Real Clear Defense authors Norman Haller and Peter Pry raise the alarm at “Beijing’s strategic breakout“, as the communist Chinese government builds nuclear first-strike capability to execute a decapitation attack from which the U.S. government could not recover, or muster a credible response. Should you fear a new Cold War?
Right Angle with Stephen Green, Scott Ott and Bill Whittle is a production of our Members.
Video below hosted at Rumble.
30 replies on “New Cold War: China Builds Crippling Nuclear Decapitation First-Strike Capability”
I remember reading, just yesterday, that in the case of a retaliation strike against China should include a strike against the Three Gorges Dam. Fully 40% of China’s manufacturing capability lies downstream of that structure, including Wuhan (yes, that Wuhan), Nanjing, Changzhou and Shanghai.
There are a series of lesser dams and reservoirs along the course that would chain-react fail, adding to the cataract. The simulation I saw indicated a 30 meter high wall of water sweeping Nanjing away on its way to the sea.
Why would China want to spend all of that money on nuclear weapons when they have had such success on cheap bio-weapons?
“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.” 2 Peter 3:10 (KJV)
The military pairs with diplomacy. I would love to see a commander in chief that said he was going to restore the military to its original purpose–killing people and breaking things–and that we would accomplish this purpose more effectively than any fighting force before in history. No more nation building–killing people and breaking things.
Then you send in the diplomats who point at our generals and say to the other side, “You can deal with me or you can deal with them.”
Bill’s right about this but I didn’t hear him give the reason why.
The stuff Steve was reading about concerning this topic was scoped and scaled to the foolish idea of “proportional response”. This is a Leftist originated doctrine whereby when someone attacks us, we don’t smash them to bits as they deserve, we only commit resources sufficient to maybe win. The Leftists call this a form of “fighting fair”. What it actually is, is fighting in a blindfold with a hand tied behind your back and both legs in shackles.
The Left, any facet of it, knows it cannot prevail against America and her allies in total war. The solution is to get America to lead in a policy of limited war. This is a foolish thing for us to fall for.
This is what led to every military failure in the last 50+ years. This is what we do to our allies, like Israel too. It’s a stupid policy that assumes if someone attacks, the attacker has good and moral reasons for doing so. Therefore we should not destroy the attacker, we should be understanding and sympathetic enough to just beat them just enough for now.
To make this concept clearer — This is like sending several people to pull the teeth of a rabid dog instead of just shooting it. It will probably bite some of the people trying to pull its teeth before it is fully subdued. Even if you succeed in pulling all its teeth the dog is still rabid, it’s still dangerous. You have to keep it penned up and handle it like a lethal threat without actually nullifying the threat.
We are a decent, moral people. America does not do anything to anyone around the globe that deserves being attacked for. There are some winners and some losers in any transaction and transactions with the United States are no exception. In some mindsets this is what merits an attack on the U.S.
This is what led to the 9/11 attacks. The Saudi Government wants our help and we are at least nominal allies. Factions within the Islamic World saw us as propping up the Saudis and as a threat to their 11th Century way of life. So they punched us, hard.
This “proportional response” mindset is why we had to have TWO Gulf Wars. We beat down the threat in days after the initial attack. The powers that be thought, with some validity, that totally removing Saddam Hussein would leave a vacuum which Iran would be eager to fill. They decided to leave Saddam in power and try to deal with him.
Hussein wasn’t interested in dealing, the way he saw it was that the combined might of the United States and our allies were unable to depose him. In his mind, we were pretty tough guys but not that tough. What he believed was called for was to outsmart/out maneuver the Allied coalition to still get his way and if he could outlast us, eventually we’d get tired of the fight and go home.
That didn’t work and we had to go back in and take out Saddam Hussein anyway. The Iranians moved to fill the vacuum anyway. Why wouldn’t they? They had been at war with Iraq for decades so … “Thanks for the helping hand, America, you bunch of suckers.”
This proportional response/limited warfare policy is the culprit here. Because …
Had we just squashed Iraq flat and taken out Saddam Hussein that would have sent a message to Iran too. The message being “We can do this to you, too, any day of the week and twice on Sundays. You fought Iraq for decades and were unable to achieve a victory. We fought Iraq for days and stomped them flat.”
Had we crossed the Yalu River into North Korea and stomped them flat we would not be having the problems we do with North Korea today and all of Korea would be as unthreatening, prosperous and free as the South.
Had we brought our full military power to bear unfettered on Vietnam then Vietnam would be more like South Korea and another free democratic ally in Asia.
Etc.
Which brings us full circle back to the topic of this video. The only reason China would think it can take out enough of our nukes to be a net gain for them is because they do not believe we would turn every major city in China into a glass paved radioactive parking lot.
If the above examples had gone the other way, China wouldn’t dare calculate and act on this idiotic idea of “proportional response/limited warfare”.
Because the world would know that “If you hurt us we will destroy you completely and without hesitation. We don’t need a proportional response, we don’t need to fight a protracted war of tit-for-tat with you, we’ll just kill you and be done with the problem.”
At then end of the day most of the people around the globe who oppose us are not good and moral people. Not the governments that rule those places that is. They care nothing for morality. In the case of Chinese Communism what’s good for The State is also moral as far as the Communist leadership is concerned.
What our enemies understand is overpowering force. Refusal to wield overpowering force is a weakness to such people whether it’s the CCP, Islamic Jihadis, or Russian post-Soviet hegemonies.
This is the core of deterrence and deterrence is better than proportional response and limited warfare in all cases. With the proper deterrence a fight isn’t needed. If the enemy knows they will lose any fight and be completely destroyed they will be very reluctant to start such a fight. There is actually less risk of loss of our own blood and treasure and a net gain for the global situation.
America is the last, best hope for mankind. American Western Values are the most fair, most equitable, most prosperous system ever devised by mankind for maximizing the potential of mankind. Right down to the Individual.
We have nothing to apologize for. We have no good reason to look at a place like China and say “Their position is valid but different than ours.”
It’s not.
I think it is a moral necessity that if we can squash them we need to make it clear that we can and we will. That way, it becomes clear to anyone that if someone attacks us they will receive justice in return, not just a little slap on the wrist.
Crimes need to be clearly stated so that people know what they should not do and the punishments as clearly stated so there is no room for punitive or lax leeway by the judges. Since there are no real international “crimes” between governments, actions by same need to be clear and ambiguous for the same reasons.
At least the Communists are a bit more secular and focused on this life. The Iranians would try to bomb us and would not be deterred by destruction as they would see it as taking us as slaves in their heaven.
Indeed, the concept of proportional response is antithetical to deterrence. I have always been a fan of disproportionate response. Or, as George Marshall once said, our flag should be recognized as a symbol of freedom in the one hand, and overwhelming force in the other.
Agree completely.
Regarding Iran, the people you’re referring to there are the Iranian leadership. The average Iranian citizen is no more a rabid dog than the average Saudi, Malaysian or Egyptian. Sure, there are rabid dogs in the pack but …
The way to deal with Iran doesn’t mean letting Iran get so strong that they become a genuine military threat to our homeland. The way to deal with Iran doesn’t necessarily involve military force at all. In this case the overwhelming force is economic. Our wealth and influence is also a potent weapon.
Obama had a chance to support and encourage a very popular uprising in Iran. He refused to do that. He refused to choke off Iran’s capital assets to the point where they couldn’t afford military aggression too. Instead he delivered them billions in unmarked cash, the dream of every terrorist cell in the world.
Trump got it right. Squeeze ’em till they shat themselves, smoke any of their leadership that dares set foot outside their borders and all the while hold up Western standards of living to their population as the big carrot they really want. As in …
“Hey, Iranians, wanna live like we do? You have the oil wealth, all you need to do is depose those silly Mullahs that are keeping you down. Get rid of them so that you can become a modern, responsible member of the globe and hey, we’ll even help you do that and get here.”
Something like that, at the proper time and with the right preparations and the Iranian people would be stringing up every member of the Republican Guard they could find.
In both total military war and total economic war, the key word is “total”. Don’t hold back, don’t try to be nice, “nice” just gets more people killed. Go for it and go for it hard, then go home again.
All we lack is leadership with the will to do that.
Haven’t I heard an unofficial Marine doctrine: If you find yourself in a fair fight, you have f’d up.
Give this man a cigar, and make it a good one. 🙂
Well,at least we aren’t still a major trading partner with the chi-coms. Or outsourcing all that work to them. Right?
Bill, the steel alloy used to build submarine hulls is HY-80. We also use that for a number of other uses in the military. When I was the department head for logistics at the Naval EOD Technology Center, which has a joint service responsibility, we contracted for all the joint service equipment used by our EOD troops. Some of that equipment was/is built using HY-80. That requirement is one of the critical design elements in the specification for that equipment and cannot be changed. Because of how the FARS are written and interpreted by contracting agencies, contractors would bid on a contract requiring HY-80, win the bid by lowballing their bid, then immediately submit a change request to get out of using HY-80. When we would not let them out of that requirement, sometimes they would challenge us, but most of the time we had to put the contract out for re-bid. Our engineers and quality control folks would test and make sure that HY-80 was used. This is one example, but there were many others of similar significance for EOD troops. So, my guess is that the US Naval Undersea Systems Command is simply not doing their work in ensuring that the steel used is HY-80, and they are equally to blame for the failure of the contractor providing the steel. Critical holes in the system that are fatal. And no one is held accountable.
Amazing that the head metallurgist claimed she falsified the test results because she thought the tests were “stupid.” That’s not how a professional responds. You do what is asked, then talk to the client to give them your opinion of their testing requirements. You don’t falsify data because you disagree with what you are being asked to do.
She should rot in jail for putting lives at risk for her personal opinion.
pc engineer student?????
Whatever engineering college awarded her that engineering degree should have their program scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb by ABET and NCEES before they can award any more engineering degrees. And if that metalurgist/materials engineer should have her PE revoked for her unethical decision-making.
When I was a contractor to the Navy, especially submarine parts, we all knew what we wee getting into. I have heard the Thresher story many times since that is what is told to new vendors when they question why do it this hard.
“no one is held accountable”. that sounds familiar but i just can’t put my finger on it. sort of like ‘no standing’.
I’m surprised to see that China is so focused on nuclear strike ability, given they have been engaging in unrestricted warfare (destroy/conquer the US by any/every means available):
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-present-danger-the-ccps-unrestricted-warfare-against-the-us_2912323.html
I was washing dishes when I was listening, and perhaps I missed something said, but I thought I heard Bill say you don’t get rid of the command staff of a nuclear sub for a crash.
Back in the day, my father, serving on CVS-9 the USS Essex, was in waragmes/maneuvers with the Essex BG and the USS Nautilus, now a museum boat in Groton, I believe. There was a collision between the Essex and the Nautilus, shearing off most of the Nautilus’s sail. Her commander, probably one of the navy’s most promising rising stars, pushed pencils across desks until his retirement. Subs can and most be able to avoid collisions. The Essex can only change depth in a non-catastrophic manner by either filling up with fuel oil and water, or pumping it out.
You may have missed the part where Scott said the sub crashed into an UNCHARTED, underwater mountain. And Bill was replying that they don’t remove the command staff for hitting something unknown – like an uncharted rock – so there is probably more to the story.
excellent response. when i was in vietnam, dec1968-dec1969, i was transported to the hospital ship hope after getting wounded. while off the coast of vietnam we needed to take on fuel. a large tanker came up to us and the sea was very volatile. VERY volatile. after the hook-up our ships bumped and damage was done to both ships.
we immediately left the shores of vietnam and headed to subic bay for repairs. while their the uss enterprise sailed buy (in a channel directly next to the hope) and all navy personnel on the hope not doing patient duty had to go on deck in dress blues or whites or whatever the navy calls that (i was in the 101st).
the patients were only allowed to look out the portholes. awesome stuff for a skinny 20 year old. one more point. the reason the enterprise (then the largest ship in the world) was there instead of off the shores of vietnam was because it had had a large fire caused by a race riot. that’s the truth and i haven’t googled it so lets hope my memory is better than my putting skills at the age of 73. that was 1969. respects.
The “race riot’ thing is something most civilians don’t know about. I’m 10 years younger than you and a Marine, that was still an issue in the early part of my service.
Camp Pendleton was locked down at least once (that I recall) for a race riot. Being a white guy it was dangerous as hell to get caught alone by a bunch of black guys. I remember riding the green weenie (the base bus) back from a liberty. The bus was packed and I was the only white guy on the bus. I was more than a little worried that I might not survive the ride and get to the gate in one piece.
I was 1/1/1 Bravo and that is probably what saved me. No one on the bus wanted to be the first one to die even if they eventually killed me too. I got some mighty dangerous looks even so.
I just looked out the window humming “My Marine Dang Do” the whole ride …
That all calmed down and mostly vanished after drug testing was universally implemented. The people causing the problems were using and dealing. They failed drug tests and were separated. Good riddance to them, the Corps has been a better place and a better force for their absence.
That’s another thing most civilians don’t know too, btw. There was a time when a significant percentage of the US Military enlisted ranks were high on one sort of substance or another.
Respects to you, Screaming Eagle.
Semper Fi.
great story. thanks. i have one more. after vietnam i still had 14 months left (RA drill sergeant) so after a month home i was sent to baumholder germany. this was in 1970. race riots were everywhere. blacks were probably 20% of the enlisted troops (i was a hard five) but caused 100% of the trouble. they would walk up to the jute box in the mess hall, unplug it then start singing black music and dare any white to say anything. as i was a vietnam vet and a sergeant i was a protected species. at that time if you were a vietnam vet w/cib no one touched you…no one, regardless of rank. in my armor unit there were probably 10 of us (out of 200) and we pretty much ran the place lol. it was probably the only thing that saved me. my roommate was a big black who i called buck and he called me little brother. blacks would roam the halls at night looking for whites to f with but he wouldn’t let them in our room. of course i had just returned from nam, was front line for 9 months and so was still pretty much full of piss and vinegar but it was still nice to have ole buck as a roomy. respects.
Lol, yeah, that was a different time alright. Calling a black guy “Buck” today, even if he liked it would probably lead to a global scandal with courts martial at the end of it.
We used to call each other all kinds of things, no one really got too worked up about it. It was meant to sting a bit and if you let it get to you then it would just get worse. Much worse. No precious buttercups or melting snowflakes allowed.
My guys were the ones running around in little boats and SOC (Special Ops Capable, this was in the days between MACV/SOG and MARSOC when Raiders could be and were given pretty much anything mission-wise you might imagine — and a lot most people never would. The Marines are “the President’s own” and do not require permission from Congress to operate.) so we did all sorts of screwy stuff.
Before I go on let me make clear that we didn’t give a flyin’ rat’s ass about race. You were either worthy of respect or a non-hacker. What color you were had nothing to do with how well you handled yourself when feces impacted the air circulation device.
This is one of the reasons I get really, really pissed when the Left calls me a “racist”, btw.
Anyway …
We usually played an indigenous irregular OPFOR during maneuvers, sort of wildcards to throw into the mix to keep everyone sharp. We’d find out from the line Marines which people were really problematic and cook up ways to deal with them.
One of those ways was to remove the BFD and lock up a blank round in an E2. Drop about 6-8 steel BB gun BBs down the bore, then jam a twig in the muzzle to keep them in there. From about 20 meters +/- those would penetrate fatigues, skin and gluteus muscles pretty good. Of course they also triggered a medevac and an investigation. Which never went anywhere, the Brass knew what time it was and we were “expected to be creative”. The casualty knew that next time the “training accident” might be terminal.
I recall some absolutely mystified corpsmen who just couldn’t figure out how a BB or six got embedded in someone’s ass too. Sadly, I was unable to enlighten them, having no knowledge of how that could happen.
Then there were other fun things too, like command detonating an arty sim a couple feet from someone’s ear as they passed by. “Sorry, Bro, didn’t see you behind that tree. Good stealth, very impressive. Whaddayamean you can see my lips moving but can’t hear me? OK, corpsman up!”
Or a snatch-and-grab for “interrogation” purposes.
Etc. Just stuff, you know. Boys will be boys and all that.
It was a very, very bad idea to get the attention of my guys.
So that bus ride … They knew who I was and I’m sure a few of the “brothers” would have liked to do something about it. They didn’t dare, people like that are more coward than not but that isn’t something it’s a good idea to put to a test in a situation like that.
In a way it was my fault, I knew what time it was too and failed to anticipate and counter a potentially lethal situation. I had family in the area and had spent my liberty with them, I wasn’t thinking “military” when I got on that bus, I was thinking about how great my aunt’s homemade cooking was and how nice to kick back and enjoy that without thinking deadly thoughts for a couple days.
When I was safely back where I belonged we all talked about it, basically a post action debrief. You always apply “lessons learned” and we came up with ways to score alternate transport post-event.
I worked with some of your guys, and some people from the 82nd and of course those ‘sissies in the floppy French covers’ a few times so when I say …
Respects, Screaming Eagle …
I mean it.
Several comments: I agree readiness is an easy way to underscore our problem, but consider the implication of naming a ship Harvey Milk. A sailor’s attachment to the ship in good measure is s linked to its name, which reflects courage, honor, sacrifice, devotion to duty, and love of country, Sailors are taught the history behind the name to bind them to the service, their fellow sailors and the ship. Without that connection the ship simply is steel, not worthy of sacrifice. The current leadership is blind to this aspect and trickles down, affecting everything from training to maintenance to competence. Our other failure is the denigration of American history because there is little reason to defend a country if it is evil. We find ourselves excusing incompetence at the highest levels, as we did after the fiasco in Afghanistan while taking the easy path of getting after more junior officers. There will not be the time to fix these problems when China has determined to enforce a blockade of the South China Sea, controlling all passage through it as well as its resources. Mentally we are and will be in the same position as in the 1920-1940 time frame, unprepared for the conflict, but lacking the time to overcome the deficiency. Our situation is made worse by far by our current leadership.
I don’t think that our leadership is blind to the trickle down effect of naming a ship after a pedophile instead of a war hero.
Then again, given who our military is preparing to wage war against there is a silver lining to it…
If leadership is not blind to the implications of naming this ship, what is their real purpose? Being “inclusive” seems to be a poor excuse. Where is the honor in that?
Purpose seems to be demoralization of the serious troops, and showing allegiance to the garbage woke ones they want to promote
Right now I’m reminded of a headline from The Duffelblog during Barry O’s presidency:
“China sinks US aircraft carrier, Obama warns of stern response if behavior doesn’t stop”
I visualized that “stern response” as showing our backside to the enemy while running away screaming like a little girl, since the stern of a ship is typically at the ship’s aft-end.
However, this current breed of admiral/general seems to be a bit confused about many things.