Home » Intelligence » Stratcom Signals PRC on Missile Defense

Stratcom Signals PRC on Missile Defense

By Colin Clark Tuesday, November 10th, 2009 11:27 am
Posted in Intelligence, International, Policy, Space

The man at the pointy end of the spear of missile defense and of nuclear weapons warned today that the US must carefully weigh any increase in missile defense — particularly on the west coast — to avoid triggering a “destabilizing” reaction by the Peoples Republic of China.

“We have to be cautious about missile defense…[which] can be destabilizing if you are not careful,” said Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of Strategic Command and one of the military’s brightest brains. When the US places anti-ballistic missile assets on the West Coast, “What does it make the Chinese think…?” he asked. But the difficult calculus of deterrence includes other threats, Chilton made clear: “On the other hand, how do you deal with a North Korea?” Then he added Iran to the threat equation.

But his efforts at balance notwithstanding, Chilton was most passionate in his missile defense remarks about China, a fact noted by a military observer at this morning’s breakfast. In fact, they were the only remarks that elicited a clear emotional response from the general during more than an hour of delivering a speech and answering questions at this morning’s breakfast sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation.

Bear in mind that Chilton played host at the end of last month at a pretty extraordinary meeting with the head of China’s military, Gen. Xu Caihou, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission where they engaged in “frank dialogue.” In diplomatic lingo, such “frank” discussions are the closest thing one gets to bloodshed, indicating that difficult issues were addressed in some detail. It was impossible to find out after the breakfast whether Chilton’s comments arose from his talks with Gen. Xu but it seems a reasonable conclusion. We are trying to get clarification on this from Strategic Command.

Chilton’s missile defense comments highlight “a dynamic we’ve seen playing out in the past, when sophisticated countries with nuclear capabilities do not stand still” when faced with potentially destabilizing deployments of new weapons, said Bruce MacDonald, senior director of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and an expert on Chinese military space capabilities. “This underscores why we need more dialogue with the Chinese, because they are capable of sending such conflicting signals on strategic issues.”

Chilton seemed keenly aware of this need, sending another signal to the Chinese (and other governments). Military to military talks, such as those recently restarted between the PRC and the US, “should be the very last things that should be turned off” when two nations grow irritated about some issue

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	scott November 10th, 2009 at 5:03 pm From the same idiotic leadership that is more concerned with political correctness than pointing out the Ft Hood Killer was a muslim terrorist and an obama supporter.… Has the Military leadership really been so cowed by barry already that they are concerned about the Chicom’s security rather than that of the USA?
	john November 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm I cant believe this guy has a command. Who gives a rip what the chinese or anyone else thinks when we put up a purely defensive system on our own soil. If you are afraid to defend your own land because you might offend someone then you have no defense at all. Lets be real here, if we really wanted to nuke the chinese of anyone else, don’t you think we would have done it already?
	CharlesHouston November 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pm Gen Chilton is as smart as they get, and we should listen to what he recommends. He is not a ventriloquist’s dummy for Obama, he will certainly advocate his opinions. I have worked with “Chilly” and know that he has our best interests at heart. We certainly want to listen to sober military advice like this — and not react automatically. Let’s have some faith in our military professionals and not accuse them of selling us out so quickly.
	Byron Skinner November 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm Good Morning Folks, General Chilton is correct regardless of previous posts. The Chinese are skittish on the topic of missile defense. Right now nearly all of Chinas, 300–500 nuclear eggs are committed to the short to long range ballistic missiles. To the CONUS these present not problem, but to US interest in Japan, South Korea and anything in the 1st. Island Chinese defense permiter they could be some concern. In the ICBM category China is currently in the very slow process of fielding the DF 31, most likely as a mobile missile. The Chinese are still a ways away from fielding the DF-31 and when they do, like the DF-2 that it is replacing it will most likely will be made in small numbers. The short (600Km.) to long range (2650Km.) ballistic missile are probably China’s most advanced areas of military hardware/technology. The DF-3 liquid fuel and the DF-5 solid fuel MRBM’s are solid weapon systems. In the area of SLBM’s and SSBN Submarines China is still in developmental stages, while they have launched at least one Type 094 SSBN ( forget the single Xia SSBN) they have yet to produce it’s ICMB’s the Sl-2, a sea based DF-31. At least one (maybe the only one so far?) of the Type 094’s is sitting in a sea cave off Hainan Island in the South China sea. In ICBM’s, which should be of the most concern to the US, still have a long way to go in accuracy, development of small yield warheads (the Chinese do have the plans and specs. for the US W-88 warhead, taken from Lawrence Livermore Labs by a Chinese spy, but the Chinese have yet to be able to build a copy of this device) and in MIRV’d systems again China and are several years to decades behind the US. The big propaganda weapon of course is the MaRV or a guided ballistic re-entry warhead that the Chinese say could be used as a kinetic weapon against a Carrier. From plans seen in the west the Chinese have a long way to go to solving the physics of an MaRV. The Chinese are very intense in studying the US and how we are fighting in South Asia. One think that the saw very quickly was that in 1991 in Gulf War I Saddam’s mobile missile forces roamed the desert at will and were on detected after they fired their missile. During the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, not a single mobile missile was launch by Iraq although the had a large inventory of Scuds and mobile launchers. The US learned how to find mobile launchers before they fired their missiles. To China the mobile short/long range missile controlled by the 2nd. Artillery Corps is the back bone of the defense of mainland China. In the ICBM debate China by word and deed only wants to maintain a limited nuclear retaliation capacity. In short ALL of China’s nuclear efforts have been aimed at DEFENSE of the homeland and not of first use. Right now the Chinese have no ability to launch a strike be it a first or a retaliatiary strike against the US. General Chilton is correct in maintaining that it is to the US’s interest to keep it this way. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Dick November 10th, 2009 at 9:16 pm “We have to be cautious about missile defense…[which] can be destabilizing if you are not careful,” said Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of Strategic Command and one of the military’s brightest brains. When the US places anti-ballistic missile assets on the West Coast, “What does it make the Chinese think…?” he asked. This is one of the brightest? Follow the reasoning…we should eliminate all defenses so that potential adversaries not think ill of us. That has done well vis a vis Russia and Iran, hasn’t it?
