What's new

The greatest threat to America’s national security is hiding in plain sight: China is the real enemy

Not because of lack of trying to install a pro west regime. But it failed due to incompetency.

This is the most stupidest or brainwashed statement I have ever seen.



You are ignorant about the outrage that the Snowden revelations has caused in Europe and elsewhere around world. Confirmation is an important thing you know. He has taken away the uncertainty.


US policies has benefitted the Jihadist from Libya to Syria. And your logic is that US involvement has zero effect on the region of the Middle East. There is no reaction to the actions of America in the region. You can't or won't face up to the consequences of US policies in the Middle East.

Then again I remember your the guy that said that the US made money out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you care to elaborate on that one?


Ah, yes the mighty US economy. Can you care to explain why the US economy is in contraction and maybe even recession despite interest rate being at 0 ?

I wonder why you did not quote my full message to notify me??

but one look at your message, well, you have no point beside US being incompetence or what you think, lol

Maybe you should learn something about Middle East before you continue.

I especially laugh out really loud, after reading this statement of yours, and it's a problem because I was reading your statement on a computer in a public library

US policies has benefitted the Jihadist from Libya to Syria.

Well, Iraqi policy also benefit Iraqi separatist, Troop are battling ISIS which benefit the Kurd Freedom fighter, maybe someone should tell Iraq to stop attacking ISIS so they will stop helping those Iraqi Separationist

And about US economy and how US make money out of Iraq war, bravo that you ask two completely irreverent question to avoid my own question of your stupidity. B.R.A.V.O

US ultra-nationalist members are hilarious, indeed.

If a war that has been brought into a bordering nation B by a third party C has been undermining the security of A, then, it is a threat to national security of state A. How to define what constitutes national security is up to the individual nation, not Merriam Webster's. It can be an extended or limited meaning. What others think what national security constitutes is not relevant in nations' strategic calculations, not the least China's.

Of course in this case it will be a national security when you actually send troop to a FOREIGN country that is not your own. So next time when China fight Philippine or Vietnam can US call you violate the National Security of the United States and bomb the crap out of the Chinese?

National Security is an INTERNAL matter, by internal it mean WITHIN your own boundary. Anything outside your own boundary is called NATIONAL INTEREST, matter that goes over your own boundary is called "INTERNATIONAL". This is not up to individual country to define the meaning of National and International. unless China want to claim the world is theirs

Do explain to me how a country attacking another country would considered as a national matter of a third separate country? I want to know in what world this logic will make sense.
 
.
I wonder why you did not quote my full message to notify me??

but one look at your message, well, you have no point beside US being incompetence or what you think, lol

Maybe you should learn something about Middle East before you continue.

I especially laugh out really loud, after reading this statement of yours, and it's a problem because I was reading your statement on a computer in a public library



Well, Iraqi policy also benefit Iraqi separatist, Troop are battling ISIS which benefit the Kurd Freedom fighter, maybe someone should tell Iraq to stop attacking ISIS so they will stop helping those Iraqi Separationist

And about US economy and how US make money out of Iraq war, bravo that you ask two completely irreverent question to avoid my own question of your stupidity. B.R.A.V.O



Of course in this case it will be a national security when you actually send troop to a FOREIGN country that is not your own. So next time when China fight Philippine or Vietnam can US call you violate the National Security of the United States and bomb the crap out of the Chinese?

National Security is an INTERNAL matter, by internal it mean WITHIN your own boundary. Anything outside your own boundary is called NATIONAL INTEREST, matter that goes over your own boundary is called "INTERNATIONAL". This is not up to individual country to define the meaning of National and International. unless China want to claim the world is theirs

Do explain to me how a country attacking another country would considered as a national matter of a third separate country? I want to know in what world this logic will make sense.
What about this.

U.S. General: “We Helped Build ISIS” – Islamic State Obtained Weapons from U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked' - Telegraph
 
.
Do explain to me how a country attacking another country would considered as a national matter of a third separate country? I want to know in what world this logic will make sense.
:raise:
In the context of a Chinese poster that has a manichaean view of the world with America as a monolithic redneck hell putting up an article from a guy known as a mixed-up simplistic liberal with an atavistic US centric warmongering slant to boast a fan view of his nation miles below the complex strategic thinking of the CPC?

Could be! Thought it was! Why I avoided the thread! Tay. 8-)
 
.

LOL, so your argument is 2 link which actually misreport the person it supposed to quote and you tell me, yeah, it must be true. If you actually think like this, then you are actually a lot stupider than I already throught

The first link refer to General Thomas McInerney comment on "US help build ISIS"

Let's look at the ORIGINAL fox news interview from Gen. McInerney


Did the good general actually say "US help build ISIS by supplying weapon to ISIS"?

This is a transcript of what he said in the interview

The General were asked Were these People (referring to FSA rebel) worth the US supplying weapon.

General McInerney replied

"Well, uhh, two different things in the Ukraine and in Syria, in Syria, we backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained go back quite some time that we are backing the wrong type, I think it's gonna turn out may be this weekend in the news special showing some of that weapon in Benghazi ended up in the hand of ISIS, so we help build ISIS"

He was answering the question on American being confused to the term, backing the wrong faction within the Free Syrian Army, that at some point, some TV special will show these weapon that the US supplying to those fraction ended up in ISIS hand, and so, "We must be helping ISIS"

Context of a conversation is very important, the article you quote, along with many putting out the same point have spin what he said so that to the story he "admitted" that the US Help Build ISIS. This is okay to fool ignorant people who never even bother to watch the actual interview, such as yourselves, but if you actually watch the interview, you will feel pretty stupid to believe he actually said US help build ISIS.

But then, I don't think you care, do you, what you want is to find some random source and as long as what it said portraying the US as bad guys, that's more than enough for you to believe what It said, no matter how stupid and out of context it could be.

LOL am not bother to rebuke the second link, same story, same shxt, but I can tell you this, if some covert organisation can be broadcasted into mainstream media like that, then they deserved to be call names.

You think CIA operate with NAMETAG and tell CNN yes, we are shipping weapon in Benghazi during the attack so CNN would know about it??

:raise:
In the context of a Chinese poster that has a manichaean view of the world with America as a monolithic redneck hell putting up an article from a guy known as a mixed-up simplistic liberal with an atavistic US centric warmongering slant to boast a fan view of his nation miles below the complex strategic thinking of the CPC?

Could be! Thought it was! Why I avoided the thread! Tay. 8-)

Well, I enjoyed the entertainment they provided us, you cant find such ignorant and foolishness in quality even in today Reality TVs, and my entertainment budget is quite limited. So I sometime just poke them a little and provoke them to say something ridiculous to entertain myself, and they do it every time.

That's better than paying 30 bucks a month for cable TV IMO :lol:
 
Last edited:
.
Perhaps I was a bit too sarcastic. I was indirectly pointing out that, contrary to the propaganda, our sense of fear towards China isn't entirely unfounded (i.e. it's not simply a function of the military-industrial complex, or an American need to destroy rising competitors).

From the American perspective, we have historically been relatively kind towards China (I could go on and on: we were not a significant part of the century of humiliation, we pushed to include China in the WTO, we have been very tolerant of Chinese currency manipulation and IP theft, etc.), but despite everything we perceive we have done for / on behalf of China, China has treated us with hostility. China has never defined what it wants (no definition of the 9-dash line, no definition of the "Chinese Dream," etc.), so how can we know China will not continue to pocket concessions and then demand more? That's why the "China threat" arose, because like the USSR, we feel that no matter what we do, China will demand more.

On a side note, I recognize that China has some grievances, like the Serbian embassy bombing, or the perception that it is being encircled. But in contrast to the cartoon you presented, China has hardly been a helpless, passive infant in international relations (Korean War, the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, the SCS, etc.) A sense of victimhood is easy and comfortable, but does not suit a great power like China.

