The Chinese nuclear horn commands space: Daniel 7

China intends to militarize space, displace US power: intel report

By Mark Moore

April 13, 2021 | 1:10pm

China is working on militarizing space and matching or exceeding US technology in the coming years, the US intelligence community said in its Global Risk Assessment report.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s report says that China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, is poised to become the US’ greatest rival in space, setting far-reaching and ambitious goals “to gain the military, economic, and prestige benefits that Washington has accrued from space leadership.”

The report, released last Friday, said Beijing “has counterspaceweapons capabilities” enabling it to target satellites belonging to the US and its allies.

“Beijing continues to train its military space elements and field new destructive and nondestructive ground- and space-based anti – satellite weapons ,” the report said, adding that China already has ground-based anti-satellite missiles and lasers “probably intended to blind or damage sensitive space-based optical sensors ” on US spacecraft.

It predicted that China will have an operational space station in low Earth orbit between 2022 and 2024, and will continue to conduct exploratory missions to the moon with the aim to establish a robotic research station on the lunar surface as a precursor to an “intermittently crewed” base.

China aims to establish a crewed base on the surface of the moon in the future.

AFP via Getty Images

The Chinese Communist Party “ will continue its whole-of-government efforts to spread China’s influence, undercut that of the United States, drive wedges between Washington and its allies and partners, and foster new international norms that favor the authoritarian Chinese system.”

Chinese leaders probably will, however, seek tactical opportunities to reduce tensions with Washington when such opportunities suit their interests ,” the intelligence report said.

While working on the space-based initiatives, China will maintain its “major innovation and industrial policies” to reduce reliance on foreign technologies, to develop military upgrades, to continue economic growth, with the goal of ensuring the country’s survival.

China’s military is poised to become the US’ greatest rival in space.

China National Space Administration

“Beijing sees increasingly competitive US-China relations as part of an epochal geopolitical shift and views Washington’s economic measures against Beijing since 2018 as part of a broader US effort to contain China’s rise ,” the ODNI report said, referring to the tariffs former President Donald Trump placed on Chinese goods being sold in the US.

As part of its long-term goals, China is consolidating its military power with its economic, technological and diplomatic strengths to “secure what it views as its territory and regional preeminence, and pursue international cooperation at Washington’s expense .”

China’s goal is to “foster new international norms” by undercutting the prominence and power of the US.

AP

Beijing will tout its success responding to the coronavirus pandemic as “evidence of the superiority of its system” and will use “vaccine diplomacy” to its advantage.

China will also extend its influence in the region, including its claims of sovereignty over Taiwan and the bolstering of its naval presence in the South China Sea “to signal to Southeast Asian countries that China has effective control over contested areas.”

O n nuclear weapons, the report said China is not interested in abiding by any arms control agreements that will hamper its future plans and will not engage in negotiations with Russia or the US that preserve their nuclear advantages.

Beijing intends to “at least double the size of its nuclear stockpile” in the next decade.

“China is building a larger and increasingly capable nuclear missile force that is more survivable, more diverse, and on higher alert than in the past, including nuclear missile systems designed to manage regional escalation and ensure an intercontinentalc second-strike capability ,” the report said. 

America will lose the next big war: Revelation 18

Can America win the next big war?

By Tom Rogan

December 3, 2020 – 11:00 PM

Every year, China and Russia independently invest hundreds of billions of dollars in pursuit of a single, overriding objective — attaining the ability to defeat America in a major war. 

But it is only now that the U.S. national security apparatus has begun to wake up to how successful Beijing’s and Moscow’s endeavors have been. Unless the Biden administration allocates continued resources to countering the gains America’s adversaries are making, Beijing and Moscow might soon be able to defeat America in a climactic conflict. This isn’t hyperbole.

Let’s start with a look at strategic weapons. 

As you read this article, China and Russia have deployed hypersonic glide vehicles into their armed forces. These are capable of carrying many nuclear warheads straight through our missile defenses to American cities. Russia’s  “Zircon” weapon stands out as particularly impressive. In contrast, America is unlikely to have any operational hypersonic weapons before mid-2022 at the earliest. Time is against us. The U.S. military’s continued dominance of conventional nuclear strike capabilities mitigates the risk that an adversary would launch a hypersonic surprise attack. But the fact that China and Russia were able to deploy these new weapons encapsulates the core concern that both nations are prioritizing their ability to defeat America in war. Hypersonic vehicles are neither cheap nor technically simple to develop, and nations confident of peace do not invest in them.

A similar story applies to space warfare. 

