Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category


October 15, 2018

Washington Times on October 10, 2018, reported on warnings by top security officials in the United States that China, not Russia, presents ”the broadest most complicated, most long term counterintelligence threat” to America. Excerpts below:

In separate letters, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, South Dakota Republican, and Sens. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, and Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, questioned top executives at Super Micro Computer, Apple and Amazon over reports that Chinese spies siphoned information from the U.S. tech giants and possibly others via tiny chips inserted on server circuit boards made by Super Micro.

The Chinese government and the firms in question have soundly rejected the claim, which first appeared in a Bloomberg BusinessWeek report…

“If this news report is accurate,” Mr. Rubio and Mr. Blumenthal wrote, “the potential infiltration of Chinese back doors could provide a foothold for adversaries and competitors to engage in commercial espionage and launch destructive cyber attacks.”

The backdoor hacking scandal was expanding even as Justice Department officials were announcing charges against a Chinese government operative who they said tried to steal secrets from U.S. aviation and aerospace companies, including GE Aviation.

Yanjun Xu, a senior officer with the Ministry of State Security, is accused of luring U.S. executives to China in order to steal their company’s technology, officials said at a press conference…Mr. Xu was arrested in Belgium in April and returned to the United States…

On Capitol Hill, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen offered their own warnings to the Senate Homeland Security committee about the long-term threat posed by China’s economic and military rise.

“Russia is in many ways fighting to stay relevant after the fall of the Soviet Union,” Mr. Wray said. “They’re fighting today’s fight. China’s is fighting tomorrow’s fight.”

Committee members grilled the two top security officials on President Trump’s accusation last month that China is trying to meddle in the upcoming congressional midterm elections. Mr. Trump said Republican voters were being targeted because of his aggressive trade policies targeting Beijing.

Ms. Nielsen said China was “exerting unprecedented effort to influence American opinion,”…

Mr. Rubio unveiled the Congressional-Executive Commission on China’s (CECC) annual report on human rights in China — a 300-page document that tracks what it calls a “downward trajectory” in human rights since President Xi Jinping took power in 2012.

The CECC was created in 2000 and has long been critical of China’s economic, security and rights policies.

Comment: These warnings underline how important the American policies are in defending against China’s economic aggression. China seeks to supplant the U.S. as the world’s pre-eminent geopolitical power.

The longstanding assumption that America’s China policy of integration is good has been a problem since 2012, when Xi took power. During 2012 to 2016 the regime in Beijing was allowed to strengthen its position unopposed.

It is not only the question of Chinese economic aggression but also the rise of China as a more globally oriented military power.

The belief that China’s military challenge to the U.S. was regional in nature is clearly dangerous. Beijing now is seeking the capabilities that will allow it to project its own military power well outside its regional neighborhood.
China is however not the only challenger to the West in Eurasia. Two other empires, Russia and Iran, are also challengers. There seems presently no signs that these three empires are coordinating their efforts more in detail. China, for example, is exerting growing control in Siberia, which might worry Moscow. The nearest target of China is the Pacific. In the North Pacific closer cooperation between the United States and Japan is needed to oppose Chinese attempts at growing influence among the island nation states. As to the South Pacific partners of support against China would mainly be Australia and Chile.



October 14, 2018

American Greatness on December 21, 2018, recommended a number of books for those interested in understanding populism in the United States. Julius Krein, the editor of American Affairs, a quarterly journal of public policy and political thought, lauded a visionary book by James Burnham (1905 – 1987). Excerpts below:

In ”The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World” (1941), James Burnham explains the economic and intellectual history of the new “managerial” society that supplanted entrepreneurial capitalism over the course of the twentieth century. Closely connected with this economic transition is the shift from parliamentary and constitutional government toward administrative bureaucracy. Any work of this type will contain some anachronisms and mistaken predictions, but many of Burnham’s insights may seem more relevant now than at the time of writing, as the trends that he identified have only accelerated since then.

While rising “populism” receives significant attention today, our understanding of the composition and interests of the so-called “elite” is severely lacking. On one hand, “Conservatives” typically denounce the “adversary culture” and “postmodernism/relativism” of today’s intellectual elite, yet too often remain blind to the economic realities behind political and social transformations. “Progressives,” by contrast, protest rising inequality, yet ignore important differences between today’s elite and that of prior periods, specifically the separation between ownership and control that prevails in managerial arrangements and distinguishes them from classical notions of capitalism.

This failure to understand the nature of the current political and economic “elite” explains why so many politicians and intellectuals of the left and right have failed to understand voters’ dissatisfaction with the status quo. Reading Burnham is essential to correcting this misunderstanding and for developing better responses to present policy problems.

Comment: Burnham’s ”The Managerial Revolution” is a classic work in the field of elite study. He followed up in 1943 with another classic, ”The Machiavellians – Defenders of Freedom”. It was an account of a remarkable group of scholars who had studied how to preserve freedom in Western society. They were Gaetano Mosca, Georges Sorel, Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto. The original Machiavellian was of course the great Italian Niccoló Machiavelli. His method was the method of science applied to politics. It may be surprising to describe Machiavelli as a defender of liberty. He has incorrectly often been described as a proponent of tyranny. In reality he hated tyranny and believed that only out of the continuing clash of opposing groups could liberty flow. Liberty is the dominant ideal of the Italian master thinker. It is no wonder that the powerful throughout the ages have denounced the Florentine diplomat and writer. They can recognize an enemy who like Machiavelli will never compromise.

During the Cold War Professor Burnham was an important thinker on the threat of Soviet power and published three basic studies on American strategy in the conflict between Soviet totalitarianism and Western freedom.


October 12, 2018

Newsmax TV on October 10, 2018, reported that Asia expert Gordon Chang had told the network that Mr Trump is ”knitting together a coalition” to create leverage against China. Excerpts below:

“The USMCA [United States, Mexico, and Canada Agreement on trade] really is an indication that the Chinese are in trouble, because President Trump is knitting together a coalition…

“When you put that together with a handshake deal that he has with the Europeans and with the deal that eventually he’ll come to with Japan, it really means that China is isolated.

“That’s going to be a really important thing for us as we eventually — when we sit down and talk to Beijing about all of the grievances that we have. So, this is really good policy on the part of the Trump administration.”

“China right now looks increasingly fragile,” Chang told Winterble. “When their markets opened after the national week, they plummeted 4.8 percent, and that’s a real indication there’s a lack of confidence on the part of players: They don’t want to hold their stock; they don’t want to hold their own currency.

“So, President Trump has a lot of means to exert leverage…”

Comment: This is good news for all who believe it is important for the West to stand up against the rising superpower China (with North Korea) in Eurasia and the two other empires Russia and Iran.

Bad news for China was reported on October 11, 2018, by Geopolitical Futures, a leading US-based geopolitical think tank. The U.S. Treasury has presented plans to implement a review system concerning foreign investment in 27 different high-tech sectors that are critical to national security as for instance telecommunications and aviation bio-tech. Beijing thinks it will be possible to manage U.S. defensive moves against China’s trade aggression. If other major world economies start limiting Chinese investment, however, it will be a serious strike against China’s modernization plans. Other developments point to Chinese anxiety about being left out in the cold.


October 11, 2018

Washingtom Times on October 4, 2018, reported on the U.S. new counterterrorism strategy which is a total break with the Obama administration in this field. Excerpts below:

National Security Adviser John R. Bolton said the 25-page document argues that terrorism now occurs on a “landscape more fluid and complex than ever,” but that the U.S. must confront first and foremost the ideology of “radical Islamist militants” and the threat in particular from Iran.

The counterterrorism strategy is the first update since the Obama administration’s 2011 plan, which came before the rise of Islamic State focused heavily on defeating al Qaeda.

To pursue terrorists at their source, Mr. Bolton explained, meant isolating them from support networks. The strategy also notes the need for strong borders and secure ports of entry into the U.S.

In the 17 years since the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. has “succeeded in disrupting large-scale attacks in the homeland since 2001 but has not sufficiently mitigated the overall threat that terrorists pose,” Mr. Bolton said

…the new strategy does not “focus on a single organization but will counter all terrorists with the ability and intent to harm the United States, its citizens and our interests.”

A fierce critic of Iran’s theocratic regime, Mr. Bolton also highlighted the threat from Tehran, which the State Department lists as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The new strategy is making its debut even as the Trump administration is reimposing economic sanctions on Iran after President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 Iran nuclear accord this spring.

“We look at all of the threatening ideologies that we facing, including not just Sunni ideologies, but the Islamic Revolution of 1979 emanating from Iran,” Mr. Bolton said.
As for the Islamic State, Mr. Bolton argued that despite losing all but 1 percent of the territory it previously held across Iraq and Syria, it remains a powerful threat to America.

…the new strategy omits all reference to climate change as a threat to U.S. national security or a destabilizing force in volatile regions such as the Middle East.

“I don’t think climate change is a cause of international terrorism,” Mr. Bolton told reporters.


October 8, 2018

On October 4, 2018, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence at Hudson Institute remarked on the administrations policy in relation to China. Below are some excerpts from the speech as it was published by National Interest the same day:

But I come before you today because the American people deserve to know… as we speak, Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States.

China is also applying this power in more proactive ways than ever before, to exert influence and interfere in the domestic policy and politics of our country.

Under our administration, we’ve taken decisive action to respond to China with American leadership, applying the principles, and the policies, long advocated in these halls.

In the “National Security Strategy” that President Trump released last December, he described a new era of “great power competition.” Foreign nations have begun to “reassert their influence regionally and globally,” and they are “contesting [America’s] geopolitical advantages and trying to change the international order in their favor.”

In this strategy, President Trump made clear that the United States of America has adopted a new approach to China.

Comment: In the following part of the speech Mr. Pence described how the United States early supported Chinese freedom. America advocated the ”Open Door” policy of freer trade with China. America stod as an ally of China during the Second World War. After 1949 China began to pursue authoritarian expansionism. After the fall of the Soviet Union ”we assumed that a free China was inevitable”.

The dream of freedom remains distant for the Chinese people. And while Beijing still pays lip service to “reform and opening,” Deng Xiaoping’s famous policy now rings hollow.

Over the past 17 years, China’s GDP has grown 9-fold; it has become the second-largest economy in the world. Much of this success was driven by American investment in China. And the Chinese Communist Party has also used an arsenal of policies inconsistent with free and fair trade, including tariffs, quotas, currency manipulation, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and industrial subsidies doled out like candy, to name a few. These policies have built Beijing’s manufacturing base, at the expense of its competitors – especially America.

China’s actions have contributed to a trade deficit with the United States that last year ran to $375 billion – nearly half of our global trade deficit. As President Trump said just this week, “we rebuilt China” over the last 25 years.

Now, through the “Made in China 2025” plan, the Communist Party has set its sights on controlling 90% of the world’s most advanced industries, including robotics, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence. To win the commanding heights of the 21st Century economy, Beijing has directed its bureaucrats and businesses to obtain American intellectual property – the foundation of our economic leadership – by any means necessary.

Beijing now requires many American businesses to hand over their trade secrets as the cost of doing business in China. It also coordinates and sponsors the acquisition of American firms to gain ownership of their creations. Worst of all, Chinese security agencies have masterminded the wholesale theft of American technology – including cutting-edge military blueprints.

And using that stolen technology, the Chinese Communist Party is turning plowshares into swords on a massive scale…

China now spends as much on its military as the rest of Asia combined, and Beijing has prioritized capabilities to erode America’s military advantages – on land, at sea, in the air, and in space. China wants nothing less than to push the United States of America from the Western Pacific and attempt to prevent us from coming to the aid of our allies.

America had hoped that economic liberalization would bring China into greater partnership with us and with the world. Instead, China has chosen economic aggression, which has in turn emboldened its growing military.

Nor, as we hoped, has Beijing moved toward greater freedom for its people. For a time, Beijing inched toward greater liberty and respect for human rights, but in recent years, it has taken a sharp U-turn toward control and oppression.

But as history attests, a country that oppresses its own people rarely stops there. Beijing also aims to extend its reach across the wider world. As Hudson’s own Dr. Michael Pillsbury has said, “China has opposed the actions and goals of the U.S. government. Indeed, China is building its own relationships with America’s allies and enemies that contradict any peaceful or productive intentions of Beijing.”

China uses so-called “debt diplomacy” to expand its influence. Today, that country is offering hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure loans to governments from Asia to Africa to Europe to even Latin America. Yet the terms of those loans are opaque at best, and the benefits flow overwhelmingly to Beijing.

These are only a few of the ways that China has sought to advance its strategic interests across the world, with growing intensity and sophistication. Yet previous administrations all but ignored China’s actions – and in many cases, they abetted them. But those days are over.

Under President Trump’s leadership, the United States of America has been defending our interests with renewed American strength…

And at President Trump’s direction, we’re also implementing tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods, with the highest tariffs specifically targeting the advanced industries that Beijing is trying to capture and control. And the

President has also made clear that we’ll levy even more tariffs, with the possibility of substantially more than doubling that number, unless a fair and reciprocal deal is made.

Our actions have had a major impact. China’s largest stock exchange fell by 25% in the first 9 months of this year, in large part because our administration has stood up to Beijing’s trade practices.

The American people deserve to know that, in response to the strong stand that President Trump has taken, Beijing is pursuing a comprehensive and coordinated campaign to undermine support for the President, our agenda, and our nation’s most cherished ideals.

Beijing is employing a whole-of-government approach to advance its influence and benefit its interests. It’s employing this power in more proactive and coercive ways to interfere in the domestic policies and politics of the United States.

The Chinese Communist Party is rewarding or coercing American businesses, movie studios, universities, think tanks, scholars, journalists, and local, state, and federal officials.
Worst of all, China has initiated an unprecedented effort to influence American public opinion, the 2018 elections, and the environment leading into the 2020 presidential elections…

In June, Beijing circulated a sensitive document, entitled “Propaganda and Censorship Notice,” that laid out its strategy. It states that China must “strike accurately and carefully, splitting apart different domestic groups” in the United States.

To that end, Beijing has mobilized covert actors, front groups, and propaganda outlets to shift Americans’ perception of Chinese policies. As a senior career member of our intelligence community recently told me, what the Russians are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing across this country.

But China’s actions aren’t focused solely on influencing our policies and politics. Beijing is also taking steps to exploit its economic leverage, and the allure of China’s large domestic market, to advance its influence over American corporations.

Beijing now requires American joint ventures that operate in China to establish “party organizations” within their company, giving the Communist Party a voice – and perhaps a veto – in hiring and investment decisions.

Chinese authorities have also threatened U.S. companies that depict Taiwan as a distinct geographic entity, or that stray from Chinese policy on Tibet. Beijing compelled Delta Airlines to publicly apologize for not calling Taiwan a “province of China” on its website. It also pressured Marriott to fire a U.S. employee who liked a tweet about Tibet.

Beyond business, the Chinese Communist Party is spending billions of dollars on propaganda outlets in the United States, as well as other countries.

China Radio International now broadcasts Beijing-friendly programming on over 30 U.S. outlets, many in major American cities. The China Global Television Network reaches more than 75 million Americans – and it gets its marching orders directly from its Communist Party masters. As China’s top leader put it during a visit to the network’s headquarters, “The media run by the Party and the government are propaganda fronts and must have the Party as their surname.”

That’s why, last month, the Department of Justice ordered that network to register as a foreign agent.

These and other actions, taken as a whole, constitute an intensifying effort to shift American public opinion and public policy away from the America

Our administration will continue to act decisively to protect American interests, American jobs, and American security.

As we rebuild our military, we will continue to assert American interests across the Indo-Pacific.

As we respond to China’s trade practices, we will continue to demand an economic relationship with China that is free and fair and reciprocal, demanding that Beijing break down its trade barriers, fulfill its trade obligations, and fully open its economy, just as we have opened ours.

We will continue to take action until Beijing ends the theft of American intellectual property, and stops the predatory practice of forced technology transfer…

And to advance our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific, we’re building new and stronger bonds with nations that share our values, across the region – from India to Samoa. Our relationships will flow from a spirit of respect, built on partnership, not domination.

We’re forging new trade deals, on a bilateral basis, just as last week, President Trump signed an improved trade deal with South Korea, and we will soon begin negotiating a historic bilateral free-trade deal with Japan.

As our National Security Strategy states: “Competition does not always mean hostility.” As President Trump has made clear, we want a constructive relationship with Beijing, where our prosperity and security grow together, not apart. While Beijing has been moving further away from this vision, China’s rulers can still change course, and return to the spirit of “reform and opening” and greater freedom. The American people want nothing more; the Chinese people deserve nothing less.

There is an ancient Chinese proverb that tells us that “men see only the present, but heaven sees the future.” As we go forward, let us pursue a future of peace and prosperity with resolve and faith…

Faith in President Trump’s leadership, and the relationship that he has forged with China’s president…

Faith in the enduring friendship between the American people and the Chinese people…

Faith that heaven sees the future – and by God’s grace, America and China will meet that future together.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.

Comment: The Cold War was to a great centered on the Atlantic. In case of Soviet aggression aid from the United States would come from the western side of the ocean. Large armies tood ready in the Soviet Union, in Eastern Europe and as far west as in Germany. As the Soviet regime collapsed in 1991 it was not clear that a new challenger would appear on the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Communist China later abandoned its destructive socialist economic policy and the regime in Beijing was invited to join global trade in the false belief that this would lead to a more free society in China.

As remarked by Vice President Pence this did not happen. China has chosen economic aggression, which has in turn emboldened its growing military.

Beijing has not moved toward greater freedom for the Chinese people. In recent years the regime has taken a sharp U-turn toward control and oppression.

The important actions of the present American administration of President Donald Trump in relation to China is of great geopolitical significance. As early as 1893 American geopolitician Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan in a letter to New York Times recommended U.S. annexation of Hawaii as a first step to secure the North Pacific. A failure to act could be catastrophical if China would burst its barriers eastward.

In his book ”The Problem of Asia” Mahan described a future struggle in central Asia, which he called ”debatable and debated ground”. China had an ”immense latent force” as potential geopolitical rival. Mahan understood that Western science and technology would at some time be globalized…”it is difficult to contemplate with equanimity such a vast mass as the four hundred millions of China concentrated into one effective political organization, equipped with modern appliances, and cooped within a territory already narrow for it.”

Europe should join with Western allies in the Pacific in supporting the new American strategy of defense against Chinese economic aggression and preparing against possible future Chinese military aggression.


October 5, 2018

On September 30, 2018, Washington Times published an article on the China military buildup in the Indian Ocean Region. Excerpts below:

In May 2018 the United States military renamed the “U.S. Pacific Command” to the “U.S. Indo-Pacific Command” in a largely symbolic gesture as no significant policy changes or shifts in military activity have been announced in conjunction with the move to rename.

The aggressive military build-up of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea, and the ongoing conflict this has created with the United States and others in the region, has been the focus of a substantial amount of attention by U.S. foreign policy-makers and U.S. armed forces in the Indo-Pacific Command region for several years now.

The Indian Ocean Region (IOR), by contrast, has neither been a region of serious concern for Washington nor an arena of significant action for the U.S. armed forces at any point in recent memory…

The Indian Ocean Region [is] one of the globe’s last economic and strategic frontiers. For two decades the Chinese government has “quietly” placed substantial focus on developmental and strategic projects in Africa largely unimpeded by any other great or regional power. This monumental Chinese effort is part of the well-known “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative fixated on economic dominance, military prowess and “soft-power” (influence) necessary for challenging the United States as the global hegemon.

The most immediate concern for U.S. strategic interests in the region is China’s establishment of a new major military base in Djibouti, China’s first ever beyond the South China Sea region. The base, capable of housing up to 10,000 soldiers at a time and in close proximity to the strategically significant Bab-el-Mandeb strait, includes a port, a free-trade zone, and provides logistical support for China’s naval force which protects China’s commercial fleet from piracy and other threats in the region.

The large, permanent presence of Chinese forces in the region now allows the PRC to militarily and strategically contend with Western powers…

Chinese strategic ambitions in the Indian Ocean Region are also reflected in their serious uptick in relations with Pakistan, a major component of which is the One Belt, One Road-based China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project that includes the construction of Gwadar port, which provides China a direct point of access to the another critical energy shipping chokepoint in the Straits of Hormuz. Construction has also commenced on China’s second overseas military base in Jiwani, Pakistan.

The aforementioned developments allow China to militarily project power further than they ever have before as well as the ability to maintain any territory, seaway(s), or otherwise that they deem to be strategically significant.

The strategic placement of military installations across the Indian Ocean Region also gives the Chinese an extensive supply-line from Beijing to Dar es Salaam that significantly optimizes the operational logistics of their participation in any future conflict throughout the entirety of the region.

Not since the peak of the Cold War has the United States faced another nation with the desire and potential capability of challenging its status as the sole world superpower. Challenges to global hegemony start with challenges to regional hegemony, and Beijing has made China’s intentions very clear. It is only with U.S. military strength where this challenge will be met.

Comment: The growing military strength in the IOR of China is reason for the United States to reflect on the precepts of American geopolitician Alfred Thayer Mahan. American policy in the Pacific Ocean is still based on Mahan’s precepts: forward operation bases and positioning of assets around chokepoints. There also needs to be a capability to intervene at key strategic points. Another American geopolitician, Homer Lea, insisted that the United States needed a triple line of defense in the Pacific Ocean: Japan-South Korea-Taiwan-Thailand-Singapore, Japan-Guam-Philippines-Australia, and Alaska/Aleutian Islands-Hawaii-Samoa.

Forward operation bases needed to be in the form of a triangle. In Lea’s “strategic geometry” it was necessary to take into account the number of triangles the bases would form and the frequency with which the main base is at the intersection of these triangles. It was also important to always keep an eye on the presence of enemy bases inside the network.

A future contribution to this blog will discuss American China policy as reflected in Vice President Mike Pence speech on the subject in the beginning of October 2018.


October 2, 2018

Washington Times on September 25, 2018, reported that a Chinese national had been arrested accused of plotting to recruit Chinese engineers and scientists employed by U.S. companies as spies. Excerpts below:

Ji Chaogquz, 27, was arrested in Chicago and charged with acting as an illegal agent of the People’s Republic of China.

[He was tasked with providing a Chinese intelligence officer with biographical information on eight individuals for possible recruitment.

“All eight individuals either currently worked in or were recently retired from a career in the science and technology industry, including several individuals specializing in aerospace fields…. at least seven of the eight individuals worked for, or had recently retired from, cleared U.S. defense contractors,” the complaint said.

Mr. Ji arrived in the United States in 2013 on an F1 Visa for the purpose of studying electrical engineering at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

In 2016, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves under a program that authorizes the military to recruit legal aliens whose skills are considered vital to the national interest, the Justice Department said.

Comment: This is just the latest case of Chinese intelligence operations in America. In July of 2107 the Washington Free Beacon reported that the Chinese spy networks included 25,000 intelligence officers. There were more than 15,000 recruited agents. This according to a Chinese dissident with close ties to Beijing’s military and intelligence establishment.

Guo Wengui is a billionaire businessman who has broken with the regime. He is a Chinese real estate investor who fled China in 2015. He currently resides in New York City. Guo has been the target of attempts to silence him. Two officials have tried also to convince officials in the USA to forcibly have him repatriated back to China.

The two officials, Sun Lijun, vice minister of the Public Security Ministry, and an aide, Liu Yanpang, also tried to convince Trump administration officials to forcibly repatriate Guo back to China amid claims of corruption.Guo said to the Washington paper that Chinese intelligence operations in the United States sharply increased after the 2012 Communist Party Congress that brought current leader Xi Jinping to power.

Defensive intelligence was mainly focused on learning about the United States. The operations then shifted in 2012 to “offensive” spying, he said.

“By offensive [operations], I mean to be ready to destroy the U.S. in ways they can,” Guo said.

China’s budget for intelligence gathering before 2012 was around $600 million annually.

Around 2012, a decision was made by Chinese leaders to dispatch another 5,000 spies to the United States

The budget now is between $3 billion to $4 billion annually. American counterintelligence agencies face several problems, mainly a lack of knowledge about Chinese intelligence agencies.

China’s intelligence targets included several strategic areas of the United States.The first is to obtain military weapons-related technology.

Second, Chinese intelligence is engaged in “buying” senior U.S. officials personally, and a third objective is buying family members of American political or business elites with a view to getting intelligence and to make big business deals in China’s favor.

A fourth priority is penetrating the American internet system and critical infrastructure by implanting malicious software.

The Chinese spy system, so Guo, has penetrated into the bloodstream of American defense establishment with their viruses and everything else.

China also is working to subvert the United States by working together with rogue regimes, such as those in North Korea and Iran.

In the 2017 article Guo also warned of the dangers of a world dominated by the current anti-democratic Chinese system. If we do not have the United States exercising some kind of control, the dissident said, over the world system, the world will turn into a place where men eat men.


September 28, 2018

National Interest on September 24, 2018 reported that Lockheed is now developing a SR-72 that will be faster than SR-71 Blackbird, the second fastest manned plane in history. Excerpts below:

SR-71 served with the United States military from 1964-1998, and with NASA until 1999.

It was thought satellites and drones could replace the SR-71. The problem was that satellites are predictable, and too many drones just don’t have the performance or reliability.

Lockheed noted that the SR-71 was designed on paper with slide rules. Even without the benefit of high-technology, the SR-71 proved to be superb at its role.

The new SR-72, though, is going to leverage technology from the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 to help it fly at speeds exceeding Mach 6. The HTV-2 hit Mach 20 during its flights.

According to a report by Popular Mechanics , the SR-72 will also have a strike mission. While the exact weapons are unknown at this time, Aviation Week and Space Technology reported that plans call for a “Flight Research Vehicle” to be constructed in the early 2020s, with a full-scale version to be in service sometime in the 2030s.

As for the lucky pilots who get to fly this plane, they will not need the very bulky suits that Blackbird pilots wear. That’s because the initial plans call for the SR-72 to be a drone.

Comment: National Interest has also questioned if 100 of the new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider Stealth bombers is enough. The minimum needed would be 120 combat-coded bombers, 20 trainers, and 24 planes for backup and attrition planning purposes. 164 aircraft would be needed.

Northrop Grumman’s B-21 Raider stealth bomber is rapidly approaching its critical design review (CDR), when a Pentagon review team will determine if the new aircraft is meeting the technical requirements set forth in its requirements documents.

If the design passes its CDR, the B-21 team will be cleared to build, integrate and test the aircraft before its next hurdle: the production readiness review. This is planned before the end of 2018.

Unlike most other major defense programs, the B-21 is not only being developed mostly in secret, it is also being managed outside the normal acquisition process at the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office. The reason for that is fairly simple, the Air Force hopes that the secrecy will prevent adversaries such as Russia and China from gaining too much insight into the new bomber and its capabilities before it is even fielded.

U.S. Air Force is doing everything it can to prevent Moscow and Beijing from gaining intelligence on the B-21 and its capabilities, the service may not have fully considered emerging Russian and Chinese long-range precision-guided strike capabilities when it set the requirement to build only 100 Raiders.

The United States needs to be prepared both for the European and the emerging Indo-Pacific theatres. Both Russia and China possess long-range precision-guided weapons that could target and knock out airfields and other critical infrastructure in the region. This could mean that more strategic aircrafts are needed. 100 B-21 bombers may not be enough.

U.S. Air Force officers testifying before Congress have also agreed that the service might need as many as 258 B-21 bombers in the nightmare scenario of a war with the Russian Federation.

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has shown that the Air Force needs at least 200 B-21s.

“When considering theoretical requirements of up to 200-plus bombers to prosecute a penetrating strike mission against a great power such as Russia or China, it is better to err on the side of caution and maintain a healthy complement (24) of backup and attrition aircraft,” report authors Jerry Hendrix, CNAS’ then director of defense studies and Air Force Lt. Col. James Price wrote .

But even 120 combat-coded bombers would get the United States part way to a force that could conduct a full-scale air war against the Russian Federation.

“An air campaign against Russia is projected to last 180 days at a minimum and would require nearly 260 bombers,” the authors wrote.

“Today the Air Force has fewer than 100 combat-coded bombers, well shy of the levels required to respond to two regional conflicts simultaneously.”

The Obama administration for years neglected the American military. A restoration is now underway . To be on the safe side adding 100 bombers to the presently planned number of B-21s would be wise.


September 26, 2018

Fox News on September 23, 2018, reported on comments by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ahead of the 2018 Iranian Uprising Summit in New York. Presiden Donald Trump’s lawyer called for support for the Iranian resistance movement MEK. Excerpts below:

Giuliani advocated that a “peaceful” overthrow of the current Iranian vanguard is the only solution for a prosperous nation and stable Middle East.

…a fall, he said, could come at any moment.

“Who would have known the timeline in Russia or the timeline in Poland or the timeline in Hungary. When it happens it happens. We generally see a very repressive, very militaristic regime and think it can’t be overthrown. We don’t realize as people’s desire for freedom reaches a boiling point it can overcome that,” he continued. “Then it just happens. That’s what is going to happen here. We are going to wake up one morning and someone has been overthrown. It may not happen tomorrow, but it is inevitable the way they are oppressing people.”

“It is terrible that they have to be pressured this way…President Trump shows the world the road that President Reagan took in terms of communism. When he embraced solidarity, he said this protest movement is because these people are being oppressed. They are being treated horribly and because Iran is investing money in terrorism and not the people. That’s why the people are starving.”

Anti-government protests have been spilling out across Iran since January, of which Trump has tweeted support for those taking to the streets. And since withdrawing from the deal with Tehran, the president has stated he would be willing to “re-negotiate” what he deemed to be one of the worst deals ever formulated by Western leadership.

So what would such a new deal look like?

“There is no doubt what a re-negotiated deal would mean, and that is complete and absolute denuclearization of Iran and a change in which it supports terrorism throughout the world,” Giuliani conjectured. “Because they are an existential danger to us and to Israel and we can’t accept that. Those two things would be critical.”

“In other words, if they promised to de-nuclearize and they promised not to threaten the U.S. and Israel, [and] our allies, but they remained the kind of militaristic religious fanatic that kills people they aren’t going to keep their promise,” Giuliani noted.

“We call on the United States to expel the Iranian regime’s operatives from America. We urge Western governments to shut down or restrict the regime’s embassies, which are control centers for espionage and terrorism; and to expel this regime’s criminal forces from Syria and Iraq,” the [MEK’s] Paris-based female leader, Maryam Rajavi, told the thousand-plus crowd via video feed. “Iran’s seat at the United Nations does not belong to the terrorist regime ruling it. That seat belongs to the Iranian people and Resistance.”

“Of the last ten years that I have been involved with them [MEK] and I come to this event every year,” he added. “This is the first time I see hope that there can be real change in Iran.”

Comment: Iran has since ancient Greece been a challenger to the West. After it was taken over by a theocratic regime during the Cold War. It was a major strategic defeat for the United States and the West. Iran has since then developed into a major power in Eurasia and is projecting geopolitical power into Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia.

Iran is working closely to Russia, another Eurasian challenger to the West.

President Trump’s speech to the United Nation General Assembly on September 25, 2018 targeted the Islamisat regime in Tehran: “They do not respect their neighbors or their borders or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond”

“We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants death to America and that threatens Israel with annihilation,” Trump said.

The United States is presently using the economic weapon against Iran much in the same way as against the Soviet Union during the Reagan administration. There are now clear signs that the regime in Tehran has weakened. A hopefully ”peaceful” overthrow is possible. It is important that the leading European allies of the United States join the sanctions against Iran.


September 24, 2018

Washington Times on September 19, 2018, published a commentary by Henry F. Cooper, who was the U.S. ambassador to the Defense and Space Talks during the Reagan administration and director of the Strategic Defense Initiative during the George H.W. Bush administration and Rowland H. Worrell, a retired Air Force colonel, who was Brilliant Pebbles Task Force director, National Test Facility director and USAF Space Warfare Center vice commander. They call for a cost-effective ballistic missile defense (BMD). Excerpts below:

…the United States needs a credible, practical, cost-effective ballistic missile defense (BMD). A space-based interceptor (SBI) system would best achieve this objective,…

The Pentagon’s top engineer Michael Griffin says he doesn’t understand why, since 1,000 SBIs would cost less than $20 billion — for a global defense capability.

SDI proved otherwise before Brilliant Pebbles (BP) was scuttled in 1993 for political reasons, even though it promised more than 90 percent probability of killing all of up to 200 attacking re-entry vehicles — the number then controlled by a Russian submarine commander. Its fully validated cost estimate was $10 billion in 1988 dollars (about $20 billion in 2018 dollars) for concept definition and validation, development, deployment and 20 years operation of 1,000 Brilliant Pebbles — consistent with Mr. Griffin’s assertion.

BP was designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase while their rockets still burn, before they can release their decoys and other countermeasures — and throughout their flight, including when re-entering the atmosphere. That’s better than anything we have today and could have been built for much less than we have spent on all basing modes other than in space.

USAF Lt. Gen. George Monahan, the second SDI director, led 1989-90 reviews enabling BP to become the first SDI system formally approved by the Pentagon’s acquisition authorities for concept definition and validation. In 1989, Roland Worrell, the BP Task Force program manager, shepherded BP through those technical and costing reviews.

General James A. Abrahamson’s 1989 end-of-tour report endorsed LNLL’s BP model as key to an effective, affordable SBI architecture. He concluded that ”This concept should be tested within the next two years and, if aggressively pursued, could be ready for initial deployment within 5 years.” [General Abrahamson was SDI Director from 1984 to 1989].

[In] 1991, Assistant Secretary of Defense Steve Hadley and Henry Cooper briefed the press that BP was expected to cost $10 billion in 1988 dollars, including 20 years operations — about $20 billion today — as estimated by Mike Griffins.

Comment: Since the beginning of the 1990s there has been little progress on what has been termed limited ballistic missile defense. It was not until December 2016 Congress at last scrapped the 1999 Missile Defense Act language and removed the modifier “limited” from the missile defense mandate. Thus the door was opened to building missile defenses intended to defend not only against the anticipated limited missile capabilities of North Korea and Iran, but those of the peer and near-peer forces of Russia and China. Congress also called for a beginning of research and development, and to test and evaluate space-based missile defense programs.

Congress is in 2018 intensifying the push for the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to focus money and near-term efforts to create a space-based sensor architecture and intercept layer for ballistic missile defense — all this after the agency came out with a fiscal 2019 budget request almost virtually absent of plans and programs to move ahead on such capabilities.

A space-based sensor layer’s persistent vantage point would provide hostile missile tracking all the way from the missile b0ost phase. Missile defense experts believe a space-based missile defense architecture would dramatically improve the lethality of both homeland and regional missile defense, especially against emerging threats.

In the Fiscal Year 2019 national defense authorization conference report, lawmakers wanted to see a more concerted effort from the MDA to make space-based missile defense a reality by authorizing additional funds and development during 2019.

The Senate bill required the MDA to begin development of the architecture unless the Missile Defense Review stated otherwise. The review is expected to be unveiled in the fall of 2018. The Senate’s version also required the defense secretary to submit a report on progress and coordination of efforts on such a capability among MDA, the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The growing ballistic missile threat of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea to the United States calls for a space based ballistic missile defense. At 20 billion US dollars (as suggested by Cooper and Worrell in the Washington Times article) a space based interceptor system seems to be a financially sound solution.