I agree completely with your last point,despite trying to project itself as a great power china also tries to act as a saint innocent victim who is constantly harassed/threatened/invaded by the evil west. :lol: As if they are saints. Lol some of them even go as far as trying to potray russia in the same way, something even the russian bear itself will laugh at :rofl: :taz:

Its good to see a big country potraying itself as always a victim though. Thought that was more suitable for small weak countries

As for Germany and France I'm talking about the hostile attitude towards them back then.

The reason they won't bomb China and Russia is because of nuclear weapons. The reason why the US is bombing the others is no nuclear weapons.

Read my post above I have already explain to you how the US benefits itself from bombing smaller countries. To maintain its (economic) world order and to keep others in check.

The US is not randomly bombing small countries. Where did I say that the US is randomly bombing small countries ? Those countries are being targetted for control over resources.

The Americans seriously misjudged the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan was a revenge action for 9/11.

But it is hard to reconcile US policies sometimes. Like the US is fighting against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan while at the same time supporting al-Qaeda in Libya (LIFG) and Syria (al-Nusra). Can you explain that ?

So it comes back to this "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad".

Lol i agree with you, the U S is simply mad/crazy. Lol no wonder its still by far the most powerful, technologically advanced,wealthy, sole superpower today where citizens of many countries all over the world dream of immigrating to(millions of chinese included). If i was the one i will never dream of immigrating to an evil crazy country. :)
 
.
Republican Party presidential hopeful Chris Christie calls for war with China
Jun 14, 2015

chris-christie.jpg


Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey who is soon expected to formally launch his bid for the US Presidency, called for adoption of a "military approach" when dealing with China during a speech given at a town hall meeting in the key state of New Hampshire.

According to the Washington Post, while discussing China at the small town of Goffstown, Christie told the audience that the US had to "let them know there are limits to what they're allowed to do." He argued that there had to be a much firmer response to island building in the South China Seas.

The Governor was quoted as saying:

That is an issue that we can handle militarily by going out there and making sure that we show them that we don' respect their claims to these artificial islands in the South China Sea that they'e building, that they're saying are theirs that are hundreds and hundreds of miles from the coast of China and are clearly in international waters. We need to send that signal to the Chinese very clearly that we do not acknowledge nor will we respect their claims to those areas.

Christie has been trying to set himself apart from other candidates in the crowded Republican Party field. His belligerent rhetoric on China looks like an effort to win over neo-conservatives with an eye on foreign policy.

While sabre-rattling is all well and good on the campaign trail, that is assuming he decides to throw his hat into the ring, it is another matter altogether to come up with a coherent strategy by which China can be confronted. The Obama administration has been trying and failing for several years now.

That being said, China bashing is almost obligatory for presidential candidates these days. Late last month, Republican candidate Carly Fiorina declared that the Chinese "can't innovate" and aren't "terribly imaginative." And let's not forget Mitt Romney's determination to label China a currency manipulator.

***

US is gonna have a terrific president in 2016. The above peaceful US member is only being sarcastic. At least majority of his fellow president hopefuls do not agree with him.

Dude needs to eat less
 
.
LOL, so your argument is 2 link which actually misreport the person it supposed to quote and you tell me, yeah, it must be true. If you actually think like this, then you are actually a lot stupider than I already throught

The first link refer to General Thomas McInerney comment on "US help build ISIS"

Let's look at the ORIGINAL fox news interview from Gen. McInerney


Did the good general actually say "US help build ISIS by supplying weapon to ISIS"?

This is a transcript of what he said in the interview

The General were asked Were these People (referring to FSA rebel) worth the US supplying weapon.

General McInerney replied

"Well, uhh, two different things in the Ukraine and in Syria, in Syria, we backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained go back quite some time that we are backing the wrong type, I think it's gonna turn out may be this weekend in the news special showing some of that weapon in Benghazi ended up in the hand of ISIS, so we help build ISIS"

He was answering the question on American being confused to the term, backing the wrong faction within the Free Syrian Army, that at some point, some TV special will show these weapon that the US supplying to those fraction ended up in ISIS hand, and so, "We must be helping ISIS"

Context of a conversation is very important, the article you quote, along with many putting out the same point have spin what he said so that to the story he "admitted" that the US Help Build ISIS. This is okay to fool ignorant people who never even bother to watch the actual interview, such as yourselves, but if you actually watch the interview, you will feel pretty stupid to believe he actually said US help build ISIS.

But then, I don't think you care, do you, what you want is to find some random source and as long as what it said portraying the US as bad guys, that's more than enough for you to believe what It said, no matter how stupid and out of context it could be.

LOL am not bother to rebuke the second link, same story, same shxt, but I can tell you this, if some covert organisation can be broadcasted into mainstream media like that, then they deserved to be call names.

You think CIA operate with NAMETAG and tell CNN yes, we are shipping weapon in Benghazi during the attack so CNN would know about it??



Well, I enjoyed the entertainment they provided us, you cant find such ignorant and foolishness in quality even in today Reality TVs, and my entertainment budget is quite limited. So I sometime just poke them a little and provoke them to say something ridiculous to entertain myself, and they do it every time.

That's better than paying 30 bucks a month for cable TV IMO :lol:
So the US has NO part or role what so ever in creating the mess in the Middle East today ?
 
.
Basically I don't know what you are talking about...But, Bravo!
Thanks guys, new words learned by me!
 
.
So the US has NO part or role what so ever in creating the mess in the Middle East today ?

That was ANOTHER QUESTION.

US have a part in the mess in middle East today since US SUPPORT ISREAL in foreign policy, that have NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER TO THE CURRENT ISIS CRISIS.

Extremist Islamism exists WITH OR WITHOUT the creation of Israel. As it predate the establishment of Jewish states. On the other hand, US policy on supporting Israeli create tension to middle eastern government. You can say US caused Iranian unfavourable relationship by supporting Israeli.

On the other hand ISIS is not an governmental organisation, it is an extremist terrorism organisation. If you say US supporting Israel brings to the problem of extremistism, then you are directly saying Arab states officially sponsor or sanction terrorism

If you don't want to look stupid, stop asking stupid question....
 
.
Five Chinese Weapons of War America Should Fear | The National Interest

In the last twenty years, China has quickly ascended from a regional to global military power. A generation ago, the People’s Liberation Army was armed with antiquated weapons and oriented towards a manpower-intensive “People’s War”. In the intervening period China has gone from a green to blue water navy, the air force is actively developing so-called fifth-generation fighters, and the army has been extensively modernized.

A vast array of new Chinese weapons are under development, some alarming in their potential.

China’s neighbors and the United States are observing China’s buildup with interest and concern. China is showing itself to be particularly interested in projecting military power in support of territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. Weapons that empower China to take decisive military action in support of such claims could escalate a regional crisis into a larger one involving Washington.

China recognizes the potential for conflict with the United States, however small, and is planning accordingly. China is pouring resources into weapons specifically designed to target American forces and limit their ability to operate near the Chinese mainland. These “anti-access, area-denial” (A2/AD) weaponshave the potential to exclude American forces from China’s innermost defense zone: the so-called “First Island Chain” consisting of the Kuril Islands, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Borneo.

The chances of a shooting war between China and the United States are remote, and neither is set on war with the other. However, the extent to which the interests contradict or compete with each another means war cannot be entirely ruled out. With that in mind, here are the five Chinese weapons the United States fears most.

DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile

The most dangerous weapon to U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific region is the Dong Feng-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). Somewhat prematurely dubbed “the Carrier Killer”, the DF-21D is a medium-range ballistic missile specifically designed to attack American aircraft carriers, skirting the defenses of a U.S. naval task force to attack ships from above at hypersonic speeds.

