China is Stirring: Why Now?

[Ryan Ruck]

China is Stirring: Why Now?

In the last few weeks and months, two important new military capabilities were apparently demonstrated by China to show the U.S. new — and some say troubling – Chinese military powers. First, in October of 2006, a Chinese Song Class diesel electric submarine crept covertly to within five nautical miles of the USS Kitty Hawk, a U.S. navy aircraft carrier.

This one act said to many naval observers two things: That China intends to patrol further than ever from its shores and that China now can effectively evade U.S. Navy anti-submarine warfare systems and place warships in a position to quickly eliminate the U.S. Navy’s capital ships.

Then on January 11, 2007, China launched a land-based rocket that intercepted and destroyed an old Chinese satellite. This one act indicated that China may have the early stages of a “space denial” weapon system for use against the U.S. in a crisis or war.

Both incidents followed a period of decreased intelligence gathering by the U.S. against China.

Military intelligence officials told us that the U.S. Pacific Commander, Admiral William “Fox” Fallon, had restricted U.S. intelligence-gathering activities against China, fearing that disclosure of the activities would upset relations with Beijing.

Last week the White House announced that Admiral Fallon is now the President’s nominee to succeed General John Abazaid as the Commander of the Central Command.

We asked ourselves, “Why would China be revealing these apparently new, and to some frightening, capabilities at this time?”

We discovered a mixture of reasons after questioning several current and former officials of the State and Defense Departments in the U.S. along with former National Security Council staff members and some well known “China watchers.” We also drew upon the excellent reporting on China by Mr. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times.

–Burgeoning Power. China is the burgeoning superpower of the world. China’s economy, the world’s fourth largest, is likely to enjoy a fifth straight year of double-digit growth in 2007. On January 20, 2007, Reuters reported that “Beijing’s leaders, despite unveiling a slew of policies in recent months to prevent over-heating, are unwilling to countenance a major slowdown because of the need to create jobs for millions of people joining the workforce every year.”

It seems as though every product for sale at your neighborhood Wal Mart or Sears is marked “Made in China.”

Speaking of China’s government leaders, Yuan Gangming, an economist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a top think-tank, said “As in 2006, they want a growth rate of 10.5 percent or even higher.”

China is spreading its wings and its economic influence the world over.
In China, the sea routes and overland transportation system from China to the sub-Saharan region of Africa is called “The New Silk Road.” The original “Silk Road” was a key trade route comprised of an interconnected series of roads, routes and sea lanes spanning from Korea to the Mediterranean Sea.

“This new ’silk road’ potentially presents to sub-Saharan Africa - home to 300 million of the globe’s poorest people and the world’s most formidable development challenge - a significant and rare opportunity to hasten its international integration and growth,” author of the study “Africa’s Silk Road: China and India’s New Economic Frontier.”

The author of the book, World Bank Economic Adviser Harry G. Broadman, says that skyrocketing Asian trade and investment in Africa is part of a global trend towards rapidly growing South-South commerce among developing countries.

“Asian exports to Africa are growing at 18 per cent per year, faster than to any region in the world. China and India’s foreign direct investments in Africa are more modest than trade flows, but they are growing rapidly,” Broadman said.

Paul Craig Roberts wrote in August 2005, that “China already is a world power. China holds enough U.S. government debt to have the dollar and U.S. interest rates in its hand.”

Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Ronald Reagan Administration (1981–1989). He is a former editor and columnist for Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, and the Scripps Howard News Service.

China “owns” a large chink of U.S. debt – second only to Japan. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded largely on “borrowed” money from China.

This according William Schneider in The National Journal: “The U.S. budget deficit is financed by borrowing. More and more of that money comes from China, now the United States’ second-largest lender, after Japan. China’s investment in U.S. government debt has more than tripled in the past five years, from $71 billion in 2000 to $242 billion in 2005.”

Is that a problem? No, says the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. “Dollars all look the same,” he added. “Their ultimate source doesn’t matter.”

William Schneider is the CNN’s senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly.

–“Testing the Waters.” China is “feeing out” the international response to many of its new initiatives. The U.S. Pentagon has asked that China become more open and forthcoming about its military plans and investments for many years. Just recently, China has become more “transparent” about its military spending and its priorities.

Just after Christmas, 2006, China released a new “White Paper” on its defense intentions. “China will not engage in any arms race or pose a military threat to any other country,” the 91-page white paper said. “China is determined to remain a staunch force for global peace, security and stability.”

“The struggle to oppose and contain the separatist forces for Taiwan independence and their activities remains a hard one,” said the report from the State Council, China’s Cabinet.
It indirectly criticized the United States for promising Beijing that it will adhere to the “one-China” policy, “but it continues to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan, and has strengthened military ties with Taiwan.”

As for the navy, it is “working to build itself into a modern maritime force of operation consisting of combined arms with both nuclear and conventional means of operations,” the report said.

Sunanda K. Datta-Ray of the Hindustan Times wrote, “China’s ambitious defence White Paper hard on the heels of its African initiatives warns of a relentless advance to what — shades of the Middle Kingdom! — Hu Jintao calls his country’s ‘historical mission.’”

In his annual threat assessment, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress on Jan. 11: “Several countries continue to develop capabilities that have the potential to threaten U.S. space assets, and some have already deployed systems with inherent anti-satellite capabilities, such as satellite-tracking laser range-finding devices and nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.”

On the same day, the Chinese destroyed an aging weather satellite using what’s known as a kinetic-kill vehicle sent into space aboard a Chinese ballistic missile. Kinetic-kill vehicles were an integral part of President Reagan’s dream of protecting the U.S. against ballistic missile attacks, a plan critics mocked and still do.

–Distractions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. China knows that the U.S. is terribly distracted by other foreign policy imperatives. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea are “sucking the air out of our ability to breathe and concentrate on other, seemingly lesser trouble spots,” a former State Department country officer told us. “Why do you think we don’t pay much attention to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela?”

Last July, at the height of the war between Israel and Hezbollah, the U.S. Secretary of State had a scheduled trip to China, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and Malaysia. Naturally, in the heat of war, the American Secretary of State scrubbed the entire trip, save the Malaysian piece.Asians we know, were very offended – each nation lost face and all Asia lost face, they told us. The Chinese were particularly concerned that Israel and Hezbollah seemed more important to Ms. Rice than all of China.Making things worse, the U.S. Secretary of State went to Malaysia for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers. Instead of visiting with heads of state in Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul and Hanoi, the Secretary of State went to a club meeting of Foreign Ministers and played the piano for the assembly at dinner (Brahms’ Sonata in D Minor, 2nd Movement).

Worse still, for right or wrong, the Secretary of State rushed back to the Middle East, it seemed, to deal with the troubles of Israel; a small and insignificant nation in the eyes of many in the vast populations of Asia. We, in America, lost face – especially in the calculating minds of the Chinese.

–U.S. Navy is “Stretched,” Showing some “Strain.” The United States Navy has, as best we can determined, contracted form a “goal” during the Ronald Reagan years of 600 ships to about 276 ships now. Every unplanned deployment of Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups or Marine Corps Amphibious Groups exacerbates the “strain” on a service which would have a key role on the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean should any major Asian crisis come to the edge of hostilities.

When the President made the decision to send an additional Aircraft Carrier Battle Group to the vicinity of the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea recently, many writers questioned how the U.S. would account for the loss of that firepower near Japan and Korea or in the event of a crisis near Taiwan.

There are only 12 U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. Typically, four may be engaged in overseas operations or deployments, four are preparing and training for future action and three or four have recently returned from six-months of at sea operations and are in some form of maintenance. One or more may be in an extended overhaul and unavailable for service.

With two aircraft carriers in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf and North Arabian Sea that only leaves one in the entire Pacific Ocean and one covering the Atlantic/Mediterranean operating areas.

China sees this and asks itself: “If we ever need to take back Taiwan by force, we might best do this when the U.S. Navy Aircraft carriers are days or weeks away.”

We didn’t make this question up. It was a gift to us from a People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Admiral.

China is no match for the U.S. Navy, certainly. But a number of advanced warships will gradually come into service in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (P.L.A.N.) in the next few years. The bulk of these ships will belong to two new guided missile destroyer classes called 052B and 052C. The 052C will be fitted with an advanced integrated air defense system, supposedly similar to the U.S. Aegis phased-array radar display, with a high capability to engage multiple targets simultaneously.

China’s surface fleet consists presently consisting of 64 large combatant units: 21 destroyers and 43 frigates. Chinese Navy planners are facing the demanding task of replacing obsolete ships with more modern and capable units.

To speed this process, P.L.A.N. continues to bring into service units of the Russian Sovremenny-class destroyers, while pursuing the construction of its own type 052B and 052C-class warships.

China also is pursuing the construction of a completely new ship, , that is expected to be very large and loaded with heavy surface armament. The first ship of this series is being built in China’s Dalian shipyard.

Beijing is apparently not yet attempting to build an aircraft carrier.At the moment, the creation of an extensive ship-borne air force by building and China’s submarine fleet consists of 57 units: 51 diesel submarines (SS) and six nuclear powered attack submarines (SSN).

China currently has one new Type 094 nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) of the Xia-class but construction of the series has been slow and laborious. Regional Crisis and the Protection of Sea Lines of CommunicationThe naval construction plan as a whole indicates that the duties that P.L.A.N. will be called upon to tackle in the next few years will be the protection of sea lines of communication to keep open the “choke points” relevant to China’s trade flow, and power projection in areas identified as vital for China’s national interests.

–U.S. Seen Often As “Easy Mark.” The Associated press reported last week that State Metal Industries, a Camden, New Jersey, company convicted in June of violating export laws over a shipment of AIM-7 Sparrow missile guidance parts it bought from Pentagon surplus in 2003 and sold to an entity partly owned by the Chinese government. The company pleaded guilty to an export violation, was fined $250,000 and placed on probation for three years. Customs and Border Protection inspectors seized the parts — nearly 200 pieces of the guidance system for the Sparrow missile system — while inspecting cargo at a New Jersey port.

The company was only ordered to pay a fine of a few thousand dollars.

“For better or for worse, our U.S. openness and the perceived weakness of our laws encourages the Chinese to believe that America doesn’t really care about deterring or catching Chinese spies or law violators,” a Pentagon official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity told us.

“There are Chinese spies everywhere in America: we know it and they know we know it. We just don’t really do much about it unless what they do is really quiet serious or blatantly wrong.,” the same official told me.

