cfr below is,
www.cfr.org/
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b915cf26385.htm
To: Harley_hog
China Probe Finds Bipartisan Skeletons
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b8ba4c406e5.htm
3 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:23:10 PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Harley_hog
More of those administration 'leaks' that can't tell their butts from a hole
in the ground?
4 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:42:06 PDT by piasa
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
this is nuts
5 Posted on 09/01/2001 15:43:02 PDT by freedomnews
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
"..."We don't see the need for any tests, by anyone, in the near future,"
the official said. "But there may, at some point, be a need by both
countries to make sure that their warheads are safe and reliable."...
If our warheads are 'safe and reliable' it's safe to assume that their
warheads are too...
Assuming, of course, that the chicoms can read the blueprints and follow the
instructions for proper assembly, etc.
6 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:06:40 PDT by DWSUWF
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: DWSUWF
If there is any truth whatsoever in this report, insanity has taken over the
brain functions of our government.
7 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:14:14 PDT by meenie
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: meenie
"...If there is any truth whatsoever in this report, insanity has taken over
the brain functions of our government...
There's a time during most fairly bad car wrecks when control has been
irretrievably lost, and a wreck is inevitable, but the really loud noises
and bone-breaking impacts haven't yet begun to happen.
That's where we are right now.
8 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:24:33 PDT by DWSUWF
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
part of an effort to overcome Chinese objections to the Bush
administration's missile defense plans
Um, I don't seem to be able to read past the first sentence. Exactly WHY do
WE care what COMMUNIST CHINA "thinks" about OUR Missile DEFENSE System????
9 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:31:17 PDT by Libertina
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Sawdring, Pericles, ATC
...
10 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:37:00 PDT by Aaron_A
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Libertina
because the cfr says we have to
11 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:37:40 PDT by IRtorqued
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
Didn't one of our ambassadors (April Glespie) tell Saddam we did not oppose
his views that Kuwait was part of Iraq? Just before he started invading half
the mideast?
12 Posted on 09/01/2001 16:43:11 PDT by djf
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast, Poohbah, Miss Marple, JohnHuang2
Who cares? We'll probably be able to stop `em all, anyhow.
13 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:03:25 PDT by hchutch
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Sanger, you blathering DNC toe-sucker
" China is now developing mobile, solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic
missiles that would be far more likely to withstand a first nuclear strike
to replace those aging missiles....
"The Indians know what the Chinese are doing, and so does everyone else," a
senior administration official said. "If we canceled the whole missile
defense program tomorrow morning, China would still build more and better
missiles, and other countries would figure out their response." "
Hey Sanger, don't you read your own drivel??????
14 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:12:52 PDT by mrsmith
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: mrsmith
LOL!
15 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:16:37 PDT by piasa
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: All
Bush's China Policy: Oh gee, how many nuclear missiles would you like to
have pointed at the United States, okay sure.
16 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:19:43 PDT by Lucky
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
"The question is, can you accept another 50 or 60 nuclear-tipped missiles
aimed at the United States at a time that Americans believe that they are no
longer being targeted?" asked Bates Gill, an expert in Chinese nuclear
strategy at the Brookings Institution.
Just because they don’t believe it does not mean it is not happening. Many
people try to make this BS argument that we are not targeted. In China in
particular, we are enemy #1.
Who led the public to believe that the Chinese are our friends anyhow? Those
people who think that China is not hostile are liars.
"The Indians know what the Chinese are doing, and so does everyone else," a
senior administration official said. "If we canceled the whole missile
defense program tomorrow morning, China would still build more and better
missiles, and other countries would figure out their response."
This is ABSOLUTELY correct. China wants to be powerful in relation to the
USA. No matter what the USA does China is going to build its military.
They base all of their standards on that because to them we are enemy #1.
17 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:43:25 PDT by super175
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: meenie
Did we hire the right guy in November?????????????????
18 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:46:33 PDT by DearAbby
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: super175
They base all of their standards on that because to them we are enemy #1.
The US is also China's number one market for its goods.
You think they're going to bomb their number one market?