Satellites have never been more critical to military communications, situational awareness, and command and control — including nuclear control. China and Russia have long understood this. So, while George W. Bush was focused on the War on Terror, and Barack Obama on multilateral cooperation, China and Russia developed satellite-killing weapons. Some of these are now in orbit around Earth, and perhaps bring James Bond villainy to mind. But there’s no funny side to this story. Russia has an operational weapon that can maneuver alongside a U.S. satellite and release a high-speed missile to destroy it.

Only when the Trump administration took office did the U.S. military’s Strategic Command receive money and permission to counter these space threats. It would be disastrous if this recent investment were now to stop. Neither should President Biden, once in office, entertain diplomatic delusions. Beijing and Moscow will happily sign new global space nonproliferation agreements, but they will be lying, and they will laugh behind their hands that we are foolish enough to believe them while they systematically break their word. 

America’s two big adversaries have been equally aggressive in taking advantage of U.S. vulnerabilities closer to Earth.

Consider Russia’s focus on electronic warfare. Centered on the disruption of enemy communications, radar, and weapons targeting, electronic warfare systems allow a force to render an enemy’s combat systems impotent. This makes Russia’s threat to Europe particularly potent. Using advanced systems such as its  Krasukha-4, Russia embeds electronic warfare into its air defense network of Tor-2E, S-350E, S-400, and S-500 systems. This is a very mobile, integrated system that gives Russian forces the means to establish highly defensible strongholds. 

Contemplate how this might play out in an actual war with NATO. Russian forces could invade Estonia and quickly secure a chokehold around the NATO state. As NATO starts preparing a counteroffensive, Russia uses its electronic warfare, air defense, artillery, and missile systems to create a hardened defensive bubble to keep hold of its conquest. Vladimir Putin then offers NATO a choice between escalation and heavy casualties or a cease-fire on terms favorable to Russia. Putin knows he could not withstand a full-scale NATO counteroffensive. But he is also a keen strategist and might well bet that a rapid and successful invasion and the establishment of a stronghold would split NATO. Would the Belgians, Germans, Italians, and Spanish agree to a bloody counteroffensive, or would their governments, amid public fear and opposition political pressure, opt for peace? The fact that we cannot answer this question confidently is, by itself, reason to fear Putin’s strategy. NATO’s war plan to defeat this stronghold is weak and relies heavily on joint action by the U.S., British, and French air forces. But recent NATO air force activity suggests  we shouldn’t bank on success.

China’s People’s Liberation Army also has its own innovations. 

One standout concern is Beijing’s new naval air defense networks. Its new  Type 055 destroyers give Xi Jinping’s military the ability to prevent U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft from getting through to attack the Chinese fleet. China would seek to hold U.S. forces at long range, allowing time and space for its forces to seize control over, say, Taiwan or the South China Sea. Adding to this “range” strategy, China has deployed a potent anti-ship ballistic missile force. Centered on the DF-21/26 class of missiles, China could strike American aircraft carriers from 2,000 miles away. Like Russia, China would follow a successful hit on a U.S. carrier with a cease-fire on their terms. China would hope that its first blow against what was once regarded as an indestructible manifestation of U.S. global supremacy would weaken American resolve and prevent retaliation.

The U.S. Navy doesn’t admit this growing vulnerability. It focuses too much on its carrier strike groups and claims that they are highly defensible. Admirals say these floating cities of 6,000 military personnel are shielded by new anti-ballistic missile and anti-satellite weapons. They also like to point out the technical complexity in persistently targeting a maneuvering ship in a vast ocean thousands of miles from a missile launcher’s position. But they neglect the fact that China would launch dozens of anti-ship missiles at each carrier from dozens of independent satellites. And China’s targeting systems are improving all the time. 

America’s attention to these threats must reach beyond simple military-to-military balances of power at any given moment.

The battle for the future of war is well underway. As Steve Blank recently  observed for  War on the Rocks, the United States faces a serious national security vulnerability because it depends on Taiwan’s computer chip industry. This is crucial in thinking about conflict over Taiwan. No military can keep its long-term credibility unless it controls access to cutting-edge technology. Consider the potential of adding artificial intelligence to unmanned drones. Now think about packing missiles on hundreds of such drones and then deploying them deep behind enemy lines. China is particularly focused on being able to do this, which is one reason why Beijing invests so heavily in stealing American research secrets. 

And, sadly, the Pentagon lives with a degree of absurdity even in this area of American superiority. The Defense Department’s otherwise exceptional research and development brain trust, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, inadvertently helps foreign intelligence efforts by putting much of its research online. Go to DARPA’s website, and you’ll easily be able to find the contact details of those running these research programs! China only need look at that information and bingo, it knows who and what email to hack!

So, what should the U.S. do to retain its deterrence-defeat supremacy? 

The answers are varied, expensive, and complicated.

Washington must first wake up from the casual expectation that U.S. military dominance can be maintained without continuous, substantial investment. The Democratic Party keeps saying spending can be cut “because the U.S. spends X times more than the next X nations combined.” This is an idiotic assessment measure, not least because $150 billion goes on personnel costs. 

More broadly, we must recognize that defense investments don’t simply deter and defeat enemies but create safe space for stable economic, diplomatic, and political activity. Efficient military spending should be seen as an extension of government policy to foster national prosperity.

Still, the U.S. military must invest more wisely. 

The Pentagon should double down on strategic strike capabilities. Missile defenses are very expensive but not very useful unless the prospective enemy is North Korea or Iran, which have, or are likely to have, only a dozen or so nuclear warheads. America must deter those adversaries partly by making them doubt whether their nuclear weapons could reach their targets. But there’s little point in spending massively on missile defense against China and Russia, which would launch saturation strikes capable of breaking through any shield. That’s even before considering how to deal with hypersonic vehicles. Instead, the U.S. should be spending money on new nuclear warheads and delivery systems, which offer the best means of deterring war by reinforcing enemy expectations that they will lose. The Trump administration has excelled in this area, but, unfortunately, Biden  says he’ll roll back nuclear investments. This would be a gift to our adversaries, and it should form a focal point of Republican Party scrutiny of future defense legislation.

Another area of opportunity is reform of allied defenses. 

Washington should push European allies to spend more on systems capable of defeating Russia’s stronghold strategy. Armor and air power stand out. The U.S. Army has 16 heavy armored brigades, but the French Army  has just two. The U.S. Marine Corps adds to the mismatch. But where, as now, the U.S. has to provide the armor foundation for Europe’s defense, there’s a clear opportunity cost against China.

Armored units would have limited utility in a war with China, which is almost certain to be fought in cyberspace, in the East China Sea or South China Sea, or with nukes, and heavy armor would have little or no use in any of these areas of conflict. In the South China Sea, the U.S. warfighting effort would center on Air Force bombers, Navy warships, and efforts by the Marine Corps to capture and  fortify China’s artificial islands. So, the Pentagon should divert money from armor to forces most likely to be involved in any fight with China. 

In the cyber domain, research and development are vital and must be tied to a new strategic doctrine. The big four anti-U.S. cyber actors, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, are attacking our civilian infrastructure (including hospitals), and the U.S. must spend more to take them on. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency remain reluctant to use their best tools in this area because they don’t want our enemies to find ways to defend against them or replicate them. But our adversaries know they can inflict damage on American civilian infrastructure at no cost, so they have incentive to do so and integrate this form of hostility into their war planning. If Washington responded to big cyberattacks by shutting down the mainframe computers used by the Russian GRU or Chinese People’s Liberation Army, or wiped their data cores, for example, a new balance of deterrence would be established.

Then there’s the Air Force. It needs more investment in drone warfare and long-range unmanned strike assets, including hypersonic vehicles. It is problematic that the Air Force continues to view manned fighter and bomber aircraft as its operational cornerstones. Those planes will struggle to get into range of Chinese forces in the South China Sea. And building out these air fleets is anyway unaffordable. It is equally concerning that the Air Force is reluctant to give greater prestige and promotion to its drone warfare personnel. If young officers believe that flying an F-15, F-35, F-22, or B-2 is the best way of getting a star on their uniform, the best and brightest are going to focus on areas of warfighting that no longer suit America’s needs. 

Yet it is the Navy where most change is needed.

The Navy has belatedly prioritized undersea warfare and has some revolutionary drone capabilities,but it still loves its aircraft carriers, which will become ever more vulnerable. The Navy should be forced to reduce its carrier fleet. Money saved should be spent on undersea sensor nets, more submarine and air drones, and long-range anti-ship missiles such as the LRASM system. The Navy should also triple down on its innovative “Nemesis” ghost fleet system, which involves tricking enemy radar, sonar, communications, and satellite intelligence systems into seeing U.S. Navy assets where none exist. Burying actual warships and planes amid the ghosts, the Navy can preserve its forces better against enemy attack, and divert the enemy into fruitless missions. This will be critical if the Navy ever fights a war against thousands of Chinese warships, planes, and missiles. 

Where does this leave us?

Well, one hopes it leaves us with recognition that this is a challenge that the president, Congress, and the Pentagon must embrace in common cause. Ensuring that the post-Second World War international order is preserved will be neither cheap nor easy. But much rests on America’s ability to deter China and Russia. Absent that ability, these tyrannies will reshape the global order and make America and its allies less prosperous, less secure, and less free. 

Tom Rogan is a foreign policy-focused commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

The China Nuclear Horn and Nuclear Arms Control: Daniel 8

China and Nuclear Arms Control

Military vehicles carrying JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles drive past Tiananmen Square,October 2019. Thomas Peter / Reuters

Debates on the future of nuclear arms control have increasingly focused on two key aspects: how to address a more diverse range of weapon systems and how to include more parties beyond the US and Russia. The latter has predominantly meant China. Among the five recognized nuclear- weapon states under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), China is the only state that has increased its nuclear arsenal, albeit in small quantities. China has also been modernizing and expanding its types of delivery systems. Some of them can carry nuclear or conventional warheads, which increases the risk of inadvertent escalation in a crisis. Moreover, the nuclear dimension of the US-China relationship will inevitably grow as the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing intensifies on other fronts, notably in terms of a conventional arms race.

The China nuclear horn continues to grow: Daniel 7

A 2012 satellite image shows the Jiuquan Atomic Energy Complex, a large-scale nuclear facility established in 1958.

DigitalGlobe/Getty Images

China’s ‘Secretive’ Nuclear Weapons Buildup Exposed

‘[I]t is clear from imagery that China is engaged in a secretive crash buildup.’

By Jeremiah Jacques • November 23

Newly declassified United States intelligence documents reveal that China is carrying out a surreptitious strategy to rapidly increase its number of nuclear warheads and the capacity of its delivery systems.

The documents, published by the Washington Times on November 13, consist of a collection of slides that were shown during a recent briefing for members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

One slide shows that over the past two years, a plutonium production area in China’s Jiuquan Atomic Energy Complex doubled in size. The plant also added a new reactor.

The revelation is significant, largely because nuclear watchdogs believed for decades that China had terminated uranium production for weapons in 1987 and had discontinued plutonium production for arms use in 1991. The expansion at the Jiuquan facility indicates that the Chinese are once again producing both materials.

A second U.S. intelligence slide is a satellite photo revealing major expansion underway at the nuclear-arms research facility in Mianyang, China. This complex is part of the China Academy of Engineering and Physics, the country’s main organization for nuclear weapons work. The recently expanded Mianyang facility is known to be where the bulk of China’s nuclear warhead production and testing take place.

A third slide is a photo showing that China has expanded its military reactor facility in Leshan by about 20 times its size. Military analyst Bill Gertz points out that besides building components for nuclear weapons and reactors, the Leshan complex also “appears to be part of China’s major buildup of nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines.

The revelations are significant in part because the Pentagon said in September that China seeks to double its number of nuclear weapons in the near term. The expansions of the Jiuquan, Mianyang and Leshan facilities (and increased activity at the Lop Nur site) appear to confirm this forecast. And it may mean the Chinese seek even to go beyond the anticipated twofold increase.

“[I]t is clear from imagery that China is engaged in a secretive crash buildup of its infrastructure,” Marshall Billingslea, the State Department’s chief diplomat for weapons control, told the Washington Times. “There is no doubt that China wants to be on par with the United States and Russia in terms of its military and nuclear capabilities.”

He added: “The world deserves to know what China is up to. They have never admitted how many nuclear weapons they have and how many they plan on building.”

China is obligated by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (npt) to openly discuss its nuclear arms, but it has so far declined to do so.

“For months now, we have been calling on the Chinese Communist Party to come to the table and negotiate in good faith,” Billingslea said. “This is not merely an ask that we have. This is an obligation of theirs. China is legally bound to honor it. The npt states plainly that all parties must pursue negotiations in good faith. China is perilously close to standing in violation of the npt due to their repeated refusals to meet.”

Meanwhile, as China’s arsenal grows, it is also developing, testing and refining the equipment needed to deliver its growing number of warheads to their targets.

Billingslea calculates that in both 2018 and 2019 China launched an astounding 225 ballistic missiles. This is more than the rest of the world combined. And as of October, it had fired 180 ballistic missiles so far this year.

Adm. Charles Richard, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, stressed in a September 14 talk with reporters that China’s submarine missile abilities also constitute a serious threat. He said: “China now has the capability to directly threaten our homeland from a ballistic missile submarine. That’s a pretty watershed moment.”

The darkening nuclear shadow in China may seem like a distant threat. But it should grip our attention. During His ministry on Earth, Jesus Christ prophesied that a global war would erupt that would threaten to wipe out mankind. Matthew 24:21-22 record Him saying: “For there will be greater anguish than at any time since the world began. And it will never be so great again. In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive …” (New Living Translation).

When He spoke those alarming words, a war that could end the life of every “single person” was not yet technologically feasible. But today, with thousands of nuclear warheads deployed around the world, and with China engaged in “a secretive crash buildup” of its nuclear firepower, the conditions are in place for this prophecy to be fulfilled.

But as we see that tragic nuclear war looming on the horizon, there is cause for hope. In verse 22, just after Jesus says that the war at the end of our era will be so cataclysmic that it could extinguish all human life, He then gave a tremendously important detail: “But it will be shortened.”

From this detail, we know that nuclear World War iii will be interrupted. Just before mankind detonates enough weaponry to erase human life, Christ will return and bring a decisive end to the conflict. And following the age of unprecedented war and devastation, He will usher in a new epoch of unprecedented worldwide peace. Regarding this future era of peace, Micah 4:3 states: “[T]hey shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

In his booklet Nuclear Armageddon Is ‘At the Door,’ Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry discusses humanity’s intense need for God’s help: “Only God can solve our number one problem: that of human survival. Men don’t know the way of peace. God knows—and if you keep His law of love, it will bring great joy and peace into your life.”

He continues: “We are now at the edge of this nuclear abyss! As all these horrible signs come to pass, we know Christ is about to return.”

To understand these vital Bible passages and to learn how to enjoy the “great joy and peace” that comes from abiding by God’s law today, order your free copy of Mr. Flurry’s booklet Nuclear Armageddon Is ‘At the Door.’

Trump Lowers the Nuclear Threshold: Revelation 16

US withdraws from Open Skies Treaty with Russia: officials

US has one major arms treaty remaining with Russia: New START

By Lucia I. Suarez Sang , Lucas Tomlinson | Fox News

The United States officially pulled out of another arms control pact with Russia on Sunday, marking the end of a six-month notification process informing Moscow, U.S. officials told Fox News.

The Trump administration withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty, which was signed between former Cold War foes in 1992 to set up unarmed, reconnaissance flights over each other’s territory to collect data on military forces.

However, the U.S. has accused Russia of violating the agreement for years, barring flights over Russian territory, including Kaliningrad where nuclear weapons are suspected of being present and in range of major European capitals.

“On May 22, 2020, the United States exercised its right pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article XV of the Treaty on Open Skies by providing notice to the Treaty Depositaries and to all States Parties of its decision to withdraw from the Treaty, effective six months from the notification date,” Cale Brown, principal deputy spokesperson for the State Department, said in a statement. “Six months having elapsed, the U.S. withdrawal took effect on November 22, 2020, and the United States is no longer a State Party to the Treaty on Open Skies.”

Earlier this summer, the Pentagon issued a statement saying that “it has become abundantly clear that it is no longer in the United States’ best interest to remain a party to this treaty when Russia does not uphold its commitments.”

At the time, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the move was inspired at least in part by Russian violations of the accord.

US pulling out of Cold War-era nuclear treaty with Russia, Pompeo announces

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says the U.S. is pulling out of a major arms-control treaty with Russia, citing alleged violations by the country; Rich Edson reports from the State Department.

“While the United States, along with our Allies and partners that are States Parties to the treaty, have lived up to our commitments and obligations under the treaty, Russia has flagrantly and continuously violated the treaty in various ways for years,” Pompeo said in a statement. “This is not a story exclusive to just the treaty on Open Skies, unfortunately, for Russia has been a serial violator of many of its arms control obligations and commitments.”

The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the treaty comes at the same time the president gave remarks during the virtual G-20 summit.

Ahead of the official withdrawal, some American lawmakers also voiced skepticism about the treaty and encouraged the U.S. departure from it, Russia is the sole beneficiary because the U.S. relies on advanced spy satellites in space to gather intelligence which is not covered by the treaty. Also, the overflights are seen more as a propaganda boost for Moscow – which in the past has flown over President Trump’s Bedminster club and the nation’s capital in recent years.

Some experts believe the United States’ departure from the treaty is a sign that Trump is preparing to exit the one major arms treaty remaining with Russia: New START.

This treaty, which is set to expire in February weeks after the next presidential inauguration, limits U.S. and Russian forces from deploying no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads at a time. Trump has insisted that China must join what is now a U.S.-Russia limit on nuclear arsenals.

Democrats have expressed concern that pulling out of the treaty could harm relationships with European allies who rely on it to keep tabs on Russian activities.

President-elect Joe Biden has called Trump’s decision to withdraw from the treaty short-sighted.

Open Skies was first proposed by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1955, but the Soviet Union refused. It was brought up again by President George H.W. Bush and negotiations began in 1992 following the fall of the Soviet Union. It went into force in 2002 and now has 35 signatories.

Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer and Rich Edson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Babylon the Great’s Preparation for Nuclear War

Pentagon says US warship destroyed ICBM target in test off Hawaii | Russia | Al Jazeera

The test could raise arms-control tensions with China and Russia, which fear it may undercut their nuclear deterrents.

The Pentagon, headquarters of the United States armed forces, in Washington, DC [File: Charles Dharapak/AP Photo]

A United States warship has intercepted and destroyed an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) target in a test conducted northeast of Hawaii, the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said on Tuesday, a first for US missile defence systems.

The test, conducted on November 16, involved an Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense-equipped destroyer that the MDA did not identify.

“We have demonstrated that an Aegis BMD-equipped vessel equipped with the SM-3 Block IIA missile can defeat an ICBM-class target,” Vice Admiral and MDA Director Jon Hill said in a statement.

The Standard Missile 3 Block IIA (SM-3 IIA) was developed in a joint venture between Raytheon Co and Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.

The test’s target was a mock ICBM that had been launched from a US test range at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The target missile was not equipped with decoys or other sophisticated systems of the kind that a US missile interceptor might face in a real attack on the US.

Previous tests against ICBM targets had used interceptors launched from underground silos in the US.

A facility of Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex is pictured in Kauai, Hawaii in this photo taken in January 2019 [Handout: Kyodo via Reuters]

The test’s success is likely to draw particular interest from North Korea, whose development of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons is the main reason the Pentagon has sought to accelerate its building of missile defence systems over the past decade.

North Korea has recently refrained from flight tests of ballistic missiles of intercontinental range and has not continued its nuclear testing. But the intentions of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are uncertain as President-elect Joe Biden prepares to take office, succeeding President Donald Trump.

Although the current US approach to missile defence is designed to protect the US against an ICBM fired from North Korea, both Russia and China have expressed concern that the US could use its missile defenses to undercut the deterrent value of their nuclear forces, which are larger than those of North Korea.

Laura Grego, a physicist and missile defence expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the prospect of a major US expansion of missile defences by potentially equipping Navy ships globally with anti-ICBM capabilities is worrying.

“It is likely to have a crushing effect on prospects for new arms control agreements and will also provide motivation (or justification) for Russia and China to diversify and grow their nuclear weapons arsenals,” she wrote on Twitter.

The test had been planned for last spring but was delayed because of restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic.

Source : News Agencies

The Chinese Nuclear Horn Continues to Grow: Daniel 7

No doubt’ China is upgrading its nuclear power to be on par with U.S., Russia – Washington Times

“For months now, we have been calling on the Chinese Communist Party to come to the table and negotiate in good faith,” he said. “This is not merely an ask that we have. This is an obligation of theirs. is legally bound to honor it. The NPT states plainly that all parties must pursue negotiations in good faith. China is perilously close to standing in violation of the NPT due to their repeated refusals to meet.”

Earlier, the Trump administration declassified new briefing slides on Chinese excavation at the Lop Nur nuclear testing site. Work at the facility recently increased, and the administration has suggested in official reports that China may have carried out nuclear tests there.

The briefing also included satellite photos of Chinese missiles paraded during the annual national day festivities.

A comparison of parades of missiles since 2009 showed that the latest parade in 2019 was 10 times longer than the first and displayed new missiles such as the DF-17 hypersonic missile, DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, and DF-31 and DF-41 ICBMs, along with the JL-2 submarine-launched missile.

“In the past, I’ve said that in 2019 Chinalaunched 225 ballistic missiles. That is a huge number, more than the rest of the world combined,” said Mr. Billingslea, the arms envoy.

“The same was true in 2018,” he said. “As of October of this year, even with COVID-19, China has shot off 180 ballistic missiles.”

Adm. Charles Richard, commander of the Strategic Command, told reporters in September that China’s nuclear buildup should not be measured by numbers of warheads, which are far fewer than the United States’ 1,550 deployed warheads.

Adm. Richard said a nation’s stockpile is a relatively crude measure of capabilities.

“You have to look at the totality of it: the delivery systems, what they’re capable of, what their readiness is,” he said. “And China, in particular, is developing a stack of capabilities that, to my mind, is increasingly inconsistent with a stated no-first-use policy.”

China has claimed its nuclear arsenal is far smaller than those of the U.S. and Russia and that it would not be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict. That claim is under scrutiny because of the nuclear forces buildup.

“Given the huge gap between the nuclear arsenals of China and those of the U.S. and the Russian Federation, it is unfair, unreasonable and infeasible to expect China to join in any trilateral arms control negotiation,” Geng Shuang, China’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, told the U.N. General Assembly last month. He called the U.S. demand to join the nuclear talks “a trick to shift the focus of the international community.”

China’s submarine missile capability is also a concern.

“China now has the capability to directly threaten our homeland from a ballistic missile submarine,” Adm. Richard said. “That’s a pretty watershed moment.”

The annual Pentagon report on the Chinese military stated that China’s nuclear forces will “significantly evolve” in 10 years with advanced weapons and larger numbers of a land-, sea- and air-based delivery system.

“Over the next decade, China’s nuclear warhead stockpile — currently estimated to be in the low-200s — is projected to at least double in size as China expands and modernizes its nuclear forces,” the report said.

It was the first time in decades that the Pentagon had revealed its estimate of warheads. Some experts say the number is much larger and includes hidden stockpiles of warheads.

A Chinese Embassy spokesman did not return an email request for comment.

The Imposing Russian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7

Russia might place nuclear weapons in Crimea in foreseeable future, – official

13:53, 9 November 2020

Open source

Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov claimed that Russia had not yet deployed nuclear weapons in the annexed Crimea, but that might happen in the near future. Danilov told about it in the comment to Krym.Realii.

“We do not have final confirmation on Russia’s potential placement of nuclear weapons in Crimea. But the fact is that this may happen in the near future, we are well aware of. It will depend on the number of factors, and if Russian see that they are losing, they will definitely return to this issue,” said the official.

As we reported earlier, according to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, the international Crimean platform summit on the de-occupation of the peninsula will take place in May 2021.

“This work will not stop even for a day and it will be crowned with the summit that takes place in Kyiv. I can report that this summit will take place in May 2021. We really hope that the situation with pandemic will stabilize,” he stated. 

What a Biden victory means for the Chinese Nuclear Horn

What a Biden victory means for China

Beijing must seize the opportunity to stabilize relations with Washington

Professor Huang Jing is Dean at the Institute of International and Regional Studies, Beijing Language and Culture University.

While Joe Biden has won the U.S. election, it would be wishful thinking that there would be any dramatic improvement in relations between Washington and Beijing, which have deteriorated steadily since Donald Trump came to power.

After all, a presidential election — despite all its significance for U.S. politics — can hardly alter the now established bipartisan consensus that China is a strategic competitor, or even an adversary, of the U.S. Moreover, the pressure on China from a Biden Administration can be expected to be more persistent — and comprehensive — because the new president will have to blend cohesion with consistency when it comes to policymaking and at the same time coordinate the administration’s approach to China with the country’s allies.

But that does not mean the relationship between the two great powers will continue its free fall, not by any means. On the contrary, Biden provides Beijing with a valuable opportunity to stabilize the bilateral relationship from a global perspective.

First and foremost, there will be an overall de-Trumpism when it comes to foreign policy under a Biden presidency. Specifically, we can expect some fundamental changes in the major policy areas such as climate change, nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, COVID-19 pandemic control, international trade, and financial stability.

Nor would it be a surprise to see a Biden administration reconsider, or even reenter, the Paris Agreement on climate, the Iranian nuclear deal framework, and reorient its relationship with the World Health Organization, recalibrate its approach toward World Trade Organization, which has been virtually boycotted by Trump. A Biden administration might proactively reengage the world’s other major economies in Europe and Japan to negotiate a new trade and investment framework. In all these areas, China can, and should, find substantial common ground with the U.S.

Second, there is little doubt that Biden will forgo U.S. unilateralism. Not only because it has done substantial damage to U.S. global standing, but also because a multilateral approach is essential if the U.S. is to restore and maintain a solid alliance system under its leadership.

During Trump’s tenure, China’s leadership has repeatedly emphasized its adherence to multilateralism in foreign affairs. Now it is time to see whether the “multilateralism” Beijing has advocated is merely rhetoric or a substantial policy upon which China can initiate a new approach toward a new administration in Washington that also champions multilateralism in global affairs. After all, both the U.S. and China are irrevocably interconnected with the same world, despite the unfolding “strategic competition” between them. It is more likely that a multilateral approach toward global affairs will lead to more constructive communications between the two powers in international affairs.