–Weakness of the “Lame Duck” President. The midterm elections in November 2006 were a stinging blow to President Bush and the Republican Party. Control of the House and the senate shifted to the Democratic Party. By Many accounts, the president of the United States became a “lame duck” president, with very limited power and influence until he is replaced by a new man – or woman.

This is the kind of situation that emboldens Chinese leaders.

In no nation is more duck eaten than in China.

Another piece of troubling news from China: China’s military is delaying the U.S. visit of its strategic nuclear forces commander despite a promise by Chinese President Hu Jintao last year that the general would hold talks with the U.S. Strategic Command leader.

Caroline Bartholomew, chairman of the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said Beijing’s failure to respond to the U.S. office is a concern. “The commission recommended a [U.S.-China] dialogue on strategic-forces issues to ensure that both China and the United States understand the lines in the sand,” she said. “There are certain acts which have traditionally been and will continue to be seen as hostile, such as blinding satellites and threatening a nuclear attack on our cities.”

Miss Bartholomew said “we must hope that Gen. Jing’s lack of responsiveness to the invitation to visit U.S. Strategic Command, despite the fact that he has been elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, does not reflect Chinese government disinterest in strategic warning and mutual threat-reduction measures.”

[vector7]

China mysteriously quadruples rice imports, continues to stockpile commodities

joemiller.us
Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:47 CST

Yesterday, it was reported that China - not currently suffering from any food shortages - is amassing rice stockpiles. This past year, the country mysteriously imported four times the rice over 2011 purchases:

United Nations agricultural experts are reporting confusion, after figures show that China imported 2.6 million tons of rice in 2012, substantially more than a four-fold increase over the 575,000 tons imported in 2011. The confusion stems from the fact that there is no obvious reason for vastly increased imports, since there has been no rice shortage in China. The speculation is that Chinese importers are taking advantage of low international prices, but all that means is that China's own vast supplies of domestically grown rice are being stockpiled. Why would China suddenly be stockpiling millions of tons of rice for no apparent reason? Perhaps it's related to China's aggressive military buildup and war preparations in the Pacific and in central Asia.

Yesterday's revelation follows reports over the past several years of the Chinese amassing commodities in warehouses through out the nation.

For example, Reuters reported last year that:

At Qingdao Port, home to one of China's largest iron ore terminals, hundreds of mounds of iron ore, each as tall as a three-storey building, spill over into an area signposted "grains storage" and almost to the street.

Further south, some bonded warehouses in Shanghai are using carparks to store swollen copper stockpiles - another unusual phenomenon that bodes ill for global metal prices and raises questions about China's ability to sustain its economic growth as the rest of the world falters.

Several months ago, at least one analyst speculated that a commodities buying spree involving 300,000 tons of metals in another Chinese province was motivated by an attempt to keep local smelters running, thereby ensuring continued tax revenues to government. But that doesn't explain the rice-buying.



They Are Getting Ready: “No Obvious Reason” For Why China Is Massively Boosting Stockpiles of Rice, Iron Ore, Precious Metals, Dry Milk

Mac Slavo
January 9th, 2013
SHTFplan.com
Comments (289)
Read by 20,250 people

If there were ever a sign that something is amiss, this may very well be it.

United Nations agricultural experts are reporting confusion, after figures show that China imported 2.6 million tons of rice in 2012, substantially more than a four-fold increase over the 575,000 tons imported in 2011.

The confusion stems from the fact that there is no obvious reason for vastly increased imports, since there has been no rice shortage in China. The speculation is that Chinese importers are taking advantage of low international prices, but all that means is that China’s own vast supplies of domestically grown rice are being stockpiled.

Why would China suddenly be stockpiling millions of tons of rice for no apparent reason?

Perhaps it’s related to China’s aggressive military buildup and war preparations in the Pacific and in central Asia.

If a 400% year-over-year increase in rice stockpiles isn’t enough to convince you the Chinese are preparing for a significant near-term event, consider that in Australia the country’s two major baby formula distributors have reported they are unable to keep up with demand for their dry milk formula products. Grocery stores throughout the country have been left empty of the essential infant staple as a result of bulk exports by the Chinese.

A surge in sales of one of Australia’s most popular brands of infant formula has led to an unusual sight for this wealthy nation: barren shelves in the baby aisle and even rationing of baby food in some leading retail outlets.

We’d be more apt to believe the Chinese were panic-buying baby formula had the Chinese milk scandal occurred recently. The problem is that it happened four years ago. Are we to believe the Chinese are just now realizing their baby food may be tainted?

In addition to the apparent build-up in food stocks, the Chinese are further diversifying their cash assets (denominated in US Dollars) into physical goods. In fact, in just a single month in 2012, the Chinese imported and stockpiled more gold than the entirety of the gold stored in the vaults of the European Central Bank (and did we mention they did this in one month?).

Their precious metals stockpiles have grown so quickly in recent years that Chinese official holdings remain a complete mystery to Western governments and it’s rumored that the People’s Republic may now be the second largest gold hoarding nation in the world, behind the United States.

We won’t know for sure until the official disclosure which will come when China is ready and not a moment earlier, but at the current run-rate of accumulation which is just shy of 1,000 tons per year, it is certainly within the realm of possibilities that China is now the second largest holder of gold in the world, surpassing Germany’s 3,395 tons and second only to the US.

But the Chinese aren’t just buying precious metals. They’re rapidly acquiring industrial metals as well.