	Maryam choufany November 11th, 2009 at 12:27 am 1992 i came back from iran i inherited som property in espidaran which is 90 kilometer from teheran city the government wanted to take it becaouse they foud uranum the chines won and they started to enrich the mine after i came back to us i informed mr garry waid i told him to inform higher autorities about what was going on he said is not our department .18 years after i see now the chines helped iranian gov with nuk they are getting oil and uranium from iran did they told any one no now trusting them is out of question for me by the chance is another mountain in south of tehran the name is bebeshahrbanu is loaded with uranium ‚1974 i wisited the nuclear center in tehran university i was14 years old i was in recearch of uranium any how if you need more information i will be glad to help you ‚cincerely yours maryam choufany
	Gary Voorhees November 11th, 2009 at 4:28 am I’m a simple ex SAC missilecrew dog. While I respect the rank the new CINC has he never spent a day on SAC missile, bomber or tanker alert. Our job was simple. It wasn’t about nuclear deterrence, it was about being ready willing and able to launch a nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, WARSAW PACT Countries and yes oh my god China if order to. If you define that as deterrence then so be it. I don’t really care what the communists think. If a missile defence system would protect us from incoming then we need to have it to defend the nation period.
	robert November 10th, 2009 at 11:53 pm this guy didn’t gat all thoughs stars by sitting on his thumb like you arm chair tv witching jerks do
	R. Brown November 11th, 2009 at 11:36 am Right now we are in a state of deterrence, which is what we want because no one is going to win a nuclear war. We have in the past, and will in the future, achieve deterrence against peer competitors by building ballistic missiles and assuring any attack on ourselves or our allies will be met immediately with assured destruction when we retaliate. We are now able to supplement that deterrence with a ballistic missile defense capability that will stop or limit the amount of damage caused by an attack launched by a smaller nation (like North Korea or Iran) which will only ever be able to field a limited number of ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, we will not be able to extend our ballistic missile defense capability to offer an increased defense against an attack by a peer competitor using any of the currently deployed systems, or any currently proposed future systems. Any peer competitor will easily be able to exceed the capabilities of any ballistic missile defense system we could design and deploy.
	R. Brown November 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am Given that, what exactly is wrong with the General’s position? He does not want to reduce our ballistic missile defense capability. What he wants to do is build and maintain the capability to defeat or reduce the damage caused by an attack launched by a smaller state. A goal we can achieve. If building additional ballistic missile interceptors does not improve our ability to stop an attack by a smaller State, but causes an increase in the number of ballistic missiles deployed by peer competitors, what have we gained? Such a move will require that we build additional ballistic missiles such that we can maintain a creditable deterrence force. The end result being the expenditure of massive defense resources unnecessarily, resources that could be better spent on weapons which will actually increase our defense capability. If we have 2500 nuclear weapons and China builds 2500 nuclear weapons we will have a state of peaceful deterrence. If we build 10,000 nuclear weapons and China builds 10,000 nuclear weapons, we will find ourselves in the same state. What is it we gain by spending defense resources on the latter if we can do the former?
	WarScientist November 11th, 2009 at 12:12 pm Wow, way to take his comment completely out of context. “We should be cautious about missiles defense” does not in any way, shape or form equal “We should get rid of all missile defense”. There is a difference between maintaining a self-defense system and building up major defensive installations pointed directly at 1 particular nation, because that implies that you are preparing yourself to survive their counterattack when you decide to invade. Dick, i assume you’re not an air force general with many many years of experience behind you, so let the professionals do their job and try to save your misguided reasoning (or should I say lack thereof) for commenting on the latest adam sandler movie.
	deon November 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm Our military needs to stop wondering what other nation thinks. One day they will figure out how to destroy us them what? Do we need other 911 or Pearl Harbor in our lives?
	SkysoldierRecon November 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm don’t trust the Chi-coms, they got thier mitts into everthing, and we are asleep at the wheel…
	stephen November 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm “Our military needs to stop wondering what other nation thinks”===That’s like saying the pope should stop wondering ‘What Would Jesus Do’
	Rob November 11th, 2009 at 4:20 pm And still, nobody is listening to you and your story?
	Thunderhorse19 November 11th, 2009 at 4:22 pm “We have to be cautious about missile defense…[which] can be destabilizing if you are not careful,” said Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of Strategic Command and one of the military’s brightest brains. When the US places anti-ballistic missile assets on the West Coast, “What does it make the Chinese think…?” the ex-NASA astronaut asked. This is one of the brightest people in the military? Maybe in the corrupt and nepotism-embedded Bush military of yesteryear. Chilly the 4-star blogger is a former Astronaut like the space threesome Nowak, Shipman and Oelifin (The 3 stooges of NASA). StratCom owns Vandenberg AFB, and the defense/offensive missile sytems he’s mumbling about are there. Why should we care what the Chinese (or anyone) thinks about our military defenses? Isn’t that what our military is called? The Department of Defense? It used to be the Department of War and now it’s just the politically correct, homosexual-embedded, nepotism-embedded and muslim-embedded Dept. of Defense. Chilton and his cabal in Omaha need to be fired and go somewhere else to make bricks for a living.
	Adam November 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm Those who criticize the General’s comments as submissive to the Chinese or rails on why we should be even slightly concerned about other states’ reactions to missile defense clearly demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of deterrence, as well as the true destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons. First, there’s no such thing as a “purely defensive” weapon system. One of the fundamental concepts of nuclear balances between states is the certainty of a retaliatory strike should one state massively launch against another. This is why states go to such lengths to ensure the locations of its weapons remain highly classified. If you field an effective missile defense, then you in effect remove the possibility of an effective second strike by your adversary. By removing the potential of a highly lethal second strike, you negate the balance nuclear weapons provides and allows you to employ nuclear weapons virtually without impunity. If we were looking at the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, or the Indians fielding such capabilities, how secure would you feel? While those who view nuclear weapons as just another weapon in the military toolkit certainly would not find fault with this advantage, the destructive magnitude of just one nuclear weapon has become nearly an academic concept in the minds of most people. Nuclear weapons are not simply another weapon; they are “game-changers.” There’s a good reason why the Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most terrifying events in modern American history. A strategic exchange between states will result in the deaths of millions of people on both sides, military and civilian alike. Nobody wins in nuclear war.
	Colin Clark November 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm Dear readers, Our new commenting system seems to have left some of you confused about how it works. Please do NOT report comments with which you don’t agree. Please only report comments that are abusive, offensive or irrelevant to the story. If you disagree with a comment’s substance please click on the up or down thumbDear readers, Our new commenting system seems to have left some of you confused about how it works. Please do NOT report comments with which you don’t agree. Please only use the report function for comments that are clearly abusive, offensive or are irrelevant to the topic. If you disagree or agree — or just plain admire the writer’s persuasive powers — with a comment’s substance then please click on the “thumbs up” or on the “thumbs down.”
	Colin Clark November 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm Dear readers, Our new commenting system seems to have left some of you confused about how it works. Please do NOT report comments with which you don’t agree. Please only report comments that are abusive, offensive or irrelevant to the story. If you disagree with a comment’s substance please click on the up or down thumbDear readers, Our new commenting system seems to have left some of you confused about how it works. Please do NOT report comments with which you don’t agree. Please only use the report function for comments that are clearly abusive, offensive or are irrelevant to the topic. If you disagree or agree — or just plain admire the writer’s persuasive powers — with a comment’s substance then please click on the “thumbs up” or on the “thumbs down.”
	Bruce Tinker November 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pm Obviously Gen Chilton attended war college, but maybe that war college was in China! We have threats to our southern borders; Mexico is in a state of melt down, Chavez is getting help from Russia, North Korea, Iran have the technology to blow us and Israel off the planet; the euro-trash, and african nation of despots that are runing the U.N. and praising Islam do not have the US’s interests in mind and would love to see America cease to be. American money American youth and the blood of that youth has been spilled world wide in the defense of freedom for nations that neither deserve it or spit in the face of us when we offer them help. We have the right to deffend ourselves and the hell with anyone who says different!
	Byron Skinner November 11th, 2009 at 3:03 pm Good Morning Folks, China in recent months has shown a willingness to soften their position on several issues including Taiwan. China’s military is in a very slow process of modernization, it started in 1987 and still has not shown the changes and progress China had hoped for at this point. It is doubtful that China wants to be a counter balance to the United States as the Soviet Union was on the international stage. It is far beyond China’s economic ability to become a plater at that level. In short it is very unlikely that even the most hard line Maoist would seek an armed engagement with the United States. That said though China does seek to be and equal regional power with Japan, South Korea, India and Vietnam. At this time all the above are considered to hod a military advantage or at least a military equality with China. Most people who think about Asia also believe that Taiwan could hold off a major attack by the mainland with out the aid of the US but with the enforcement of defense treaties with Japan and South Korea. With India and Vietnam there is still on finished business on both sides. I would like to see the land based missile defense system dismantled. In the case of China it would be of no value because the type of ICBM China would have to use to strike the US mainland is not with in the realm of the weapons capabilities of its currently designed interceptors. The current missile defense system is purely symbolic. Like the Nike system of the 1950’s and early 1960’s that was designed to attack Soviet bombers that didn’t existed with in period of deployment of the Nike systems, the current land based Missile Defense system is only a monument to man’s political folly. Happy Veteran’s Day to all. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	karen November 12th, 2009 at 2:50 pm im deeply concerned about the SAVE FACE attitude of america,who cares what the iraq people think , they are killing bueatiful honourable men and women in a war that is not ours..Let them fight there own. Just like Cambodia, Viet Nam look how long will it take America to see gums and war is not the issue shut our borders, send them back to there country, put large imbargo tax, take there governmment to the floor. Shun the middle east until they surrender. But not with the death and arms and legs of young people…These people have no respect for life they are a religiouse cancer on the land.….…bomb them all.….…..
	Bob November 12th, 2009 at 10:35 pm Are you sure it is a “purely defensive” system? If it is measures to shoot down incoming missles, ok, but if it’s ICBM’s targeted at someone else’s soil, well, that’s not defensive. We were concerned when Missled came to Cuba, cuz they could easily reach USA. Missles of today’s technologies, put on the East Coast of China that could land in the USA are just as equal a threat, no? How do we feel about that? I’m thinking China feels the same way … threatened, esp. if there is a buildup of that. Now if it’s Star Wars type defensive missles, that’s a different story, but that would have to be proven somehow.
	Phil November 12th, 2009 at 11:33 pm Byron–Thanks for your detailed observations. Very detailed, and spot-on. My worry is how does China react if the U.S. intervenes in a bid to force reunification with Taiwan. In the mid-1990s, one of their diplomats stated China would nuke Los Amgeles if we tried. I believe China to be a sleeping giant. A much more dangerous enemy than the Muslim terrorists we have been chasing after since 9/11. We should be wary.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:18 am 10–4 John ‚He need to be relieved of his command. All i can say is Dec7,1945
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:26 am Then you pack your dam bags on move to china.China missile out number USA missile 100 to 1 we are just coming from behind,better late then never.Gen Chilton was also the reason why japan attack pearl harbor.We was ill prepared for war.
	eddie stinson November 13th, 2009 at 12:30 am Putting aside the fact our so called missile ‘defense’ system can’t be depended on to work, the dangerous arrogance of putting our ungodly expensive toys anywhere close to the Russia and China are pieces of red meat the U.S. would go to war over if some nation put similar ‘defensive’ weaponry on this continent.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:32 am What are you a spy or a dam fool? Remember DEC 7,1945
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:35 am I thank that we should lunch all nukes and let god sort them out
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:37 am 10–4
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:40 am He could be working for the other side.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:43 am We nuke Japan.You tell me who won.If china surprise us then they will win.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:47 am All of china ballistic missiles have multiple warheads do your math.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 12:55 am Did you know that the Chinese have battlefield nukes,and that some dumbass bright gen. thought that it would be good to give them to china.Now when our boys go up against the Chinese they will be looking down their own barrels.
	Burma Jack November 13th, 2009 at 12:59 am AS A FORMER USAF NCO I DON’T BELIEVE I’M READING THIS. GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO NEED IT. I TRUST THE CHINESE AS FAR AS I CAN THROW THEM. ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY HAVE ALL OF OUR MONEY NOW SO MAYBE THIS WILL RESTRAIN THEM FOR EVER ATTACKING THE CONUS.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 1:03 am Skinner,you really belive that BS you saying?I have some priemer real estate 50 miles off the coast of FLA.for sale.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 1:06 am If we leave them to sort out their BS.we will have to take in the losers.
	Andrew Bennett November 13th, 2009 at 1:14 am What the president need to do is to setup stimulus grant package of $999 million dollars for employees to become voting-share holder/owners of these companies that is firing Americans.85% of these companies are own by foreigners.The Federal government need to partnership with the public-sector to make a profit.
	VNCcc November 13th, 2009 at 1:15 am Thanks for all the input, guys. With a few exceptions, you make it crystal clear that the US of A is the bully of the world and should not be trusted by the majority of the people who are not DARs or WASPs. The inhumane shoutings here are an offense to the intents and purposes of your founding fathers — all foreigners, by the way. It is all too reminiscent of the racist authoritarian regimes we needed to get rid of earlier. It seems necessary for the rest of the world to find the means to put you in your place –any means. Really, your brazen arrogance calls out loudly for it. Alright, you’ve fought the good fight 65 years ago (be it a bit late and oh so cautiously). Now, two generations on, you’ve turned to the Dark Side. Watch out for Luke Skywalker! he is many.
	CAPT AUGUST November 13th, 2009 at 1:22 am THE COMMENTS MADE SHOW BOTH SIDES SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE DRAMATIC RESULTS OF ONE MEGATON DEVICES, VIS A VIS HIROSHIMA. NO ONE WINS IN A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE, BY THE DOD’S DEFINITION IT IS” MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION”. THE CHINESE WILL ALWAYS WIN WITH OUR 300 MILLION PLUS TO THEIR WHAT 3 BILLION PLUS. THE TRIAD IS STILL ALIVE AND UNLESS SOMETHING HAS CHANGED, IS STILL OUR BEST DEFENSE. WERE HAMSTRUNG WHEN IT COMES TO NUCLEAR STATES THAT ARE MUSLIM BASED BECAUSE THEY DO NOT CARE HOW MANY WE KILL OF THEM, THEY ARE THANKFUL FOR US SENDING THEM TO SEE THEIR GOD, EARLY. HAS EVERYONE FORGOTTEN WHAT WE WERE FACING WITH THE KAMIKAZES OF WW2 AND THE HOPELESSNESS OUR MILITARY FELT TRYING TO DEAL WITH AN ENEMY THAT WANTS TO DIE. THE 1ST AND ONLY USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS WAS OUT OF TOTAL DESPERATION TRYING TO DEAL WITH FANATICAL RELIGIOUS GROUPS WHO “WANT TO DIE WITH HONOR” 2ND PAGE TO FOLLOW
	KDPaulus November 13th, 2009 at 1:36 am I would say that this is idiotic, but that would be an insult to idiots everywhere. Which is more destabilizing anti-missile devices that intercept incoming missiles or an incoming missile hitting downtown LA ????? I told you it would be insulting to idiots…
	Sean Flanagan November 13th, 2009 at 1:47 am Lest we forget, it was not Bush jr. or Obama, who gave the Chinese their biggest jump in missle tech. It was the Clinton Admin that forced Boeing to sell the entire MX Missile factory in Long Beach to the Chinese, lock, stock and barrel, eventhough the plant’s workers made an offer higher than the Chicoms, trying to make it an employee owned shop, in order to save their jobs. Clinton threatened to cancel Boeing’s military contracts, if they accepted the American workers’ deal. Prior to this deal, Chinese missile tech was at an early 1960’s level in relation to the U.S. There should be no public “cowtowing” to the Chinese, like Gen. Chilton is talking about here, even if there is a legitmate concern. It will only be perceived as weakness, in China. It will encourage them to increase their efforts and erode our greatest weapon, deterrence. If the Chinese perceive are commanders are more concerned being PC , worried about bad press affecting their careers, than protecting U.S. interests at all costs, they will attack. We always have to be perceived as a little crazy(Macarthur), in order to strike fear into the heart of the enemy.
	JCitizen November 13th, 2009 at 2:01 am This missile defense is openly touted as a North Korean threat defense, but the Chinese might complain anyway, for the same reason the Russians complained about the NATO missile umbrella against Iran. We got concessions for dismantling that idea, and maybe we will get concessions for dismantling this new idea. Its all just political maneuver, we never seriously meant to implement it, in my opinion. Besides the NAVY has already proven they could slap anything N, Korea launches in a heart beat. We will just have to keep a patrol presence in that area for the near future.
	Dan November 13th, 2009 at 2:22 am There you go again. These right wing generals love to throw in any fear factor they well please. Of course there in the military, what other mind set would they have.
	A Vet November 13th, 2009 at 2:23 am Obviously you’ve forgotten or are not aware of the Chinese submarine fleet. We do have a non-US born acting president running the show now and he is scared to death to make a decision unless there is a photo op and teleprompter involved. We have lost military superiority with this quarterback and it’s not getting any better.
	Greg November 13th, 2009 at 2:48 am Translation: Don’t try to get the moderators to shut down speech you don’t like. It’s not very American.
	The Captains Mindset November 13th, 2009 at 3:39 am God Bless and Preserve America. God Bless and preserve the planet from possible massive extinction.