DF-21D is a land-based system, with an estimated range of up to 1,500+km. Once launched, the missile would release a reentry vehicle traveling at speeds of up to Mach 10-12. The resulting velocity and kinetic energy—to say nothing of the reentry vehicle’s payload—would cause serious damage to even the largest naval vessels. Nobody knows for sure, but it is believed direct hits from a DF-21D could be enough to put an aircraft carrier out of action, or even sink it.



Mounted on a wheeled transporter and launcher, the DF-21D would be road-mobile and thus extremely hard to locate before launch. The reentry vehicle’s hypersonic speed would make it difficult—but not impossible—to shoot down.

The DF-21D has an Achilles’ heel, the so-called “kill chain” of sensors, relay stations, and command and control centers required to detect, identify, track, and hit a ship with a ballistic missile. There are many links in the chain leading to a successful DF-21D launch, and breaking just one would interrupt the entire process.

China would have to devote considerable reconnaissance assets to killing a carrier and maritime surveillance is not China’s strong suit. Land-based, over-the-horizon radars are imprecise, and maritime patrol aircraft, UAVs and submarines will be vulnerable to the carrier’s air wing. Only China’s satellites have the ability to provide tracking data, and those can be jammed or otherwise disabled.

The DF-21D was allegedly tested in early 2013, when two craters were observed in an outline of an aircraft carrier in the Gobi Desert.

The DF-21D weapon may be operational, but the kill chain is likely not, and it may be years before the entire system is fully operational. Still, the prospect of a weapon that can kill 5,600 Americans, destroy seventy aircraft, and destroy a pillar of American power projection worldwide is a sobering one to contemplate.

Chengdu J-20 Fighter

China’s first fifth-generation fighter, the J-20 is a large, twin-engine aircraft currently in the demonstrator phase. The J-20’s mission set is unknown, but the aircraft’s robust design seems to support it going in a number of different directions. The aircraft promises to be long-range, fast- and low-observable—if not outright stealthy. China has built three prototypes, the latest flew in early March 2014. The aircraft is projected to enter service some time around 2020.

A striking, delta-winged design complemented by large forward canards and a twin tail, the J-20 is China’s most ambitious aircraft project ever. The aircraft is speculated to mount a modern AESA phased array radar, an electro-optical targeting system. The two large internal weapons bays could conceivably carry a payload of air-to-air, land attack or anti-ship missiles.

The most obvious role for the J-20 is as an air superiority fighter. The J-20’s long range means the fighter can operate farther off China’s coast, intercepting attack and bomber aircraft including F/A-18 fighter bombers and B-1 and B-2 bombers. As a long-range fighter, the J-20 could also patrol disputed territories,particularly in support of China’s recently declared Air Defense Identification Zone.

China could also use the the J-20 to target American support aircraft. Airborne early warning aircraft such as the E-3 Sentry and E-2C Hawkeye and aerial refueling aircraft such as the KC-135 and KC-130 are key assets that allow American forces to operate at long ranges. J-20 fighters equipped with long-range air-to-air missiles could attempt to shoot these aircraft down, crippling American and allied air forces.

Another possible role for the J-20 would be to attack American ships and bases in the Asia-Pacific. Groups of radar-evading J-20 fighters carrying land-attack missiles could precede a Chinese conventional ballistic missile strike, taking out American surface-to-air missile batteries, air bases, radar stations, and command and control targets across the Pacific. The strike would suppress American defenses and pave the way for conventional ballistic missiles strikes.

Time will tell what direction—or directions—the J-20 will take. Not knowing what the J-20 is designed to do, however, is an unwelcome unknown in a world with a twenty-year lead time on fighter jets.

Anti-Satellite Weaponry

For decades, American space-based military assets have given U.S. forces a considerable advantage on the battlefield. Satellites are essential to the American way of war. This is especially true in the Asia-Pacific, where distances from the continental United States are measured in thousands of miles.