It is time to see whether the “multilateralism” Beijing has advocated is merely rhetoric or a substantial policy.   © AP

Third, the global economy is facing a substantial risk of a major financial meltdown — or a least a global recession — caused largely by the unprecedented quantitative easing triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic that has pumped trillions of dollars into the market to prevent an economic collapse. Here, Beijing and Washington can find solid common ground in maintaining global financial stability. And not just because China has the world’s largest foreign reserves and is the second-largest holder of U.S. Treasury bills. A financial meltdown would be catastrophic for both China — the largest trading power in the world — and the U.S., for which financial stability is critical to economic prosperity.

Fourth, it is in the interests of both China and the U.S. to build up a proper mechanism for crisis management, which barely exists nowadays, to deal with sensitive issues such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait to prevent lingering tensions from escalating into dangerous conflicts.

Last but not the least, it’s important not to expect too much from a Biden administration, especially building up a clearly defined policy framework regarding China before the 2022 midterm elections. Biden’s immediate priorities will include promoting a national reconciliation in the aftermath of a deeply divided and highly emotional election, getting the COVID-19 pandemic under control, stimulating an economy still reeling from the pandemic, and consolidating the Democrats’ dominance by aiming for a substantial victory in the 2022 midterms.

Meanwhile, the new administration must focus on restoring U.S. leadership among its allies, which has been substantially damaged by Trump’s arbitrary unilateralism. Biden and his team understand that U.S. strength is rooted not just in American might, but in the US-led alliance system that has prevailed since the end of World War II.

There will be a time window for China’s leadership to signal some policy changes and initiatives toward the U.S., if Beijing really does believe that stabilizing the U.S.-China relationship is in China’s national interests. It is not unreasonable to assume that these changes and initiatives will be well received if they demonstrate Beijing’s determination to adhere to the policy of reform and openness at home, and its commitment to the established norms, principles and rules in international affairs.

As such, we can expect that US-China competition will henceforth be in steadier hands. After all, what really endangers world peace and stability, as well as the future of U.S.-China relations, is not a “strategic competition” between the two great powers, but the uncertainty resulting from a competition in which neither power follows the time-honored rules of game, but behaves arbitrarily only in terms of its own narrowly defined self-interest.

China unveils her nuclear horn: Daniel 7

WW3: China unveils ‘net of fire’ weapon as they hold surprise military crisis talk with US

By NAOMI ADEDOKUN

PUBLISHED: 17:37, Fri, Oct 30, 2020

UPDATED: 17:45, Fri, Oct 30, 2020

China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has released footage of a recently conducted live-fire drill. The exercise, which was to practice operating a new anti-air weaponry system in Guangdong, has sparked World War 3 fears. A video posted by Chinese state-affiliated media company, Global Times, demonstrated the capabilities of the eastern state amid reports of military talks with the US for crisis communication.

According to Global Times, several vehicle-mounted antiaircraft artillery systems were used.

They can be seen firing at the same time in the video.

The artillery shoots up to 10 bullets a second.

This creates a “net” of fire for a split second.

According to Global Times, several vehicle-mounted antiaircraft artillery systems were used. (Image: GLOBAL TIMES)

The PLA’s 75th Group Army were responsible for holding the live-fire drill in Guangdong.

Group armies are comparable to a US division rather than a corps.

They are made up of various modern units such as infantry, artillery, armoured signal, antichemical warfare, engineer, air defence, air, and electronic countermeasure units.

The 75th Army military headquarters is located in Kunming City, Yunnan Province.

The PLA’s 75th Group Army were responsible for holding the live-fire drill in Guangdong. (Image: GLOBAL TIMES)

China and the US held a video conference meeting about military crisis communication this week, according to Chinese defence ministry spokesman Wu Qian.

This comes after US Defence Secretary Mark Esper was forced to deny reports that America was studying a plan to attack the South China Sea using a drone in the event that the presidential election was not looking favourable for Donald Trump.

Tensions between the two militaries have been high regarding the South China Sea this year.

Mr Esper said the United States “has no intention of creating a military crisis with the Chinese”.

Mr Wu added: “We urge the U.S. to walk the talk, keep its promise, and take measures to prevent provoking China military in the air and sea.”

The Defence Secretary has been touring Asia with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to urge countries to cooperate with the US to confront the security threats posed by China.

China has criticised the fellow superpower for having a Cold War mentality and zero-sum mindset.

A Pentagon statement about the meeting read: “The two sides agreed on the importance of establishing mechanisms for timely communication during a crisis, as well as the need to maintain regular communication channels to prevent crisis and conduct post-crisis assessment.”