	Guest November 13th, 2009 at 3:40 am This was a clearly a great and detailed report. It is a shame that people feel the fastest and best way to solve a problem is with Military strength. “Keep you friends close and your enemies closer.” Nuking China won’t solve anything. it will only make things worse; as well as, other Cold War Missile Deterrence tactics. China’s people do not think the same as Americans. Most people in China are brainwashed to the point of APATHY. As long as USA does not make any moments that would pike the interests of the Paranoid Leaders in China. China will sit and sleep and not pay attention to anyone else. China’s people are like the rest of the world. They just want to be left alone and make a lot of money doing nothing.
	Byron Skinner November 12th, 2009 at 11:13 pm Good Evening Folks, To Phil. Tiawan is a complex issue that historically dates from 1683. Since the mainland China has only had control of Taiwan (Formosa) for bout an 18 mouth period in 1787–88. The current crisis can be dated from 1950 when Chairman Mao ordered the PLA to invade Formosa in 1951. Well as we all know that didn’t happen and a lot of PLA Generals disappeared. Chairman Mao didn’t like disappointments. One would think that would be the end of it, not. China’s number one domestic problem today is over half a billion agrarian peasants who are still very much Maoists. If you like, they are the wingers of Chinese society. These are the people who live in rural villages and haven’t shared in China’s economic growth and industrialization. These peasants are for the most part illiterate. Like the Bible was read to illiterate western farmers in the early 18th. century in this country “The Thought’s of Chairman Mao, the famous little red book with over a billion printed in Chinese and Chou Enlai’s “The People’s War” are read to them and then committed to memory and repeated much the same as evangelical christians do today with Bible verses. Moa’s promise to bring Formosa back to China borders on religious fervor. The Chinese compare taking back Formosa the same and Zionists fought for an Israel or the why the Union fought to bring back the successionist Confederate states. These half billion people expect the PLA to come through on Mao’s promise. The State of China as well as the CCP have a problem. Appeasement of this population is wearing thin, they want action, they want Formosa back or they will go out and dig up their rifles and ammo that they were told to hold on to in 1949, and throw out the counter revolutionaries in Beijing. This is why periodically China has internal military maneuvers in the rural areas, to remind everybody that the PLA can deal with problems. But with a half billion people, no way. So simple, screw it, just invade Formosa and be done with it. Ah even Chairman Mao saw the problems. In 1950 Mao estimated that it would take 150K combat troops and another 320K support and Naval forces to take Formosa. The problems are: 1. geography, the west coast of Formosa has no beaches suitable for amphibious invasions. Most of it is sea cliffs and a few marshy wet lands. 2. Use air assault. With 14 Il76’s and about 170 helicopters this is not an option. 3. The Taiwan military are not going to stand by and watch while the PLA moves across the 100–120 miles of the Taiwan Straight. The Taiwanese military is US trained, has recent US equipment and is considered superior to the PLA in all areas. Then of course there is Japan who also has a stronger military the China and al defense treaties with Taiwan as well as their own territorial claims on Taiwan. But even if the Taiwan Military didn’t oppose the invasion, Japan stayed home, the US didn’t come to Taiwan’s aid the PLA one other tensey little problem. By everyones estimate to invade and occupy Formosa it would take 1.5 million PLA troops. If all of Chinas military transport was up and running, all 70 of it’s amphibious transport could ferry troops to a secure port and return for more they could move about 20,000 troops a day, oh yes the weather has to be calm too. Equipment would be moved by China’s merchant fleet in containers. Do the math. This for China here is the dilemma. You have a half billion Maoist zealots who want Formosa, you have a very limited military capacity and then you have the Government of Taiwan who already has made arrangements for a Government in exile in Hawaii, they own the land, build and equipped and staffed the buildings and ready to keep it going. To Andrew, yes I do believe what I’m saying. I’m game, tell all of us how you see China. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	MutantPlatypus November 13th, 2009 at 4:34 am Wouldn’t an arms race be a good boost to the economy? Consider the negative economic ramifications, for the Chinese, of one. If we deploy a missile defense system on the West Coast capable of neutralizing Chinese ICBMs, even if it only has a success rate of, say, 20%, against Chinese ICBMs, that means the Chinese have to build the extra missiles and warheads to overcome our defense system. We force the Chinese to spend money on less-advanced missiles, we get a defense against North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Sounds like a good deal, and if we swing it right (i.e. oops! Los Alamos lost a report saying the defense system is capable of shooting down 95% of Chinese missiles. In reality our defense system gets less than that, but the Chinese think otherwise) we could get the Chinese to spend or concede far more than we concede. However, like I asked above, again consider the economic ramifications. The Chinese finance a lot of our debt, inexpensively build a lot of the products we buy, finance our debt, and provide another rival for Russia. Did I mention how much of our debt they own? What if they Chinese stop buying it, or buy less of it? Chilton may be taking that into account.
	chucker November 13th, 2009 at 7:13 am Now just who the hell is going to pay for all these bombs you are proposing on using. We don’t have the money for it.