Spot iron prices are up to an almost 15-month high at $153.90 per tonne. The rally in prices, which started in December 2012, is mainly due to China’s rebuilding of its stockpiles as the Asian giant gears to boost its economy, which in turn, could improve steel demand.

The official explanation, that China is preparing stockpiles in anticipation of an economic recovery, is quite amusing considering that just 8 months ago Reuters reported that China had an oversupply, so much so that their storage facilities had run out of room to store all the inventory!

When metals warehouses in top consumer China are so full that workers start stockpiling iron ore in granaries and copper in car parks, you know the global economy could be in trouble.

At Qingdao Port, home to one of China’s largest iron ore terminals, hundreds of mounds of iron ore, each as tall as a three-storey building, spill over into an area signposted “grains storage” and almost to the street.

Further south, some bonded warehouses in Shanghai are using carparks to store swollen copper stockpiles – another unusual phenomenon that bodes ill for global metal prices and raises questions about China’s ability to sustain its economic growth as the rest of the world falters.

Now, why would China be stockpiling even more iron (and setting 15 month price highs in the process) if they had massive amounts of excess inventory just last year?

Something tells us this has nothing to do with an economic recovery, or even economic theory in terms of popular mainstream analysis.

Why does China need four times as much rice year-over-year? Why purchase more iron when you already have a huge surplus? Why buy gold when, as Federal Reserve Chairmen Ben Bernanke suggests, it is not real money? Why build massive cities capable of housing a million or more people, and then keep them empty?

It doesn’t add up. None of it makes any sense.

Unless the Chinese know something we haven’t been made privy to.

Is it possible, in a world where hundreds of trillions of dollars are owed, where the United States indirectly controls most of the globe’s oil reserves, and where super powers have built tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and spent hundreds of billions on weapons of war (real ones, not those pesky semi-automatic assault rifles), that the Chinese expect things to take a turn for the worse in the near future?

The Chinese are buying physical assets – and not just representations of those assets in the form of paper receipts – but the actual physical commodities. And they are storing them in-country. Perhaps they’ve determined that U.S. and European debt are a losing proposition and it’s only a matter of time before the financial, economic and monetary systems of the West undergo a complete collapse.

At best, what these signs indicate is that the People’s Republic of China is expecting the value of currencies ( they have trillions in Western currency reserves) will deteriorate with respect to physical commodities. They are stocking up ahead of the carnage and buying what they can before their savings are hyper-inflated away.

At worst, they may very well be getting ready for what geopolitical analyst Joel Skousen warned of in his documentary Strategic Relocation, where he argued that some time in the next decade the Chinese and Russians may team up against the United States in a thermo-nuclear showdown.

Hard to believe? Maybe.

But consider that China is taking measures now, in addition to their stockpiling, that suggest we are already in the opening salvos of World War III. They have already taken steps to map our entire national grid – that includes water, power, refining, commerce and transportation infrastructure. They’re directly involved in hacking government and commercial networks and are responsible for what has been called the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. Militarily, the PRC has been developing technology like EMP weapons systems, capable of disabling our military fleets and the electrical infrastructure of the country as a whole, and has been caught red-handed manufacturing fake computer chips used in U.S. Navy weapons systems.

If you still doubt China’s intentions and expectations, look to other governments, including our own, for signs that someone, somewhere is planning for horrific worst-case scenarios:

• The Russians have scheduled 5,000 underground bunkers for completion this year.
• Europe rapidly designed, built and stocked the so-called Doomsday Seed Vault in Svalbard, Norway, which contains tens of thousands of varieties of seeds and is supposed to preserve them in the event of Armageddon style events like asteroid impacts or nuclear war.
  
• The United States government has been stockpiling tens of millions of emergency meals and other supplies and regionalizing their emergency distribution centers across the country (curiously, those supplies never made it to Hurricane Sandy victims)
• The government has purchased nearly 2 billion rounds of ammunition in the last few years.
• The Pentagon has been Actively War Gaming ‘Large Scale Economic Breakdown’ and ‘Civil Unrest’
• China recently made a call, through their Xinhua news agency, for the complete disarmament of the American population (Behind every blade of grass…)

Perhaps there’s a reason why former Congressman Roscoe Bartlett has warned, “those who can, should move their families out of the city.”

As Kyle Bass noted in a recent speech, “it’s just a question of when will this unravel and how will it unravel.”

Given how similar events have played out in history, we think you know how this ends.

It ends through war.

Governments around the world are stockpiling food, supplies, precious metals and arms, suggesting that there is foreknowledge of an impending event.

Should we be doing the same?

[American Patriot]

they need to feed that invading army.

When America is disarmed, they will come.... screaming hordes of Yellow men with guns against the unarmed American public.

This is not how I am going to die.

[Phil Fiord]

Some have suggested the Chinese would not invade the US due to the huge money the US owes to China for buying our debt.

First, cornering the various stapled of food is a build up for a shortage while causing a preshortage for any foes. It means war prep. As to the money, well, what would China like more, the money paid back or our country land and resources?

[vector7]

Xi Jinping orders PLA to prepare for 'real combat'

Updated: 2012-12-13 08:22

Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, has ordered the country's army of 2.3 million to intensify its "real combat" awareness to sustain military readiness.

Xi made the remarks during an inspection conducted from Saturday to Monday at the Guangzhou military theater of operations, a term usually used to emphasize the coordination and joint operations by forces in the air, land and sea, according to a news release issued by military authorities on Wednesday.

Xi also chairs the CPC Central Military Commission, the top decision-making body for China's armed forces.

China's People's Liberation Army, with 2.3 million enlisted personnel, is the largest in the world.

Xi asked PLA officers and non-commissioned officers to adopt real combat criteria in military training and intensify such awareness among soldiers.
Xi also reaffirmed the PLA's core task of improving its abilities to win regional wars in the information age and conduct diversified military operations.

"Bear in mind that it is the soul of the military to obey the command of the Party without compromise, it is the top priority for the military to be able to fight and win battles, and it is fundamental that the military consolidates itself through governing the troops lawfully and austerely," Xi told officers above the division level of the garrison troops in Guangzhou.

Video footage from Central China Television showed Xi, wearing an army-green suit during his inspection, boarding a PLA Navy destroyer, the Haikou, and having dinner with sailors on the warship. He also examined an armored vehicle and observed a military drill.

Xi urged PLA officers and soldiers to maintain their loyalty to the CPC by studying and implementing the spirit of the CPC's 18th National Congress.
"The PLA should unconditionally implement the principles to govern the military lawfully and austerely, train the troops through strict discipline, always focus on grassroots units and further improve fighting capabilities," Xi said.

He showed his firm belief that on the way to realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the heroic PLA must carry forward the cause, forge ahead into the future and effectively implement the historic mission.

Li Jie, a professor at the Naval Military Studies Research Institute, said Xi's order that the PLA strengthen "real combat" awareness comes at a time when the country faces complicated international situations, particularly tensions in its maritime territories.

"Currently there are many unstable factors in the nation's maritime domain, such as the Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea. We need to ensure that the PLA is getting prepared for any challenges," he said.

Li said the PLA has not fought for more than two decades. "If you compare the intensity of training between the PLA and the US Army, the PLA lags far more behind and the latter also had many real battlegrounds to fight on over the years," he said.

Li said the emphasis of the rule of law in the army is also necessary.
"It's true that there's a lack of law awareness among some PLA soldiers and officers. We need to enforce law in the army to ensure the authority of the country, as well as the Party's discipline system," he said.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/20...t_16012303.htm

PLA to strengthen combat readiness

Updated: 2013-01-14 19:41

The General Staff Headquarters of the People's Liberation Army has pledged to stage more military drills that simulate real combat, urging commanders and soldiers to strengthen their readiness for possible war, the PLA Daily reported on Monday.

In a directive on military training in 2013, the headquarters said the PLA is determined to improve its combat capability by holding more military exercises to mock real situations on the battlefield, according to the report.

All servicemen and servicewomen should always bear in mind the awareness of war and the sense of crisis, the directive said.

The headquarters also underlined the importance of information technologies in the drills, saying the PLA encourages innovation for its tactics and operations.

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...t_16116077.htm

[American Patriot]

China has about 342 million males available for military service.

The US is an all volunteer force. We have about 1.3 million personnel in all services combined, male and female, and about 300K combat trained with experience (rough numbers, and they are mine, I'm pulling them out of my ass, but I think I'm pretty close).

The Chinese can field about 4.5 million combat people, along with another 3 or so million paramilitary forces.

Let me see... Armed Americans, or "paramilitary resistance force" would be somewhere around 5-6 million (a guess given what I know about gun ownership).

We would meet them with a sufficient force to repeal them IF we the people were left alone to do our thing, our gun ownership is left alone

But at this point in time, the Left in America is trying to disarm us. If they do this, we will be open to attacks from outside.

[Malsua]

I don't believe the Chinese now or the Japanese in WW2 have ever worried for more than 2 seconds that their invasion would be repelled by irregular US citizens.

[American Patriot]

Worried they would be repelled? You mean you believe they would and could have invaded and not be repelled then?

[Malsua]

Worried they would be repelled? You mean you believe they would and could have invaded and not be repelled then?

I believe they could have invaded. I believe they would have been repelled. I do not believe it was average Joe with the double barrel his grandpa owned that would have had any part in the repelling nor would the Japs then, or the Chicoms now have factored that into their decision.

[American Patriot]

Ah ok. I have to disagree then - at least in this modern age.

I know that Average Joe with a random gun is not "trained" in general to be a combat soldier. However, a large number of people in this country including me were trained in the use of combat arms. While I am not sure I can lead a squad of men into a large scale action I'm confident I can, at least on a tactical scale defend against, or attack another small unit and come out on top.

Of the people I personally know who own weapons - and that's a lot of people, the vast majority of them have served in the military and can take orders, have given orders, have some sense of military cohesion.

I think the Chinese (as well as Russians and other adversaries) know this as well and they absolutely would factor the number of guns in America against a proposed invasion.

Wouldn't YOU Mal, yourself, were your are invaded and the local authorities needed the help, assist them yourself? I think the majority of Americas seeing an invasion from without - including the "gang members", white and blue collar workers of this country, and everyone in between would try to do something to help. I will rule out those who are so dependent on the government for subsistence they wouldn't raise a finger to help and wouldn't give a rats rump one way or the other. Criminals, druggies and other low lifes... probably wouldn't help.

I guess I still have some hope for the American spirit.

But if what you say is true, then it doesn't matter about disarming the American public. The Chinese are going to do whatever it takes to down our society, and it looks like sooner than later. (of course, they will start with Taiwan as a test)

[Malsua]

I'm just sick of hearing "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". There is NO proof that any Jap ever uttered that phrase or anything like it.

I'm sick of people talking about the number of people that are hunters and calling them the largest army in the world.

It's bullshit.

A modern army with air cover, armored vehicles, tanks, mortars, artillery, etc. would hardly be hindered by a bunch of fudds with AR-15s or even SAWs.

Would those same people, when formed into a well regulated militia be a force? To some degree. Perhaps about as effective as the Taliban is against our army when ROE prevents a US response. Do you think the Chicoms would have ROE like we do on an invasion? No. They'd simply execute everyone, bomb the shit out of resistance and drive over the corpses.

By the same token, talking about how many "men" can be fielded by the Chicoms has no bearing on their effectiveness. Just like the US, but worse, the chicoms have a bunch of dopey, dumb ass mopes. Can they be trained up to follow orders? Sure, but for the most part they are a bunch of uneducated doofusses.

[American Patriot]

/chuckles

Ok. I get it. I know that it has been say that Yamamoto said that, and I also know it's said he didn't.

Thing is, the only folks I can find that say he didn't say it are Factcheck.org - and Obama run propaganda group. But, ok, I see your points.

[American Patriot]

But either way, Yamamoto DID state that the Japanese Imperial forces could NOT defeat the United States due to our superiority in material and military. So regardless of the actual quote - he likely believed something similar.

[Malsua]

But either way, Yamamoto DID state that the Japanese Imperial forces could NOT defeat the United States due to our superiority in material and military. So regardless of the actual quote - he likely believed something similar.

He wouldn't invade due to the resilience of the American people, that fact that he could not project a large enough force onto the US mainland logistically and because he had not cleared out the pacific fleet and would then get boxed in. It was not because "there was a rifle behind every blade of grass".

[American Patriot]

Point taken.

[Ryan Ruck]

One thing you might be forgetting Mal is that we've been in a constant state of war for the last 10 years. We have a huge number of veterans both from active duty and the reserves who have seen combat duty.

I would say in a stand up fight, without armor or CAS you'd be right about effectiveness. Going head to head with modern armor would be suicide. But, that's not where the militia's strength lies. Asymmetrical warfare is the key. Those tanks need fuel and parts to move, UAVs need ground control stations with large antenna/satellite dishes, aircraft need pilots and parts and fuel, troops need food and gear, etc., etc.

[Malsua]

One thing you might be forgetting Mal is that we've been in a constant state of war for the last 10 years. We have a huge number of veterans both from active duty and the reserves who have seen combat duty.

I would say in a stand up fight, without armor or CAS you'd be right about effectiveness. Going head to head with modern armor would be suicide. But, that's not where the militia's strength lies. Asymmetrical warfare is the key. Those tanks need fuel and parts to move, UAVs need ground control stations with large antenna/satellite dishes, aircraft need pilots and parts and fuel, troops need food and gear, etc., etc.

Asymmetrical warfare is great if you're already occupied. As I've stated before, when the Soviets invaded Finland during the Winter War, the #1 weapon of choice was the Molotov Cocktail. It took out 80 tanks. This applies to APCs, mobile command posts, mobile bunkers, whatever. Chinese invaders are not fireproof.

[American Patriot]

even if you're not already occupied.... they still have to roll through an area leaving their backs open. Fighting from the sides, the front, behind even with small arms is nothing to sneeze at. The one thing I can absolutely, positively say with personal experience to back it up is that when you're fighting the side with the more powerful army you don't hit them head on.

You come at them from every side, you use everything at your disposal and you destroy them by attrition.

Unfortunately the conflict in which I was involved didn't really end with the side we were on winning. But then neither did the Vietnam War - we bailed out of that too without putting a major effort into it.

[vector7]

Clinton assures Japan on islands, invites Abe to U.S. in February

WASHINGTON | Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:48pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured Japan on Friday of U.S. support in Tokyo's dispute with Beijing over a string of islands and invited new Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Washington in late February for a meeting with President Barack Obama.

Clinton held a working lunch with Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida, and both emerged pledging that U.S.-Japan security and economic ties would remain strong following Abe's landslide election victory last month.

"Our alliance with Japan remains the cornerstone of American engagement with the region," Clinton told reporters, noting a wide range of cooperation on everything from disaster relief to the stand-off over nuclear North Korea.

Clinton, due to step down in coming weeks, again affirmed that the United States would stand by its longtime ally in its territorial dispute with China over islets in the East China Sea claimed by both countries.

Tensions over the tiny islands, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, have flared in recent months, one of several maritime territorial disputes involving China that have worsened as Washington seeks to shift its security focus to Asia.

"Although the United States does not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the islands, we acknowledge they are under the administration of Japan," Clinton said, repeating the long-standing U.S. position on the dispute.

"We oppose any unilateral actions that would seek to undermine Japanese administration, and we urge all parties to take steps to prevent incidents and manage disagreements through peaceful means."

Kishida signaled that Abe, who had taken a tough stance on the dispute during his election campaign, was not eager to escalate the conflict.

"While Japan will not concede and will uphold our fundamental position that the Senkaku islands are an inherent territory of Japan, we intend to respond calmly so as not to provoke China," he said through an interpreter.

Clinton announced that Abe had been invited to Washington in the third week of February to hold his first meeting with Obama.

FACING CHINA

Abe had hoped to make the United States his first overseas visit following his election last month on a platform that called for both reviving Japan's struggling economy and coping with China's rising power in the region.

But the visit was postponed due to Obama's tight schedule, and Abe traveled instead to Southeast Asia before cutting the trip short this week to return home after Japanese workers were caught up in the hostage crisis in Algeria.

U.S. officials describe a generally healthy relationship with Tokyo, albeit one hampered by frequent changes in the Japanese leadership. Kishida is the sixth Japanese foreign minister to hold office during the four years that Clinton has been America's top diplomat.

Abe came to power partly on a nationalist platform and wants to revise Japan's U.S.-drafted constitution adopted after World War Two. U.S. officials have indicated they would like to see Japan loosen constitutional restraints on its military to enable a bigger global security role.

The United States and Japan have also sought to cooperate on plans to streamline the U.S. military presence in the southern Japanese island of Okinawa including proposals to move the Futenma air base to a new site.

Clinton said she was confident that the two sides could make further progress on the issue, while Kishida said the Abe administration was committed to working through a framework deal the two sides announced last year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...90H1AX20130118

[vector7]

World View: Discussion of China's Directive to 'Get Ready for War'

by John J. Xenakis 21 Jan 2013 34 post a comment

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• China's strategy
• How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?
• China's military strength
• The Chinese threat

China's strategy



China's Army marching in Tiananmen Square (CNN)

My recent article "China's directive to the People's Liberation Army: Get Ready for War" was posted in several places and drew hundreds of questions and comments. In this article, I'm going to provide some responses.

I quoted Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, as advocating a short decisive war against one of China's neighbors:

"Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real. This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia. We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel."

One web site reader wrote:

"China might alternatively pick Vietnam as the dog to be killed. Vietnam does not have a defense pact with the United States and the U.S. might seek to provide only indirect assistance to Vietnam. Vietnam might also refuse to surrender and be impossible to pacify in a "quick war".

China could find itself at war with a minor power and not with any major power for a number of years."

Another wrote:

"If China was going to war with anyone (and I do not wish war on anyone) I'd prefer they attack Vietnam. This wouldn't suck the Western Allies in and it could teach China a good lesson of being bled dry by a tenacious enemy. This would be best case IMO outside of peace of course."

This discussion highlighted something that hadn't occurred to me before: That an attack on Vietnam is the "logical" choice for China. From China's point of view, there would be several advantages:

• It would raise far less nationalism in the United States than would attacks on Japan or the Philippines.
• China has a score to settle with Vietnam, following the 1979 China-Vietnam war.
• The motive would be "kill a chicken to scare the monkeys," as the old Chinese saying goes.
• It would assert complete control over the South China Sea.
• China claims that America has been a troublemaker in the South and East China Seas, because these countries have been confronting China in the confident belief that they would be defended by the U.S. If the U.S. does not defend Vietnam, then the other countries would no longer feel confident, and would no longer challenge China.
• It would scare Japan, so that China could take control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and Japan would retreat.

(The last reason, of course, is sheer fantasy, but it's possible that Chinese hawks believe it.)

China invaded Vietnam in 1979 in a war where China was repulsed quickly. China made some serious mistakes in that war. Those mistakes would not be repeated in this crisis era.

It's possible that a Chinese invasion of Vietnam would lead to President Obama's "Neville Chamberlain moment." But, as in that case, any later aggressive action by China would lead to full-scale war. Time Magazine

How would the U.S. react to a Chinese invasion of a neighbor?

Some Chinese military planners believe that Americans will "run like rabbits" and not honor its mutual defense treaties, if China invaded one of its neighbors. A lot of commenters believe the same thing:

"The only reason the Chinese might think "Americans will run like rabbits" is because of this administration's recent weak performance in the Middle East, and because of the tenuous U.S. (and Western) economy (both White House admins are to blame here). Whatever one thinks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is clear to all foreign entities that America shows neither a principled and goal oriented interaction nor a policy engaged from a position of confidence (exerted quietly or visibly)."

I expressed the opinion that "President Obama would not have any choice if Congress declared war, which might happen within hours of any Chinese attack." One reader responded:

"First, yes he would. He could dither on the deployments the way France and the U.K. did after Hitler seized Bohemia and Moravia and declared Slovakia a Protectorate, then dithered some more when Hitler declared war on Poland, launching a mighty Sitzkrieg offensive in the Pacific while saving the Blitzkrieg for the media and stump circuit.

In the face of that, all Congress could do is impeach him, even while an attempt is made to repeal the 22nd Amendment so he can do nothing for even more [years].

Second, what if a declaration of war passes the House but not the Senate? Never mind the Chamberlain in the White House, Harry Reid could play his own version of Neville, and no war resolution would ever reach the floor of the Senate.

What exactly would happen if Congress "couldn't" decide?"

Dithering would be a high-risk political strategy for the President and a Democratic Senate. When Neville Chamberlain promised "Peace in our time" after meeting with Hitler, he was doing something that seemed perfectly reasonable on that day. And yet, Chamberlain has been damned by history as the man who appeased Adolf Hitler. President Obama would risk being damned as a modern day Neville Chamberlain who appeased the Chinese.