China has at least an operational weapon, the SC-19. A derivative of the DF-21, the SC-19 ballistic missile is equipped with the KT-2 (a kinetic kill vehicle). Launched into space, the KT-2 is guided to target by infrared sensors. The KT-2 does not have an explosive warhead but destroys enemy satellites by colliding with them.

In 2007, an KT-2 struck and destroyed an aging Chinese satellite. In May 2013 China launched what it described as a “sounding rocket” carrying high-altitude experiments. U.S. intelligence believes that this was actually an SC-19/KT-2 test. The SC-19 is believed to be capable of reaching medium earth orbit, which would put American GPS navigation satellites at risk.



Chinese ASAT weapons could target a variety of American satellites, including intelligence collection, communications, and navigation satellites. The loss of such satellites would make it difficult to perform reconnaissance missions over China. It would also interfere with air, land and sea navigation, slow communications, and prevent the use of GPS-guided weapons.

Evidence suggests that China intends to put the SC-19 missile on wheeled transporters and launchers. With more than 1.86 million miles of paved roads in China, locating and destroying mobile Chinese ASAT weapons would extremely difficult.

The use of anti-satellite weaponry by China in any future conflict would be roundly denounced. Still, as dependent as U.S. forces are on satellites the temptation to take the first shot in space would be difficult to resist.

Type 071 Landing Platform Dock

Power projection is becoming increasingly important to China, particularly to enforce territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. China’s ability to land amphibious troops on some island chains such as the Senkaku, Paracel and Spratly islands could embolden the leadership to do exactly that.

China has three amphibious assault ships of the Type 071 class, Kunlunshan, Jinggangshan and Changbaishan. The three ships are what western naval observers would call China’s “Gator Navy”: ships designed to transport and land marines on hostile shores. Three more Type 071s are expected, as well as six amphibious ships with full-length flight decks like the American Wasp-class.

The three Type 071 ships were built by the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyards of Shanghai. Each ship displaces 20,000 tons and is nearly 700 feet long. The 071 class can transport up to a battalion of marines—roughly 400 to 800 troops—and up to eighteen armored vehicles.

The ships have a flight deck capable of simultaneously operating two W-9 troop-carrying helicopters, and can store another four in a large hangar. The ships also have a very long well deck that can store and launch amphibious vehicles, rigid-hulled inflatable boats, and four Chinese troop-carrying hovercraft similar to the American LCAC.

China’s 071 amphibious transports are based with China’s South Seas Fleet, where they can be used to intimidate—or invade—Taiwan. However, like Western navies, China has been quick to embrace their use in other roles. In addition to assaulting coastlines and islands, Gators can also serve in the command and control, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance roles. One transport, Jinggangshan, is currently in the Indian Ocean as part of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 recovery effort.

A lone amphibious ship such as Jinggangshan is not worrisome. However, it represents the kind of expeditionary capability that an adventurous China could use to escalate a territorial dispute into a very dangerous situation.

Offensive Cyber Operations

The People’s Liberation Army believes establishing “electronic dominance” early on is critical to their success in a future conflict. Of the five Chinese weapons that America fears the most, the most enigmatic is China’s ability to mount offensive cyber operations.

Offensive cyber operations are defined by a wide spectrum of activity, from psychological operations to destroying enemy equipment and infrastructure. China’s electronic army might achieve that dominance by include seizing control of communications networks, planting harmful software, and even conducting online disinformation campaigns. Offensive cyber is best used in conjunction with traditional military operations, to present another front. For example, Chinese cyber operations could disrupt enemy computer networks or jam enemy communications prior to an aircraft and missile attack.

Detached from traditional military ideas of operational range, Chinese offensive cyber operations could be used against military or civilian targets without regard to geographic location. Offensive cyber operations are also the only weapon on this list that can strike the American homeland.

