Before rejoicing over detente with Kim Jong Il, it might be useful to remember that although agreements were reached in the past, his countrymen later built a number of nuclear weapons and carried out a test. Also, North Korea, with a rich chemical and biological arsenal having long ago neutralized American tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula, has embarked solely on a program of survival by extortion and will gladly forfeit a power it does not need in exchange for recognition and some essential commodities. The Asian nuclear power of which we must take account is not North Korea but China. The forerunners of China's government were able to defeat Chiang Kai-shek, fight the United States to a draw in Korea and, merely by means of their country's looming potential, help defeat America in Vietnam. This they did in chaos, poverty and without modern arms, but with strategy bred in the bone. Since 1978, using their extraordinary and sustained economic and technical growth to build military capacity, the Chinese have deliberately modeled themselves on the Meiji (who rapidly transformed feudal Japan into an industrial state able to vanquish the Russian fleet at Tsushima).
Continued on Page 49
#2
Faced with victory, or with loss, they might choose to -- and who would venture to guarantee that they would not? -- detonate half a dozen high-megatonnage nuclear charges in the mesosphere, in an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) strike perhaps not even in American airspace, cooking almost every circuit and semiconductor, rendering the American government blind, deaf and dumber than it is already and the country unable to resist the inroads that would surely follow.
Yeah right like we'd choose to ignore the fact that their are half a dozen or more inbound nukes to ANYWHERE and not do something about that. Let alone treat an EMP strike as anything BUT a nuclear attack. You can bet the first thing that happens is a boomer in the south pacfic region launches most of its nukes in retaliation only these wont be EMP strikes in kind.
#3
WAFF.com > GWADAR Port officially open? China going hell-bent on modernizing the Paki Navy for opers in Indian Ocean, etc.; and investing Milyuhns and Zilyuhns of $$$ on major Paki/Regional highway construx. IONews, INDIA still being flanked.
#4
You can bet the first thing that happens is a boomer in the south pacfic region launches most of its nukes in retaliation only these wont be EMP strikes in kind.
I hope like Hell that you're right, Valentine. Washington has been so spineless of late that it's been pretty discouraging. What I'd really like to see is a realistic comparison of, not missile or warhead numbers, but actual throw weight in megatonnage with an offset coefficient for aiming accuracy. That would be a little more reassuring. I certainly hope that the missile defense shield will be able to intercept extremely high altitude vehicles. We're going to need that capability.
#5
Taiwan has substantial trade relations with the mainland. Many Islanders would like to pursue investments there. It appears that the two states are evolving into some benign accomodation if not associate state status. Pessimism is probably not warranted.
#6
Thanks, Sneaze - I was about to slit my jugulars!
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/22/2007 6:29 Comments ||
Top||
#7
MAD is not the only deterrant. Chinese and American economies are mutually dependent, and a war between them would mean mutual economic destruction as well as nuclear devastation. Unless you are irrational (Islamofascist) or backed into a corner, you don't kill off your best customer (or supplier). The hard part here is knowing where all the corners are and avoiding them.
#8
It was mentioned a while back that while the US missile defense shield was not sufficient to stop a nuclear attack from Russia, it was, just coincidentally, sufficient to neutralize an attack from China.
#9
Thank you, 'moose. Those were the exact sort of numbers I was interested in. My reason for posting this was not a Chicken Little tirade but to make the case for continued nuclear parity with both China and Russia.
While China and Taiwan are evolving, by default, some sort of stable relationship or status quo, the same cannot be said for other Southeast Asian countries. Even Taiwanese businessmen refer to trade with China as, "Feeding the tiger with one's own flesh." The Mekong hydroelectric projects represent a gun held to the head of many smaller and helpless countries. China could cripple the lot of them by shutting the spillgates for even a single season and halting the majority of water flow.
As an example: Work on the transcontinental Canadian railroad involved running a line through the Fraser River canyon. A single landslide at Hells Canyon caused immense damage to the salmon run.
In 1914 during construction of the CNR a blast caused a landslide which further congested Hells Canyon. The landslide interfered with the ability of the spawning salmon to make it through to their spawning grounds upriver. It is said that the salmon catch was reduced to one third what it had been.
[emphasis added]
This is just one example of how China is still able, through non-military means, to exert undue influence in what remains an unstable region. Intentional communist disruption of the Mekong's hydrology could cause downstream famine and ecological collapse.
Furthermore, despite the strong economic ties mentioned above by others, none of this has deterred China from causing America to expend untold billions in combating the North Korean nuclear threat, a crisis which Bejing could stop with the flick of a wrist. This sort of continuing triangulation should be met with far more serious consequences than it currently is. Instead, China is treated to untold billions worth of Preferred Nation Status trade from the USA.
While it is heartening that China is being forced to begin granting private property rights and other concessions to a capitalist free market economy, none of these private sector developments have much overall effect upon the Politburo's strategy. Again, my only crucial point is the necessity of maintaining MAD with both China and Russia. Neither of them are demonstrating good faith in any sense of the word. That America's missile shield may well be effective against China's meager arsenal is, perhaps, the best news of all.
#10
Zenster one of the things thats got the current Russian govt's and even China's govts panties in a twist is that we announced quietly that we're not reducing the warheads on our Minuteman IIIs to solely one warhead per missile. This means we're still keeping at least 800 warheads available via these missiles for use, also almost all of these warheads are of W-87 variety with Mk-21 RV, the same as used on the MX Peacekeeper missiles with their frightening level of accuracy.
This has turned effectively all 500 or so Minuteman IIIs into another first strike level strategic weapon on par with the Tridents on the Ohio class boomers.
As far as China's missiles go, their most modern one is the DF-31A, a solid fuel ICBM of which there are about 2-3 dozen enplaced. Another 2-3 dozen are DF-5s which are liquid fueled rockets (meaning they would be highly visible prepping for launch). So comparatively China wouldn't want to do a first strike in any but the most insane or desparate situation
#11
The Chinese are in sea trials of a 5 submarine class of ballistic missiles submarines each with 16 missiles with 5000 mile range. The Chinese nuclear arsenal is not small. It's that most of their warheads are on smaller missiles aimed at Russia or India but that is changing.
Posted by: ed ||
03/22/2007 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The US has a 1st strike capability against China and will continue to have one for at leat 10 years.
#13
Um actually ed theres only one type 094 doing sea trials. They're HOPING to eventually build 3-4 more. The current SSBN class consists of about 3 or so Xia's which are extremely noisy and rarely put out to sea (they're drydock queens).The JL-2 missiles which its supposed to carry are still not ready for deployment and are still undergoing testing.
#14
G: MAD is not the only deterrant. Chinese and American economies are mutually dependent, and a war between them would mean mutual economic destruction as well as nuclear devastation. Unless you are irrational (Islamofascist) or backed into a corner, you don't kill off your best customer (or supplier). The hard part here is knowing where all the corners are and avoiding them.
We are our own best customer (and supplier). In 2006, we exported $55b worth of stuff to China. That's about 0.3% of our total annual output. We imported $287b worth of stuff from China. That's about 20% of China's annual output.
We can buy stuff from other countries. In fact, prior to China's opening, we used to buy it from other countries (in East Asia). China can't replace the American market, which they use to generate both employment and the hard currency they need to buy modern machinery from the developed world. Yes, a lot of joint ventures that generate sales for US multinationals, but not exports, would go up in smoke. But that's a problem for multinationals, not US economic output.
#15
The Chinese are building 5 of the type 94s. The first of it's class is in sea trials. That in no way invalidates that they are heavily building up their long range nuclear forces (from their single Xia 12 tube boat with short ranged missiles single warhead missiles). Since the Chinese are building new classes of boats at 2-3 times the rate of the US, I suspect the 5 JL-2 equipped boomers are only the first of many.
Posted by: ed ||
03/22/2007 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
The decisive battle against Islamic extremists will not be fought in Iraq, but in Europe. It is not in Baghdad but in cities like Antwerp, Belgium, where the future of the West will be decided.
I recently met Marij Uijt den Bogaard, a 49-year-old woman who deserves America's support at least as much as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Ms. Uijt den Bogaard was an Antwerp civil servant in the 1990s, who spent many years working in the immigrant neighborhoods of Antwerp. There she noticed how radical Islamists began to take over. "They work according to a well-defined plan," she says.
One of the things Ms. Uijt den Bogaard used to do for the immigrants was to assist them with their administrative paperwork. Quite a few of them came to trust her.
About three years ago, young men dressed in black moved into the neighborhoods. They had been trained in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and adhere to Salafism, a radical version of Islam. They set up youth organizations, which gradually took over the local mosques. "The Salafists know how to debate and they know the Qur'an by heart, while the elderly running the mosques do not," she said They also have money. "One of them told me that he gets Saudi funds." Because they are eloquent, the radicals soon became the official spokesmen of the Muslim community, also in dealing with the city authorities. Ms. Uijt den Bogaard witnessed how the latter gave in to Salafist demands, such as the demand for separate swimming hours for Muslim women in the municipal pools.
Worried immigrants told Ms. Uijt den Bogaard what was happening. On the basis of their accounts and her own experiences she wrote (confidential) reports for the city authorities about the growing radicalization. This brought her into conflict, both with the Islamists and her bosses in the city.
The city warned her that her reports were unacceptable, that they read like "Vlaams Belang tracts" (the Vlaams Belang is Antwerp's anti-immigrant party) and that she had to "change her attitude." The Islamists sensed that she disapproved of them. They might also have been informed, because there are Muslims working in the city administration. One day, when she was accompanied by her superior, she was attacked by a Muslim youth. Her superior refused to interfere. When she questioned him afterward he said that all the animosity toward her was her own fault.
#3
Marij Uijt den Bogaard,
The Quran, however, is not a harmless book for people who are not Muslims. It says that people who do not convert to Islam deserve death and oppression.
--------------
She gets it. The self hating, Christian hating liberals and conservatives don't. Something else caught my eye.
"Salafism, a radical version of Islam". To be clear, any form of Islam is radical. From its foundation of Muhammad's terrorist example to current and future Sharia law. Islam in any form should not be tolerated.
I should make a comment here about Saudi funding and Keith Ellison, CAIR...
#5
And in Canada. The usual suspects are now demanding "prayer rooms" in universities as well as halal cafeteria menus. All this couched in claims to "islamophobia" (i.e. sanity) in university classrooms.
#6
"Antwerp . . . There she noticed how radical Islamists began to take over. "They work according to a well-defined plan," she says. "
I wonder how many people realize that the Mohammedan fanatic facist movement is NOT a grass-roots movement. It's a political movement with clear aims and plans to achieve them.
Taking it in the right context would certainly help in policy decisions here and in Europe.
#7
Antwerp (pop. 460,000) will be one of the first Euro cities to go majority muslim. But of course the real threat is the Dutch speaking right. Far right's support surging in Flanders Already, about 4,000 to 5,000 Flemish residents are leaving Antwerp every year, while 5,000 to 6,000 non-European immigrants arrive annually in the city, Dewinter said.
Within 10 years, he predicts, people of non-European backgrounds will account for more than one-third of Antwerp's population.
"It's growing very, very fast," Dewinter said. "Maybe that will be the end of Europe."
Posted by: ed ||
03/22/2007 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If you haven't read Bernard Lewis's speech at the 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture on the history of Christians and Muslims, well, you are missing an incredible insight into our world and our battle of today.
Do yourself a favor, settle back and read. It's long, you might want to print it. It's full of info and a gripping read. It's the best explanation I've ever read or heard of our current situation, including the use of the term "freedom."
#4
No-brainer makes it a perfect pitched battle for congress to make and lose! Chuck Schumer and Pat Leaky Leahy are the perfect Generals. I suspect strong casualties on the Donk side with little triage by the netroots, shooting the wounded for lack of adequate lunacy fortitude
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/22/2007 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Maybe we could skip the noisy and annoying intermediate state and proceed directly to shooting the (not yet) wounded.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
