost the chemical weapons programs of states like North Korea. Germany is a member of the group.
A German Embassy spokesman could not be reached for comment.
South Korea's defense ministry stated last year that North Korea has a stockpile of between 2,500 and 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, including 17 different types of agents.
The ministry stated in a report made public in September that North Korea can produce 4,500 tons of chemical weapons agents annually. It also can produce a ton of biological weapons agent a year.
Sodium cyanide is an ingredient of the deadly nerve agent sarin, a small amount of which can kill a human.
The intercept of the Sosan near Yemen in December highlighted divisions within the Bush administration over how to act in curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile-delivery systems, U.S. officials said.
White House National Security Council officials supported seizing the missiles, but State Department officials opposed the idea, saying it would damage relations with Yemen, a growing ally in the war against terrorism.
The Sosan was seized after Yemen's government at first denied the missiles were theirs. The denial led U.S. intelligence officials to suspect the missiles could be headed for another country, such as Iraq, and they were seized.
The ship was stopped after a Spanish warship fired warning shots at the vessel. It then was boarded by U.S. commandos who discovered the missiles, warheads and canisters of chemical used for the missile's solid rocket fuel.
The Yemeni government then acknowledged the missiles had been purchased legally by the San'a government.
Bush administration officials have described North Korea as a major supplier of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons know-how and missile-delivery systems.
Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, told Congress earlier this month that North Korea's nuclear and other programs relating to weapons of mass destruction are threats to the United States.
"North Korea's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery ... are also a threat to the international community, regional security, U.S. interests and U.S. forces, which remain an integral part of stability in the region," Mr. Armitage said.
"It is time for North Korea to turn away from this self-destructive course. They have nothing to gain from acquiring nuclear weapons — and much to lose. Indeed, every day, the people of that country are paying a terrible price for these programs in international isolation and misspent national resources."
Jacques Chirac as prime minister in 1975 began a series of secret deals with then vice president of Iraq Saddam Hussein.
Chirac provided weapons-grade uranium as part of the reactor destroyed by Israel in 1981.
No doubt Chirac has much to conceal by way of subsequent Iraqi arms deals, as does Germany.
Germany seen to have conducted more dual-use trade with Iraq than all other nations combined.
Jiang clings to his CMC chair as the CCP issues more hysterical dicta regarding orthodoxy in the ranks.
China stressed by hundreds of millions unemployed and unhappy about it.
France and Germany saddled by socialist straight jackets while working the Iraq account behind a head of anti-semitic steam.
Russia eager for Chinese dollars courtesy U.S. consumers.
Yet Putin signals IMF he don't need no stinkin' reform.
Saddam has three ships afloat observing radio silence and the ayatollah has a plane of guards down.
Wow. I point out just how crappy your sources are, and you get all snippy about it.
Granted, some of them might have flaws.
Some?
Try "most." And they're nontrivial flaws at that.
However, in your blanket dismissal, you have also encompassed a number of substantial and widely respected sources.
Just because Yossef Bodansky is able to generate media buzz doesn't mean that he's honest. And ol' Bodansky is the most prolific of your citations...
How widely something is reported is not synonymous with the factuality of said reporting.
He's been caught making stuff up in his "biography" of Osama bin Laden. When he did that, he lost more than a little bit of credibility with me.
You would gain more advantage in this debate if you would use a point-counterpoint construction with respect to specific things within the sources.
You would gain more advantage in this debate if you actually cited relevant material, instead of posting a link.
"Throw a bunch of stuff on the wall and pray that it sticks" is a fine debating technique for Democrats. Unlike Democrats, I have a brain. Tango Sierra.
While, in my agitation and frustration with the cumulative series of posts you have made for the past couple of years, where you consistently oppose any call to build up the US military, or, to explore scenarios that involve war between great powers, I momentarily slithered into the ad hominem nether regions, you have landed there squarely and cannot seem to extract yourself.
Look, buddy. Make your point. Salvoing links isn't making a point, it's expecting others to do your homework for you.
If you wish me to do your homework for you, please be advised that I charge--and routinely get paid--$150 an hour plus ODCs for independent consultation, and that I have an 80-hour minimum. 50% down, I go into work as soon as the check clears, the balance is due upon your receipt of the deliverables.
For the benefit of the forum, I challenge you to extract specific items from each of the references, and to make your logical arguments, if any, in refutation of them.
For the benefit of the forum, I challenge you to extract specific items from each of the references, and to make your logical arguments, if any, in support of them.
This is the characteristic of any truly far reaching and open minded analyst.
Actually, the defining characteristic of the far-reaching and open-minded analyst is the ability to filter BS quickly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.