China’s main cyber unit appears to be the General Staff Department, Third Department. Roughly analogous to the U.S. National Security Agency, the Third Department may have as many as 130,000 personnel, attached to Chinese military units, twelve operational bureaus, and three research institutes. Within the Third Department is the Second Bureau, also known as 61398 Unit, tasked for operations involving the United States.

According to the Project 2049 Institute the General Staff Department, Fourth Department, traditionally tasked with electronic warfare and signals collection, may be involved in offensive cyber operations. The People’s Liberation Army’s concept of “integrated network and electronic warfare” makes it clear that China considers jamming enemy computer networks and jamming battlefield electronics related activities. The Chinese military links cyber operations to traditional forms of electronic warfare in ways the United States often does not.



Despite the amount of manpower devoted to China’s cyber capabilities, capabilities remain relatively unsophisticated. There is no sign, for example, that China is capable of such offensive cyber weapons as Stuxnet. Desmond Ball, a professor at Australian National University, argues that China’s leadership is well aware of their shortcomings in cyber warfare and this has “led to the adoption of a pre-emptive strategy…in which China’s very destructive but relatively unsophisticated cyber-warfare capabilities are unleashed at the very outset of prospective conflicts.”

The United States may be a leader in Internet and networking technologies, but the rapid development pace of both means that potential exploits will be constant and ever-changing. As both technologies continue to penetrate American society and the U.S. Military, there will be more opportunities for an adversary to exploit the cyber realm in a future conflict.

War between the United States and China is not inevitable any more than war with the Soviet Union was inevitable. There are quite a few good reasons that a great power war is even less likely than it was during the Cold War, particularly the state of mutually beneficial economic interdependence between the United States and China. That China should develop weapons such as these shouldn’t be any great surprise; it is logical from their perspective to prepare to engage the United States even without the intention of war.

These five weapons do not make war more likely—rather, they may give self-conscious China the confidence to cooperate with its neighbors and the United States. Alternately, they may tempt China to decisively settle longstanding claims—or create new ones. One thing is for certain: they put the ball in China’s court.
 
.
This is a four part interview with Kay Griggs, the ex-wife of a very high ranking US military officer. Take your time and listen what she tells (just cut out the Christian stuffs she talk about). You guys might understand the NATO trolls like gambit, hindustani and jhungary etc. much better. ;)

 
.
Pentagon:China Aims to Unseat US as King of the Skies

The United States sees China as a serious threat to its military superiority in air and space, so the Pentagon is seeking new technologies and systems to keep America ahead of its rival, the US deputy defense secretary said.


Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work told to a group of military and civilian aerospace experts that China was "quickly closing the technological gaps."

He said Beijing is developing radar-evading aircraft, advanced reconnaissance planes, sophisticated missiles and top-notch electronic warfare equipment, Reuters reported.

When it comes to military capabilities, China "continues to improve at a very impressive rate," Work added.

In fact, the United States is so concerned with China's rapidly developing capabilities that it established the China Aerospace Studies Initiative (CASI), a joint venture between the US Air Force and the RAND Corporation think-tank aimed at uncovering Beijing's aerospace goals.

"As the Department of Defense, we're the hedge force…. We say, 'Look, here are capabilities that we see that the Chinese are developing and it's important for us to be able to counter those,” he said at the CASI inaugural conference.

Citing a Harvard study on rising powers confronting established powers, Work said such interactions often result in war, Reuters reported. Therefore, the Defense Department must "hedge against this international competition turning more heated."

Traditionally, the United States has felt the best way to avoid such a conflict is by keeping a strong nuclear and conventional deterrence superior to that of any rival, he added.

Work said the United States has relied on technological superiority for the past 25 years, but now "the margin of technological superiority upon which we have become so accustomed… is steadily eroding."

To adjust, he said, the Pentagon is working to develop new technologies to maintain its edge and lower the cost of responding to attacks, Reuters reported. Directed energy weapons, for example, might be able to shoot down missiles that cost a hundred times the price of a jolt of energy.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom