China says the US should talk with North Korea. I say, absolutely pointless since it would only allow Kim to boast about forcing a superpower to the bargaining table. Besides, Kim has already declared war on us and others, so as far as many observers are concerned, the war is on - all that remains is to see who fires the first shot.
Kim has threatened to turn Seoul into a sea of fire by means of massive artillery bombardment, so he might try to do just that should we give him a black eye as described above. But even in South Korea, there are practical leaders who think, "That's a price worth paying, for we can't afford to wait until Kim acquires more nukes which can really turn Seoul into a sea of fire."
Of course, it also remains to be seen what North Korea or China decide to do after we strike. And that's where it gets interesting. There are a lot of war planners on all sides who do nothing all day but dream up scenarios, including a wide variety of this type: "if we do A, then they might respond with B, to which we'll escalate with C..." However, those professional planners can't take into account how their leaders (or their adversaries' leaders) might really respond.
Here's a bit of free advice from me - a person who was a natural-born citizen of the United States who renounced his citizenship a few years ago:
QUOTE:
Don't be too sure the United States will be afraid of militarily engaging you [China], up to and including by means of a nuclear exchange. The US owes you a great deal of money, which they will refuse to pay back after the war starts. Which is a nifty way to get out of debt. You are not yet in a position where you can go toe-to-toe with the US militarily. Perhaps at some point in the near future you might be, but that day hasn't arrived yet. And maybe the US might decide it's now or never to strike a devastating blow.
Your best strategy is to continue doing what you're doing in terms of expanding your economic clout. Right now, that clout is impressive but it's not anywhere near decisive. You would do well to take into account a cynical and desperate US leadership that's perfectly willing to absorb a few nuclear blows from you.
Beating war drums won't help you and in fact will invite a pre-emptive strike. So I fail to see how allowing Kim Jong-un to be your proxy will help your cause in even the short run. Kim has talked himself into such a corner that your neighbors will be more than happy to see him smacked down - and you with him should you decide to retaliate.
:UNQUOTE.
About Major General Zhu Chenghu
The following two quoted sources refer to the same interview:
QUOTE:
QUOTE:
Saturday, July 16, 2005
A general in the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) and dean at the National Defense University in China commented to visiting Hong Kong reporters on Friday that the PLA might use nuclear weapons against the U.S., in a conflict over the Taiwan Strait. "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition onto the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Maj. Gen Zhu Chenghu said to the reporters of the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian [in central China]. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds...of [their] cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
[and]
Echoing the official Xinhua News Agency, the People's Republic of China's Foreign Ministry officials said the Zhu was expressing personal views, and had warned the reporters accordingly, but states that China would never tolerate "Taiwan independence."
QUOTE:
Gittings later wrote, "Almost too stunned to respond, I offered Gen. Zhu a chance to back down—or at least qualify the circumstances under which China would unleash its nuclear missiles against 'hundreds of, or two hundreds' of American cities. Presumably, I suggested, he was only talking about the unlikely scenario of a U.S. attack on mainland Chinese soil. No, the general replied, a nuclear response would be justified even if it was just a conventional attack on a Chinese aircraft or warship—something very likely if Washington honored its commitment to help defend Taiwan against an invasion by Beijing. A fellow correspondent offered Gen. Zhu another escape route, reminding him that China had a longstanding policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. But the general brushed that aside as well, saying the policy could be changed and was only really intended to apply to conflicts with nonnuclear states in any case.
Gittings later wrote, "Almost too stunned to respond, I offered Gen. Zhu a chance to back down—or at least qualify the circumstances under which China would unleash its nuclear missiles against 'hundreds of, or two hundreds' of American cities. Presumably, I suggested, he was only talking about the unlikely scenario of a U.S. attack on mainland Chinese soil. No, the general replied, a nuclear response would be justified even if it was just a conventional attack on a Chinese aircraft or warship—something very likely if Washington honored its commitment to help defend Taiwan against an invasion by Beijing. A fellow correspondent offered Gen. Zhu another escape route, reminding him that China had a longstanding policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. But the general brushed that aside as well, saying the policy could be changed and was only really intended to apply to conflicts with nonnuclear states in any case.
:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Chenghu
Zhu is now - as he was then - a Major General working at the Chinese equivalent of our West Point. He is not, as has been touted in some media sources, any kind of a highly-placed military man. Even though Zhu's comments were made eight years ago, US military planners took due note, sincerely believing China will do exactly as Zhu claimed they would once they acquire the means.
However, there's a better than even chance that China has since changed its mind about Zhu's stated strategy: "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian [in central China]." That would mean abandoning the areas which have proven so pivotal to China's economic growth. And the 100 billionaires living in China (as of 2011) many of whom undoubtedly have connections to the Communist rulers (or are among those rulers), aren't prepared to see the source of their wealth be vaporized.
And they might not want to flee west of Xian since that's where a lot of China's very poor and resentful masses live.
US planners know the priorities of these 100 billionaires, but they might choose to believe China means nuclear harm to the US - causing them to act accordingly.
Happy Chinese New Year
This quote is in regard to an amazing movie I saw a few years ago - Last Train Home (2009):
QUOTE:
Every spring, China's cities are plunged into chaos as 130 million migrant workers journey to their home villages for the New Year's holiday.
:UNQUOTE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_train_home-2009/
QUOTE:
Every spring, China's cities are plunged into chaos as 130 million migrant workers journey to their home villages for the New Year's holiday.
:UNQUOTE: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_train_home-2009/
This awesome movie came to mind recently when I was thinking about what US military planners might have in mind should push come to shove in China. A lot of people assume we'll do something drastic, such as nuking the Three Gorges dam. But there are other, far more effective options. For instance, when those 130 million migrant workers are away from their sweatshop jobs in the big cities, precision-target ordnance could destroy the rail links needed for them to return to their jobs. The US could then congratulate itself on its restraint, while sparing 130 million people who might be tempted to overthrow the Communist Party. After all, these poor masses are painfully aware of how the New Mandarins treat and feel about them. And their grievances are many and go largely ignored.
Patriotism is one thing, but a sense of fair play could prove more powerful. This quote makes clear the source of grievance among China's poor:
QUOTE: [from article by Damian Grammaticas (Nov. 1, 2012)]:
Lu Dayi is one of over 150 million Chinese in the countryside still living below the poverty line - officially set at around $1.5 a day. China's economic growth has been deeply uneven. Most have seen their lives improve in the past two decades, and 400 million Chinese have lifted themselves out of poverty [NOTE: But only the poverty described by $1.5 a day]. But those in the right places with the right connections, usually in the cities, have gained incredible riches. So China today is among the most unequal countries in the world.
The Joke that is Chinese Communism
This link demonstrates the hypocrisy of China's top leader, Xi Jinping, of whom the link's headline proclaims: China's incoming president Xi Jinping's family 'has wealth of hundreds of millions":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9365099/Chinas-incoming-president-Xi-Jinpings-family-has-wealth-of-hundreds-of-millions.html
Apparently, Xi doesn't personally have great wealth - at least not in the form of traceable assets. And this allows him to pontificate to other leaders about the evils of greed. But Xi's older sister(!) - who has much of the family's wealth - is quite another story. You don't suppose she got rich without help from her well-politically-connected brother, do you? Even though Chinese state censors blocked the above link, the impoverished masses of China have more than a passing awareness of the truth. That's something you won't hear Xi Jinping speak about - the masses. That's so passé.
If China were to ever become serious about realizing the Communist ideal, which was born of a desire to overthrow oppression, I heartily recommend that they stop pretending that they're any kind of Communists and, instead, adopt Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR) as their governance model. Even though I had invented this system back in 1976 as the basis for a replacement to the US Constitution, I feel it would be as well-suited to China as well.
Of course, under CRS the New Mandarins would no longer have any kind of special monopoly on power. But we all have to make sacrifices.
Here's a brief description of CSR:
The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests.
My proposal includes:
- Abolishing the
U.S.
- Abolishing the US Presidency in its current form: A President would still be elected - but only by members of House, with only those members being eligible for that office. This President would be mostly a figurehead serving at the pleasure of the House as a spokesman for that body.
http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html
Cross-Sectional Representation is a vast improvement over Communism, at least as lip-servicingly practiced in China. I suggest China's leaders go for it, since the path they're on won't end well.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party
Candidate for US President in 2008 and 2012
"There's a clock ticking and we're rushing headlong into the agenda it's timing out for us. But...it's still not too late.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment