- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
I've contended for quite some time that the way we do business with China is not in the best interest of this country.
Back in the 'Good-Old-Days' (Under Clinton) Several of our Buisness Corporations McDonnell Douglas in particular
(Now being an albatross for McBoeing) was fined millions for selling some obsolete machining equipment to China,
which after setting it up and displaying it where it was allowed & supposed to be, then moved it to a different location
and proceded to begin using it to make weapons systems. Bait & switch, but we got burned, they won't send it back.
Last year and completed this year was the allowance of China to assume control of a computer manufacturing entity
that IBM wanted to divest themselves of.
One of their appliance manufacturers is trying (off & on again) to take over Maytag -
(wonder if it's the same company that executed over 100 of their workers about
10 years ago for not meeting the Governments production standards and schedule)
and they are also trying to buy one of our American owned Oil Companies.
We're setting ourselves up for the kill - for cheap 'Now' financing & quick profit.
Dumb.
Military Threat
<CLIP>
China has long-term ambitions to extend its power across the Asian continent and its leaders in the future "may be tempted to resort to force or coercion more quickly to press diplomatic advantage, advance security interests or resolve disputes," the Pentagon told Congress on Tuesday.
In a report that could stoke growing anti-Beijing sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon declared that China was looking beyond its long-standing confrontation with Taiwan and that its rapid arms buildup was increasingly aimed at expanding its military power in the region. The Pentagon assessment of China's military, required annually by Congress, goes far beyond previous reports in its attempts to discern the strategy behind China's arms buildup.
The Pentagon report was due to Congress in March, and many have speculated that the long delay was the result of fights within the Bush administration over the tone of the report. The State Department is preparing to open a new diplomatic front with China aimed at deeper engagement with the world's most-populous nation and building trust between the two powers.
Pentagon officials insist that the report has been carefully vetted by the State Department and the National Security Council and that its conclusions are endorsed by the entire U.S. government.
The more hawkish report comes at a time the Defense Department is conducting a top-to-bottom review of its own arsenal. The high-level assessment ? known as the Quadrennial Defense Review ? will serve as the blueprint for military budgets for the next four years, and some in the Defense Department point out that a growing threat from China helps the Pentagon justify multibillion-dollar weapons that would be ill-suited for fighting amorphous terrorist networks.
For instance, Air Force officials, fighting vigorously to preserve the budget for the Stealth F-22 fighter, have put emphasis this year on China's improved air defenses and the F-22's abilities to elude radar.
"You look at the Air Force's briefings, and they are all China, China, China," said a senior defense official working on the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Economic Threat
<CLIP>
Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.
This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the United States', it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems ? especially missiles and submarines ? needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.
The Pentagon on Tuesday released a study of Chinese military capabilities. In a preview, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Singapore audience last month that China's arms buildup was an "area of concern." It should be. But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs ? not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes to topple the American hegemon.
In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.
"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."
Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).
Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" ? clearly a red, white and blue enemy ? would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."
This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.
The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.
Back in the 'Good-Old-Days' (Under Clinton) Several of our Buisness Corporations McDonnell Douglas in particular
(Now being an albatross for McBoeing) was fined millions for selling some obsolete machining equipment to China,
which after setting it up and displaying it where it was allowed & supposed to be, then moved it to a different location
and proceded to begin using it to make weapons systems. Bait & switch, but we got burned, they won't send it back.
Last year and completed this year was the allowance of China to assume control of a computer manufacturing entity
that IBM wanted to divest themselves of.
One of their appliance manufacturers is trying (off & on again) to take over Maytag -
(wonder if it's the same company that executed over 100 of their workers about
10 years ago for not meeting the Governments production standards and schedule)
and they are also trying to buy one of our American owned Oil Companies.
We're setting ourselves up for the kill - for cheap 'Now' financing & quick profit.
Dumb.
Military Threat
<CLIP>
China has long-term ambitions to extend its power across the Asian continent and its leaders in the future "may be tempted to resort to force or coercion more quickly to press diplomatic advantage, advance security interests or resolve disputes," the Pentagon told Congress on Tuesday.
In a report that could stoke growing anti-Beijing sentiment in Congress, the Pentagon declared that China was looking beyond its long-standing confrontation with Taiwan and that its rapid arms buildup was increasingly aimed at expanding its military power in the region. The Pentagon assessment of China's military, required annually by Congress, goes far beyond previous reports in its attempts to discern the strategy behind China's arms buildup.
The Pentagon report was due to Congress in March, and many have speculated that the long delay was the result of fights within the Bush administration over the tone of the report. The State Department is preparing to open a new diplomatic front with China aimed at deeper engagement with the world's most-populous nation and building trust between the two powers.
Pentagon officials insist that the report has been carefully vetted by the State Department and the National Security Council and that its conclusions are endorsed by the entire U.S. government.
The more hawkish report comes at a time the Defense Department is conducting a top-to-bottom review of its own arsenal. The high-level assessment ? known as the Quadrennial Defense Review ? will serve as the blueprint for military budgets for the next four years, and some in the Defense Department point out that a growing threat from China helps the Pentagon justify multibillion-dollar weapons that would be ill-suited for fighting amorphous terrorist networks.
For instance, Air Force officials, fighting vigorously to preserve the budget for the Stealth F-22 fighter, have put emphasis this year on China's improved air defenses and the F-22's abilities to elude radar.
"You look at the Air Force's briefings, and they are all China, China, China," said a senior defense official working on the Quadrennial Defense Review.
Economic Threat
<CLIP>
Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu of the Chinese People's Liberation Army caused quite a stir last week when he threatened to nuke "hundreds" of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.
This saber-rattling comes while China is building a lot of sabers. Although its defense budget, estimated to be as much as $90 billion, remains a fraction of the United States', it is enough to make China the world's third-biggest weapons buyer (behind Russia) and the biggest in Asia. Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems ? especially missiles and submarines ? needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.
The Pentagon on Tuesday released a study of Chinese military capabilities. In a preview, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Singapore audience last month that China's arms buildup was an "area of concern." It should be. But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs ? not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes to topple the American hegemon.
In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.
"Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach."
Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).
Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" ? clearly a red, white and blue enemy ? would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."
This isn't just loose talk. There are signs of this strategy being implemented. The anti-Japanese riots that swept China in April? That would be psychological warfare against a major Asian rival. The stage-managed protests in 1999, after the U.S. accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, fall into the same category.
The bid by the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Co., to acquire Unocal? Resource warfare. Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech firms and defense contractors? Technological warfare. China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq? International law warfare. Gen. Zhu's threat to nuke the U.S.? Media warfare.
Facebook
Twitter