	Bernie November 13th, 2009 at 10:54 am I was in a Pershing Nuke unit in Europe during the 80’s. Uncle Ronny stuck that in the commies craw and didn’t give a damn about what the evil empire thought. Why is is we get appeasement oriented pc comments from 4 star nitwits when the dim witted dems are in office? I think this general is being political here and knows that Ohbummer is more concerned with the status of China buying our T-bill debt than he is interested in provoding the US with an anti missile umbrella. The missile shield is to protect us from Kim Dung Ill’s madness, and as a deterrent to China’s bs that is just icing on the cake. The military’s job is to worry about defense, not the feelings and attitudes of our rivals. That is the State Dept’s job. The Pentagon’s concern should always be that of fielding the best defensive strength in men and machines that we can afford as Americans. The MAD equation is out of date. Just because he wears stars does not mean he has lights in his mind. He made a mistake to appease his appeasement oriented ‘boss’, that’s all.
	Pete G November 13th, 2009 at 1:30 pm OK, so Chinese defensive measures are no threat to US security, but US defensive measures are a threat to Chinese security ????? What kind of idiotic thinking is THAT?
	James November 13th, 2009 at 8:43 am To Mr. Skinner and those who posted support for Gen. Chilton’s stated position I ask this question: How do you reconcile your analysis with the statements given this past November by Gen. Xu Qiliang, the commander of the PLA’s air force? For those who don’t recall his statements I list them here: 1) China will develop an air force with integrated capabilities for both offensive and defensive operations in space as well as in air 2) Superiority in space and in air would mean, to a certain extent, superiority over the land and the oceans 3) A country without adequate power would have no say when faced with challenges posed by the militarization in the space and air 4) China must develop a strong force in the two arenas in order to face challenges of that threat Recall that even the former Soviet Union, tha Evil Empire, at the height of the Cold War, rejected the militarization of space, which is what Xu appears to be promoting. It’s difficult to understand why the US should be concerned about how the ChiCom’s perceive a redeployment of home-based assets when they’re espousing this type of inflammatory policy without any concern for our perception.
	Dano November 13th, 2009 at 2:31 pm Lets wake up folks. The millions that have died to kepp us free must be remembered by us standing for the truths of this country and it’s freedoms. Why is so hard for people to understand that the enemy is against our freedoms and they will intimidate, lie, steal, kill and harm. This is a Christian nation and it’s founders believed in God Almighty. We do not cower as those fools who willingly give up their freedoms for a false peace. Show me once where a dictatorship cared for it citizens, without torturing, raping or killing it’s citizens in the name of law and order. The cowards who speak ill of the United States in favor of our enemies and who compromise our security for their feelings will some day understand the true enemy, for that enemy is already on our shores and in our cities and towns. This enemy controls much wealth, some politians, some military officials and many educational initutions. However they do not control everyone, if we stand up for truth and fight injustice everywhere it rears it’s ugly head then we will be the victor and we will stomp on the head of the serpent who represents the evil in this world. MayGod Bless our Counrty and it’s citizens.
	Bob November 13th, 2009 at 9:37 am Amen, Brother!
	seebees34 November 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm huh?
	roland November 13th, 2009 at 3:54 pm Just place defense shield on every States and counter contigency for defense.
	Byron Skinner November 13th, 2009 at 1:51 pm Good Morning James, My response to you question(s) is rather simple, wishful thinking and and a dose of propaganda for domestic consumption. General Xu Qiliang is well aware of those half billion peasants out there. Unlike his American counterparts he is well aware of what happened in 1927 and ended in 1949 and the cultural revolution/great leap forward of the 1960’s. The threat of internal rebellion/revolution/civil war in China is very real, not unlike the antebellum American South of the mid to late 1850’s. To put it terms where US wingers might understand, General Xu Qilang is well aware the if he says the wrong thing he will have a 7.65mm answer in the back of his head, if he’s lucky. ALLONS, Byron Skinner
	Norm November 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pm Unbelievable that US leadership would worry about Communists anywhere, must be a sign of the times. Now that we have our own neo-Marxist Euro-Socialist twits in DC we’ll be apologizing until the end of time and making allowances for every Communist mass murderer, third world despot, and petty tyrant on the planet. The reign of Zero!
	carl November 13th, 2009 at 7:51 pm Scott, you were doing fine with your comments about why we shouldn’t be concerned about defending ourselves. North Korea is a destabilizing force in that part of the world, and they’re not pointing any missle at the Chinese coast. But you could have left out the part about Ft Hood Killer (as you call him) being an “Obama supporter”. Is the president now supposed to take the blame for that too? Who do you get your facts from, Rash Lamebrain (er, I mean Rush Limbaugh)? You just made YOURSELF look like an idiot too! Even if that murderer IS an “Obama supporter” the president didn’t shoot anybody, so why does he have to be associated with the killings? If you want to go there, Bush was a killer too. We never found any weapons of mass destruction, nor did we ever obtain proof that anyone from Iran had anything to do with 9/11. He got a buch of Americans killed because he and Cheny thought they were going to score some easy oil money!
