China’s Nuclear Extortion

The People’s Republic of China are publicizing both their capability of nuclear attack against us and the fact that their goal in such an attack is not so much to win a war as it is simply to visit as much destruction on us and to kill as many of us as they can—to eliminate us not merely as a nation, but as a society.

The PRC’s Global Times, for instance, talked freely about the destruction a Chinese nuclear attack, primarily from its submarine nuclear missile force, could inflict on the us.  Nominally, the paper was writing for its domestic readers, but it’s clear the government also was addressing our own leadership.

The GT article contained, among other things, a description of the destruction the PLA could inflict on Seattle, Los Angeles, and other western American cities, and of the radioactive fallout that would spread as far as Chicago.  It also contained this image of the reach of the destruction from their attack:

The shaded areas represent fallout spread 3, 7, and 30 days after the Chinese nuclear attack against our west coast.

The GT then got quite specific about PRC intentions:

Because the Midwest states of the US are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

The 12 JL-2 nuclear warheads carried by one single Type 094 SSBN can kill and wound 5 million to 12 million Americans.

If we launch our DF 31A ICBMs over the North Pole, we can easily destroy a whole list of metropolises on the East Coast and the New England region of the US, including Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore, and Norfolk, whose population accounts for about one-eighth of America’s total residents[.]

And

Our JL-2 SLBMs have become the fourth type of Chinese nuclear missiles that threaten the continental United States, after our DF-31A, DF-5A and DF-5B ICBMs[.]

China Central Television; the People’s Daily; the PLA Daily (the print outlet for the PRC’s military establishment, the People’s Liberation Army; the China Youth Daily, the Guangmin Daily all ran much the same stories in a coordinated delivery of the PRC’s message.

The timing of this is curious.  The PRC is moving actively to seize all of the South and East China seas, to the direct detriment of our allies, friends, and trading partners, and so to our own detriment.  It comes, also, after our “pivot” to Asia and the Pacific.  And it comes against the backdrop President Barack Obama’s demonstrated hesitancy vis-à-vis our other enemies.  Why so late after Obama’s reluctance to act on the world stage?  Probably because the Chinese have had trouble believing an American President could be so timid.

The result of our lack of response to this will not be pretty.

 

h/t Ricochet (Maybe behind a paywall.  This is a site well worth the subscription fee.)

What’s Wrong with This Statement?

In a discussion about the Navy’s latest carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford (still under construction), and the usefulness of carriers generally, Anthony Cordesman, currently sitter in the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and ex-State and Defense consultant, had this to say:

We aren’t using a land base for a lot of our sorties in Afghanistan; they’re being flown via Pakistan by a carrier.  We need to be sure we can operate without being dependent on allies.

Hmm….

Mr Panetta Misunderstands

Ex-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had an opinion in a recent Washington Post.  As he went on about how disastrous the sequester is (while ignoring the salutary effect it’s having in reducing government spending even trivially while the apocalypse of spending cuts is not destroying our economy), he also made this remark:

…US citizens will lose trust in our system of governing….

Thus, his misunderstanding: Americans haven’t, at all, lost trust in our system of governing.  We’ve lost trust in the present government, given its blatant, years-long, and cynical deviation from our system of governing.

Oddly separately, Panetta had these remarks, too, but I’m not sure he fully understands what it is he said:

If leaders are willing to take the risks associated with leadership, it’s at least possible to avoid crisis. But if leadership is not there, then we will inevitably govern by crisis. Today, unfortunately, we are governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.

the world will view the United States as less able to back its word with power.

Indeed.  Yet President Barack Obama insists on leading from behind.  Or not at all.

Playing With Guns

…in this case, just another version of Obamatalk.  Here’s President Barack Obama’s latest [emphasis added]:

If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘stop doing this,’ that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term[.]

“Shot across the bow,” indeed.  Another example of avoiding doing anything of substance, but rather of satisfying himself with “sound and fury.”

Despite his ego telling him otherwise, no one in the world takes him seriously.  But his playing-with-guns ego trip will kill people.

Responsibility

First, there was “It’s all Bush’s fault.”

Then there was “The situation is much worse than we thought.”

Then there was “It’s those obstructionist Republicans.”

Then there was “What difference, at this time, does it make?”

Then it metastasized, and he drew a red line: “Movement of chemical weapons is a red line.”

Then it was “We have to evaluate the data.”

Then it was “We’re still weighing the situation.”

Now our Secretary of YachtingState John Kerry, doing is level best to sound like what he thinks a statesman sounds like, says of al Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people last week,

 What is before us today is real, and it is compelling.

Now it’s two things: Obama’s red line was about movement, not actual use.  And it’s

the international community must respond to the use of chemical weapons.

Responsibility.  This administration should try accepting some.