19 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:49:17 PDT by sinkspur
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Hopalong
bump
20 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:49:57 PDT by super175
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
Well,we need something to knock out of the sky with our Super Laser Star
Wars System!
Not to worry! Could be 'new' sport.
:-(
:-)
21 Posted on 09/01/2001 17:57:19 PDT by maestro
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
I read this article very closely. I believe the Bush Admin is finally making
use of some REAL China experts.
22 Posted on 09/01/2001 18:00:40 PDT by super175
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: freedomnews, meenie, Lucky, DearAbby
These guys are smart. Believe it or not, this is a smart move.
Bump #22
I don't believe that this is going to be the entire strategy by far. This is
just one small snippet of the big picture.
23 Posted on 09/01/2001 18:06:20 PDT by super175
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: sinkspur
If they EVER use nuclear force at all then they have about 3 minutes to kiss
their asses goodbye.
We are on the path to engaging China much more closely and thouroughly than
ever before in our history. That is a good thing.
24 Posted on 09/01/2001 18:08:26 PDT by super175
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
If this is true, then we might as well have elected Gore, let them come for
the guns and whatever else and get on with the bloody mess...UNBELIEVABLE!
As if we can believe or control the communists, and as if we care what the
he** they think. I can't wait for the Bushie-brown nosing sinkjobs to defend
this...or pretend they didn't read it...
25 Posted on 09/01/2001 18:50:57 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: sinkspur
Yeah, after we've pumped enough money through their economy that they have
built up sufficiently (with US DOLLARS) to REALLY nail us...the policy
toward Chinese communism should be to do to them what has happened to North
Korea...Bush brown nosers are the worst...
26 Posted on 09/01/2001 18:56:42 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: DearAbby
One does begin to question choices made. However, in all fairness, Bush's
advisors don't sound like they are "on target" either.
27 Posted on 09/01/2001 19:04:39 PDT by Highcard2U
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Lucky
Bush's China Policy: Oh gee, how many nuclear missiles would you like to
have pointed at the United States, okay sure.
Please tell us how you would convince China not to add more nuclear
missiles.
28 Posted on 09/01/2001 19:13:51 PDT by Dog Gone
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: CommunistsSTILLSuck!
Yeah, after we've pumped enough money through their economy that they have
built up sufficiently (with US DOLLARS) to REALLY nail us...
You miss the point. Even after their economy is sufficiently pumped up, they
still can't bomb LA without taking the air right back out of their pumped up
economy.. And why would they want to do that? Free trade creates
dependencies between nations.. while these dependencies may be seen as
restrictive on national sovereignty as defined in the classical sense, it
also makes for a more secure world, since no longer can one nation bomb
another without causing unacceptable damage to itself.
29 Posted on 09/01/2001 19:18:31 PDT by AM2000
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: AM2000
No, you miss the point. Because of attitudes like this, Republics have
become Socialist Democracies and tyrannical World Communism (NAZI Socialist
fascists included) has watered itself down to appear to be Socialist
Democracies, (setting the stage for the inevitable single world government,
no national sovereignties, appeasing the trash of the world that hate God,
etc.) all in the name of a 'safer world', which it isn't for people that
love freedom and believe their rights come from our Creator.
America is less safe now than it was before the push towards communism
throughout the last century...your argument is the equivalent to moral
relativism.
30 Posted on 09/01/2001 19:44:59 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Dog Gone
That's not the point. We SHOULD NOT CARE what the he** they are doing, of
which we can't control, but should rather CONTAIN and CONSTRICT the new
Chinese/communist empire taking over the world; they have footholds in S.
America, Cent. America (Panama Canal?), NORTH AMERICA, Africa, all of
Asia...when you all wake up to what is going down?
Do you know the best way to cook a frog?
31 Posted on 09/01/2001 19:48:36 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: DearAbby
Did we hire the right guy in November?????????????????
Nope
32 Posted on 09/01/2001 19:57:17 PDT by itsahoot
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: CommunistsSTILLSuck!