	carl November 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pm OOps! I meant Iraq!
	longrifle November 13th, 2009 at 5:54 pm Wow, emotional! 1) If the C’s wanted to invade T, they would probably just start sending in unarmed people faster than T authorities could locate and expel them. Once they have superior MASS, they’ll take over and that’ll be that — no ICBM’s or superior firepower needed! Kind of like the US Left Coast! 2) As for the NK — go Navy, if the NK doesn’t implode under it’s own incompetence first! 3) Ft Hood Killer — the Army’s getting a pretty bad rep for raising domestic terrorists. You start playing with real guns and live ammo, don’t be surprised when somebody gets shot. Is it any surprise that Maj Hasan will most likely join Sgt Hasan on Army’s death row? This should be telling us something about Muslims in the US military. Anyone else seeing warning flags here? 4) Afghanistan — our carrot ought to be getting the word out to every Afghan citizen that they need to help make their fledgling gov’t better, and the stick using fuel-air explosives (FAE) on their BIG CA$H crops, i.e., opium poppies. Cooperate and graduate, or we bomb them closer to the Stone Age than they already are.
	David November 13th, 2009 at 6:22 pm Two Points: 1.) We can’t nuke China. Wallymart will go out of business and hten we’ll have to buy ‘mericuhn stuff, which we can no longer produce. 2.) Since the Commies in the WH sold our missle technology to the ChiComs during their tenure, it is just a matter of time until the ChiComs get it working. Then their chairman-of-the-week picks up the red phone and tells our undocumented worker in the WH, or his successor “I can afford to lose 300M people. Can you?” and it is “game over”. Put the ABMS there and tell Chairman Whooflung Poo to choke on it.
	mike1971 November 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am It has been the US policy to maintain the balance of power, or the safety of the world threw deterrence. This policy enacted back in the early fifties during the start of the cold war has been the prime of the late TAC and SAC command that forms the TRIAD of US DEFENSE. This systems has gone threw countless redesigns, and refit with the changing of the world chess board of power. Many organization like the DOD, Home Land Security, NSA, Norad, ISA, NAVY INTENLIGENCE, US AIR COMMAND, US SPACE COMMAND, IM6, German Intelligence, French Intelligence, NATO as a whole, ECHELON, US Special Operations Command, the list goes on, have had to adapt themselves to current, or future events that may tip the scale of this balance of power. It is important to stay ahead of the curve, and think outside the box when it comes to protecting our allies, and our interest in the world. It is not a matter of question, but a absolute need in US and Ally interest.
	Jaybird November 14th, 2009 at 8:07 pm This is sound reasoning! In the mean time the FTC needs to up the economic front by leveling fair trade sanctions to stop the real devastation to “World Economy”, and the earth. Can we see where the real destruction is happening on the planet, and it’s oceans. Mr. Al Gore must understand the numbers behind China’s commercial attack on all the world economy. Lead, melamine, and countless other toxins in the food chain, really we are being poisoned by degrees. . .SO WHAT IS THE NEED for Nukes? They do not play fair with their neighbors. So why are we playing?
	JCitizen November 15th, 2009 at 3:59 am Good point, however, I’m sure they only wanted a limited number of missles for this basically N. Korea defense. It could be argued that because the cost of the newer technology is cheaper than atomic bombs, that you could destroy the economy of any country that tried to simply build more weapons to over come it; not withstanding a good decoy system that could actually get through analysis. I still feel the Navy is better suited for this role, even though this defense is more than likely a late term re-entry defense. I feel the Navy could destroy ANY launch that the subject country to bring to bear. Easily within first bloom to mid-trajectory. I am not a Navy fan boy, I like all the services. I’m just very confident of their new systems.
	Todd November 15th, 2009 at 11:53 am Carl, You left out the no fly zones, northern and southern, from 92– 2003, Air force in the North, Carrier BG/ Navy in the South, costed us trillions, Part of the Great UN Stalemate. Oh, The French, Germans and UN leaders doing Buz with/IN Iraq making billions.. Easy on the facts… Todd
	todd November 15th, 2009 at 12:02 pm From space command in 1991//Jan— While the world watch Desert Sto. un fold– China launched a large rocket body that could reach the west coast of the US, I was there/their…Seeing is believeing„ BTW. Nice peice. Japan yelled and nobody heard a thing. China study how the USSR lost to the US without ever firing a shot! Can you say, exports over 100%, imports at 5%. Owning the dollar??? They have done very well. Last point, All the money they threw at the DEMS from 1991– till today.…
	brucerpk November 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pm 1. The United States needs the ability to defend its self from all enemies foreign and domestic. 2. In its defense, the United States cannot be seen as callous, and thereby making its intentions known for the purpose of security and global communicational understanding. 3. because the best intentions of fools is folly. decide your thoughts and make peace before war because patience is a value and a discourse.