China's military strength

There were widely varied opinions about China's military strength:

"A nuclear holocaust might be a tad bit premature. We're not really sure what China's nuclear capability is, specifically their ability to hit the US. Couple of points:

Until the 1990s, their primary nuclear target was the Soviet Union. China is notorious for stockpiling archaic military equipment, even if it doesn't work.

Even if Obama's military and nuclear cuts hit before any war with China, our nuclear capability far exceeds theirs. The Chinese government knows this.

China probably has around 500 - 600 nuclear weapons and enough materials to build another 400 over a few years. But the US is not China's only target. Some of those weapons have to be kept aimed at India and Russia, both nuclear powers.

Many of China's warheads are mounted on train-track based launchers that are pointed north, northwest. China would be risking a Russian retaliatory strike by launching those warheads.

Many, as high as 20%, of China's warheads are gravity bombs designed to be dropped by late WWII style bombers.

China does not have force projection capabilities. They have one carrier in partial service and with a small air wing. They have no long range amphibious assault ships. They cannot establish a perimeter line, like the Japanese, that could keep US forces away from mainland China. And China does not have the nuclear ability to knock the US out of any fight. They can position diesel electric subs at choke points in an attempt to ambush US carrier groups. That does nothing about the USAF and China would be gambling their entire sub force.

A far more realistic scenario would be a Chinese invasion of easier targets in the region. Picture The Philippines, Okinawa, and/or Taiwan. If the US intervened, China would use a limited number of nuclear weapons on nations that could provide the US with military bases, specifically Japan. Hitting Japan would have the bonus of hitting the US economy. China will be betting on the US not retaliating with nuclear weapons if the US is not the target. China would then fortify their gains and simply wait for the US to go bankrupt. Once that happens, China would be free to begin expanding its control throughout the remainder of South East Asia and the Pacific unopposed."

Another reader pointed out:

"Based on what we know, the DF21 "carrier killer" missile shown in the photo has never been tested on seaborne targets."However, one more reader said that China's military capabilities are far more advanced than we realize:

"What most people don't realize is that most of China's infrastructure is dual-use civilian/military. That is, every train, plane, truck, railway, road, you name it, is designed for military use, as well as civilian use. For example, in a matter of weeks, all of China's shipping -ALL of it- can literally be plugged into the military command and control system and converted for military use. This incluse 'plug and play' cargo, missile and weapons systems for their cargo ships and civilian aircraft.

In short, they held an arms race...and no one else showed up.

What set them off was America's victory in the first gulf war. They paid attention and began to redesign their entire military and civilian infrastructure. They also reworked their military philosophy. For over twenty years, they've been preparing to fight America in a war.

A probable naval scenario: Imagine a cargo ship loaded with disposable anti-ship missile platforms. Precision guided missiles. Thousands of them. Imagine a US navy task force on the receiving end of five thousand precision guided missiles."

China is known to be planning "asymmetric warfare," attacking America's weak points by unconventional means. According to one reader:

"Our key vulnerability is cyberattack. We're still not doing as much as we should to protect ourselves, but we're finally taking action and it looks like some of our leaders are realizing how dangerous it is. That'll be the primary method to take down our capabilities. I would say it would set us back at least a couple months, probably longer than that. Their optimum time to strike in that theater would be in the near future. Our satellites will be the next mode of crippling us. I read in the 2007 about their anti-satellite and I'd bet that by now they've got hundreds of anti-satellite missiles ready for use. It won't take more than a day or two."

See also "14-Oct-12 World View -- Huawei scandal exposes potential 'Cyberwar Pearl Harbor' from China" from last year.

The Chinese threat

There were some skeptical remarks, like:

"With the coming soft or hard landing in China's economy, using war with a small neighbor, is a sure fire way to divert the attention of the common person. Look at Argentina did during the Falkland Island war and ready to do it again. Only a mistake or believing their own public relations spin will start a war between the US and PRC."

However, the most skeptical remark of all was simply:

"This is a completely uninformed and ridiculous article."

I knew I would get this kind of criticism, and that's why I put in links to several Chinese and American sources, so that readers could verify the information for themselves. However, I would add that comments like this usually come from someone who couldn't even find China on a map, let alone have a clue what's going on in the world.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, my school teachers mocked and ridiculed two sets of people in the 1930s: The ones who, like Herbert Hoover, believed that "prosperity was just around the corner," even though the Depression kept worsening, and the ones who ignored the dangers in Europe and simply took "Peace in our time" for granted. When I was in school, I never understood how so many people could be so obviously wrong. Now that the same thing is happening today, I realize that there are many people who simply can't deal with the anxiety, and are willing to believe almost anything.

I've been writing about the coming war with China for almost ten years now. What has been apparent all along is that China isn't even bothering to hide their intentions. It's not like Russia, for example, where Vladimir Putin may bash and scorn the West, but the days of "We will bury you" are long gone.

But the Chinese vocally threaten war somewhere almost on a daily basis. They have a very different world view that we have. In 2007, I quoted Sha Zukang, the Chinese U.N. ambassador, who said, "one INCH of the territory is more valuable than the LIVES of our people." With 1.5 billion people, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) almost has no choice but to view people as interchangeable and expendable cogs in a massive wheel of agriculture and industry. China has made this clear repeatedly. I believe that it was Lao Tzu in "The Art of War" who said that in a war the side with the advantage is the side that isn't afraid to die, and the Chinese aren't afraid to allow millions of their people die if that's the way to achieve victory.