We cannot prevent China from modernizing. Even if we cut all trade with them
(something that I don't support), all we would do is alienate them and let
our foreign competitors get all the Chinese business.
The Chinese themselves are the ones who let the genie out of the bottle by
abandoning communist economics. That was a good thing, by the way.
The most favorable scenario for us is to watch them like a hawk while they
develop a middle class. No communist regime has ever survived that. With a
little luck, in a generation or so, the Chinese will demand democracy. The
political leadership is fighting a losing war against the information age.
They can't suppress independent political thought forever. They are halfway
there with the economic reforms. The political reforms will inevitably
follow.
33 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:00:54 PDT by Dog Gone
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Dog Gone
It would be nice if you're right, but instead, communists are being rewarded
for their treatment of dissidents (murder, slavery, work camps), their
attitutudes towards life (baby-butchering pigs) and the world is calling
China a 'model' of Socialist 'Democracy' emerging - "can't we all control
the world's population and communal needs like the Chinese" - it's hogwash
because the goal of the far left, the 'progressives', the 'liberals', the
'moderates', the 'republicrats' (most), the 'socialists' and the out and out
communists is to lull good people on the right like you into rationalizing
and being exactly where you are; coming away from defending what was the
last God-protected safe haven in the world to just being the last domino to
fall - in the move to the world's single state, single government, single
armed force, single currency, single licensed religion, single court system,
etc.
Heck, don't you travel outside the US?
34 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:14:49 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: CommunistsSTILLSuck!
your argument is the equivalent to moral relativism.
I see you're very well caught up on all the latest buzzwords in contemporary
conservative rhetoric. God hating, communist, one worlder, moral
relativist...
That's all very nice, now how about a reasoned refutation of a single thing
I said? More to the point, tell me why China will want to bomb a market for
their goods. Explain that to me, and try to avoid the rhetoric, I've been on
FR long enough so I've heard it all before, and it's all pretty meaningless
to me since it's just rhetoric and nothing else.
35 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:21:50 PDT by AM2000
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: Dog Gone
The Ronald Reagan policy against the USSR worked pretty good. A strong and
large military, so they wouldn't even think about messing with us.
36 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:29:49 PDT by Lucky
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: sinkspur
--why yes, I think they do intend to either bomb us, or to be so
sophisticated and strong and sneeky that they could neutralize us with the
threats of ICBM's or using smuggled in back pack nukes and bio bugs, when
their population reaches such a size as to necessitate taking control of the
middle eastern oil fields.
This world is getting down to one big huge fight over oil and fresh water,
and it's coming pretty soon, too.
Taiwan is a feint, "look here, look here", Taiwan is willingly giving up
it's soverignty for trade with the mainland, they have zero need to actually
attack taiwan at this point, it will become theirs by economic default
shortly.
I think the real action will be in the middle east, and that china will back
some coup attempts in several key nations there, and in africa. And their
inroads into veneuzuela and cuba only make sense for the oil potential, plus
to be in areas that will help them with an attack or a neutralization
effort. They have no choice in the matter, they have zip domestic oil, their
water is so run out they have to completely use up their major rivers now,
they need strategic materials that they are in no position to purchase, they
need more farmland, they have no farmland left, just desert mostly, and they
need a constant effort to keep their massive population in check with
external and internal boogey man threats, so, they are at an expand or
perish point in their history. Either that or they need to lose 500 million
or so of their population somehow, with some other means. I don't think
that's happening anytime soon.
Right now, they are just sucking the western businessmen out of investment
capital and technology by holding out the carrot of a billion and a half
consumers in china, free money and stuff for them, while providing cheap
labor that just costs them money to be hanging out idle. The businessmen
love it at the top because of the short term profits they make on the labor
differentials, and the US and europeans love it for the temporary cheap
widgets in the stores. It's a win/win scenario fom china, and no change-over
to any sort of democracy is being required whatsoever from them with it. No
one gives a care over it really. Western businesses just can't wait to trade
with china, they could care less about the political structure there. Right
now they are in a position to make money by spending money in china, keeps
them in the black, but it's a temporary situation and a gamble. There is not
one political concession towards freedom for their pewople the chinese
leaders have made yet for all this trade and free stuff they are getting.
And, at any point in time, China can just nationalize the whole she-bang if
they want to, but they definetly want the free stuff as long as it keeps
coming in and they are allowed to stealth expand all over the globe. They
used to be insular in their history, now they are imperialists by necessity.
And there's no differences between their businesses and the military and the
political hierarchy, all one in the same.
Think of it as the world war has already started, and they are putting in
the combat engineers now ahead of the troops and it makes more sense. They
are getting oil by trading arms, and installing in those countries high tech
equipment they first get from us or europe or japan, they certainly aren't
actually buying a lot of the stuff with cash, and their demand for oil goes
up constantly, and we are their biggest competitors for oil, with europe,
then japan, right behind. India is a competitor, too, but it's military and
society are too fragmented to do much about anything, they have their hands
full with just pakistan, another chinese client state, and with their own
nuts and bolts infrastructure problems, which is whizz poor. That last big
earth quake in Inidia it took them weeks to move in any help to the
devastated cities inside their own country-India can't project any force at
all to china, zip. And they wouldn't go nuke against china, they would sit
it out, and so would we over taiwan if it really did get to a ashooting war
there. What that chinese general said was politcally correct and astute, one
of the few times they weren't lying,he said we wouldn't trade nuked US
cities for taiwan, and that's the truth. they may say we would now, they may
say we would use up all our nukes and level china, but I don't think any
politician in his right mind would want to face 40 or 50 million dead people
in this nation, plus the inevitable economic collapse that would cause, on
his watch, over Taiwan, not in today's political climate.
The red chinese are certainly not in the game to lose it. They fully realize
they need to modernize, especially militarily, and to think completely out
of the box and quickly, to make up for a few decades time lag they must
overcome, or their regime will collapse internally, and they don't want that
to happen. They do what they do for a reason, and it's not to be the
perpetual supplier of cheap trinkets to us. They intend to be top bow wow on
the planet earth. They are not constructing and modernizing a defensive
force structure, it's the opposite of that, it's dual aggressive high tech
expansionist, with a large unconventional warfare mindset and strategy, and
part of their unconventional warfare efforts are using front businesses that
are all really just PLA assets. They have already started fighting. Like,
who wants to invade china? No one does, not russia, not us, not japan, no
one. Taiwan certainly doesn't want to invade. So why the need for such a
frantic arms buildup? And working on the unconventional warfare, including
the world's first complete cyber army, not just part of their force
structure, an entire equal member with the army and navy and airforce? Only
one answer-expand because of necessity, and the major global necessities are
oil and water in this century.
37 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:35:41 PDT by zog
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: AM2000
Do you believe communist China will allow Taiwan to carry on down the road
to a '2 China' policy (1 China and 1 Taiwan), and if they intimidate Taiwan
to the point of conflict, what, if anything, should America do? And, do you
remotely take seriously the communist Chinese central committee's own words
regarding nuking LA or using nuclear devices over US aircraft carriers
deployed in their region in the event of conflict?
You aren't really a patriotic conservative, are you, really? Are you Henry
Kissinger?
38 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:56:41 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: zog
Great post BTTT.
39 Posted on 09/01/2001 20:59:44 PDT by CommunistsSTILLSuck!
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: sinkspur
You think they're going to bomb their number one market?
Since China absolutely is no threat to us, is there any reason to be
involved militarily in Asia?
40 Posted on 09/01/2001 21:14:40 PDT by judge parkers daughter
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: sinkspur
You think they're going to bomb their number one market?
Yes, when we cease to be their number one market, which is occurring rapidly
as thousands of jobs are being exported from the U.S. to China, Malaysia,
and South America. How many millions of jobs will we lose until our economy
is in shambles and we will no longer be financing the world? Right now, we
are losing about 100,000 jobs per week - and that's just the ones in the
newspapers.
41 Posted on 09/01/2001 21:33:45 PDT by ratcat
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: super175
I believe the Bush Admin is finally making use of some REAL China experts.
Refreshing, isn't it.
42 Posted on 09/01/2001 21:46:46 PDT by RightWhale
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: super175
You read what I read in this, perhaps..? USSR econowar part 2 ... Bush: "Go
ahead, punk. Make my day (and try to out innovate the innovators)?"
43 Posted on 09/01/2001 22:02:37 PDT by piasa
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: zog
I think the real action will be in the middle east, and that china will back
some coup attempts in several key nations there, and in africa. And their
inroads into veneuzuela and cuba only make sense for the oil potential, plus
to be in areas that will help them with an attack or a neutralization
effort. They have no choice in the matter, they have zip domestic oil, their
water is so run out they have to completely use up their major rivers now,
they need strategic materials that they are in no position to purchase, they
need more farmland, they have no farmland left, just desert mostly, and they
need a constant effort to keep their massive population in check with
external and internal boogey man threats, so, they are at an expand or
perish point in their history. Either that or they need to lose 500 million
or so of their population somehow, with some other means. I don't think
that's happening anytime soon.
Excellent analysis.
"Farmers of 40 Centuries"
Great book about Chinese agriculture.
Written about 1880 by a USDA researcher.
The Chinese have been irrigating for a few millennia. And in a zone with
decent rainfall.
WHY?
Because they have been over populated in East China for a long time. They
built water works and irrigation to support their large population.
How often do you here of irrigation in places with 40" precipitation/year
44 Posted on 09/01/2001 22:23:32 PDT by dennisw
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: ratcat sinkspur
Just wait until the ChiComs have some decent nuclear missile submarines they
can station close to our West Coast.
Then they can make some really credible threats about being willing to take
out Seattle/ Silicon Valley/ LA and suffer the consequences.
45 Posted on 09/01/2001 22:33:02 PDT by dennisw
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: quidam
Q,
I'd love to know what you think about this.
--ROTLC
46 Posted on 09/01/2001 22:34:07 PDT by RightOnTheLeftCoast
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: RightWhale, piasa
1. China has and is, and will always target the USA with nukes. Just because
some people tell you they are our friends does not change this. They are
constantly adding numbers now and will in the future. They target Japan too.
They are trying to become a world superpower, which in their minds means
bigger than everyone else. Without NMD numbers of bombs and missiles makes a
difference. Status is achieved by volume, which is what everyone is
accustomed to. With NMD volume means a whole lot less.
2. China is, and has, and will always try to upgrade their nukes.
3. The part that goes “boom” is not the problem.
4. The part that gets the part that goes “boom” from point A to point B IS
the problem. I would assume that eventually missiles can only go so fast
though.
5. NMD does not do anything about the part that goes “boom”. It just makes
sure it does not go “boom” over LA or Tokyo.
6. Having advanced warheads is no big deal in relation to NMD. What will it
do? Make a different shaped mushroom cloud?
7. Even if they are upgrading the delivery system, should they ever try to
test our NMD, they better make sure they are 100% certain they are better
than us before they do so. Strategic ambiguity that comes with retaliation.
8. Beijing is very insecure and that is one of the most difficult things in
dealing with them. If they double their nuclear force and gain psychological
security thereby, hey so what. It will just make it a lot easier to deal
with them on a day to day basis if they are not freaking out about
everything. It is kind of like Linus and his security blanket. They feel the
more money they put towards military affairs the more secure they will be.
However, see #7.
9. It is kind of like “you build yours and we’ll build ours, and we’ll see
who is better. You gain security from your nukes and we gain ours from our
NMD. If you are not certain whether or not your missiles can defeat NMD and
want security like ours, then stop trying to go on the offensive.”
10. NMD will force China to look inward.
11. If we say, “We are building an NMD system for our security, but you
better not build a nuke for your security” it looks like we are saying that
we can protect ourselves, but China cannot. It is revolutionary thinking to
not protest against nuclear development but to just consider it part of ones
strategy.
12. What it will mean though is, we will both have a different strategy for
national security and should the day ever come, we’ll just find out who is
better.
13. Surely a small country with backwards technology cannot defeat NMD, but
could a big superpower with 50 long range nukes?
14. We have to default to calling China a superpower. If we don’t they are
going to call us all kinds of names and really not like us. They feel that
they are being held down by the USA. We are letting them know that we as the
USA are not standing in their way or trying to prevent their progression. If
they want to achieve superpower status, go ahead, however they want to
achieve that is up to them. The definition of superpower is whatever we say
it is.
15. This all applies to a theatre war too. The whole thing is based on this
theory: what is a better strategy, the spear or the shield? Countries should
feel free to choose whichever strategy they feel comfortable with.
16. China will not build 500 nuke missiles. Why? Because 500 nukes would be
hell to maintain and would cost a bundle. Plus 500 nukes on old rockets all
get shot down. Worrying about numbers alone as in volume would be dumb.
China will have to focus on the delivery system and we will have to focus on
knocking out any delivery system they can launch. If any arms race at all
happens, that is where it will take place, among performance capabilities of
NMD vs missiles. It won’t be in the sheer numbers of nuke war heads. They
would have to launch 500 missiles at once to take advantage of the ‘numbers’
thing and overwhelm the system. China is going to try and build all of these
scramjet haul ass missile type things. In other words, we won’t have that
many more nukes, but rather we will have bad-ass missile technology in our
NMD as well as their offensive forces.
17. Of course, we already have missile technology way beyond anything they
have.
18. The US will cut down its nuclear force as to be non-threatening, but the
delivery system will be upgraded (most likely). If other countries have NMD
too, it means everyone has both offensive and defensive weapons. It will
mean that concept of “first strike” might be simply useless. The old days of
sitting around with the guy with the briefcase waiting to give the launch
codes are soon to be over. If there is no first strike then there is no
second strike. It will no longer be about who is quicker on the draw. That
to me is a much better deterrent.
19. NMD is one thing and theater missile defense is something else. Rockets
can only go so fast. However, if Pakistan lobs a missile over the border at
India the dynamic might be a little bit different than on a larger scale,
say over the Pacific Ocean. That might short range thing might be a little
more ‘quick draw’.
47 Posted on 09/02/2001 00:53:57 PDT by super175
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: sinkspur
You're applying your own capitalist thought paradigm to the ChiCom
leadership. As a capitalist, sure, you never destroy your own market.
But they are Communists, understand? They're still BELIEVERS that one day,
the mighty and brave People's Liberation Army will make the world a big
Maoist paradise. EVERYTHING they do is based around that goal. Making money
from the West is a means to the ChiCom purpose, but not the final purpose.
48 Posted on 09/02/2001 01:15:53 PDT by servantoftheservant
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: djf
"Didn't one of our ambassadors (April Glespie) tell Saddam we did not oppose
his views that Kuwait was part of Iraq? Just before he started invading half
the mideast?"
Yes.
Carolyn
49 Posted on 09/02/2001 03:58:29 PDT by CDHart
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: meenie
No, no. This is sound foreign policy. The only difference now is that
instead of quietly allowing them to build up, we tell them it's fine with
us, because we want our shield, which will defend us from smaller countries
and terrorists with one or two missiles.
Then we build a shield that protects us from them, and we'll still hang on
to enough nukes to make China into a parking lot, just in case.
After all, it's not like they need permission from us to build missiles.
50 Posted on 09/02/2001 08:26:45 PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | Top | Last ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
To: CommunistsSTILLSuck!
the world is calling China a 'model' of Socialist 'Democracy' emerging
Maybe I'm engaging in wishful thinking, but I've never heard anything like
that. Many leftists hate them because of Tibet, and the old Soviet commies
never liked them at all, so there's still little sympathy here.
Soviet communist institutions succeeded in infiltrating organizations in the
West and getting high profle non-communists to support some of their aims
(e.g. coexistence, deténte, disarmament, "peace"). The Chinese have never
succeeded at this, in part I think because their culture is so foreign to
the West.
Nobody will really defend the way they run their country today, what with
high-profile Falun Gong incidents, Tianamen Square, forced abortions (which
even most pro-aborts won't support) etc. Their only defenders are
corporations that want to invest there and benefit from slave labor. Not the
kind of argument that wins over the Western mind.
It's true that they manage to dominate the UN, but only through
spoiled-child tactics that make them very unpopular in western minds -- e.g.
stopping Tibetans from speaking at conferences on occupation, protecting
themselves from censure, etc.
This isn't your father's communism. It will not win the popular mind.
Rather, the threat is more overt, more violent, and perhaps for that reason
less dangerous (although dangerous nonetheless).
51 Posted on 09/02/2001 08:37:14 PDT by The Old Hoosier
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | Top | Last ]
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.
[ Top | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post |
Abuse | Help! ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, September 02, 2001 8:24 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:16590] Re: Prince Bush wimps out against Communism
>I think that's right. In addition, the Chinese do not have modern
>delivery systems. With their current technology, they probably could
>hit only part of the US. If Prince George's Star Wars plan proves
>feasible, then it will have the ability to knock out maybe 20 missles
>at a time. Without changes on the Chinese side, this would shift the
>balance of power. The US would not be deterred from attacking China by
>the existence of the Chinese nuclear arsenal. Now that the Chinese face
>no opposition to their build up of nuclear weapons and advanced
>delivery systems, however, the balance of power between the US and
>China would be maintained even with Star Wars.
>
>The existence of a working Star Wars system would change the fairly
>simple "MAD" system of the Cold War and post-Cold War era. If you have
>Star Wars at home or in a theatre, the incentive to use nuclear weapons
>increases. If you are faced with an opponent with Star Wars, you will
>look for other ways to harm your opponent. One obvious choice would be
>to aim your missles at your opponent's nominal, non-Star Wars equipped
>allies. In this case, that would be Europe and Israel.
>
>Furthermore, a ten-fold increase in the number of Chinese nuclear
>weapons will have an effect on regional stability. Japan and Korea must
>eventually be tempted to build up their own stockpiles to counter
>China. India and Pakistan, too, will be forced to build up missles to a
>level comparable to that of the Chines.
>
>Any so-called "rogue state" with a handful of nuclear weapons, stymied
>by the existence of Star Wars, would eventually acquire enough nuclear
>weapons to get at least a few shots through the shield. In an era where
>Russia is scrapping many of its warheads, there could be plenty
>available.
>
>Even without the strategic problems Star Wars presents for world peace,
>I think it is just a terrible idea to announce support for a buildup of
>weapons of mass destruction by a vile, dictatorial regime bent on
>maintaining their power, and willing to commit any despicable
>degradation of human life and autonomy. When Prince George announces
>this policy, on the Saturday of a three day weekend when few Americans
>are paying attention to the news, he is trying to keep people in the
>dark about his support for the Chinese Communist regime.
>
>Since China will need to conduct several nuclear tests, United States
>support for Chinese nuclear weapons will also have the denigratory
>effect of implicitly breaching the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
>
>Blame it on Bush.
>
>Andrew Hagen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 15:22:16 -0700, michael pugliese wrote:
>
>>
>> Just glanced at the NYT webpage. David Sanger byline, "U.S.
>>Will Not Object to Chinese Missile Buildup." (Course when you
>>only have 18-20 nuclear missiles, even 100 times that is only
>>about half of what the USA currently has under the START II treaty
>>limits with the fSU. My numbers about right? I'm not gonna wade
>>through DoD or CDI webpgs. at the moment...Michael Pugliese
>>>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>Date: 9/1/01 1:49:34 PM
>>>
>>
>>>At 01:01 PM 09/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>The purpose of the new approach, administration officials say,
>>is to
>>>>convince China that the administration's plans for a missile
>>shield are
>>>>not aimed at undercutting China's relatively small nuclear
>>arsenal, but
>>>>rather intended to counter threats from so-called rogue states.
>>>
>>>maybe the purpose to create a "rogue state" in order to justify
>>Star Wars?
>>>
>>>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>>>"Is it peace or is it Prozac?" -- Cheryl Wheeler.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
