PRC Marches On With Missile Test

PRC Marches On With Missile Test

In what may be another sign of a quiet but persistent arms race between the US and China, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has told the world that the PLA has successfully tested a ground-based midcourse anti-missile system.

This is a very sensitive issue for the Pentagon. When contacted, several OSD experts on China declined comment. One said simply this is, “a very sensitive topic about which we were told not to comment.”

Reaction from independent China watchers was decidedly mixed. Larry Wortzel, a member of the congressionally-mandated US-China Economic and Security Review Commission and top expert on the Chinese military, was laconic. “Developing missile defense is a natural evolution for the People’s Liberation Army. However,” he noted that, “it makes it more difficult from a political standpoint to object to US and Japanese missile defenses.”


Dean Cheng, who now has Wortzel’s old job as the top China analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, cast it as another sign that China is really engaged in an arms race with the United States, fearful they may be “outpaced.”

“The reportedly successful test of a Chinese anti-missile system should give US planners at DOD, Foggy Bottom, and the White House pause. Much as China tested an anti-satellite system even as its diplomats claimed that China was not interested in “militarizing space,” it would seem that Chinese concerns about US missile defense developments are more a reflection of concerns about being outpaced by American technological capability than foregoing a capability,” Cheng said. “More to the point, however, it is striking that China should be developing anti-ballistic missile capabilities, when it is not confronted with ballistic missiles, but cruise missiles and manned bombers, at least from the US and its allies.”

That raises the issue, Cheng said, of what country is the “ultimate focus” of China’s military as it develops this new capability. He said it’s either: “Russia (a nation with substantial short– and medium-range ballistic missiles); India (another nation with substantial investment in medium-range ballistic missiles); or the development of a full-blown anti-ICBM system in order to confront the United States. (Note that the recent test would be no more than a stepping stone on the way to any of these capabilities.)”

Regardless of who China is reacting to, Cheng said that once the system is operational then China “would have still more strategic options available to it for various contingencies.”

We’ve got feelers out to a wide array of congressional aides and China analysts. As we hear back from them we will update this story,

Join the Conversation

Something remains unclear: Was the target ballistic or a cruise missile? The technical capabilities required for a mid course intercept are much more difficult than for other types of missiles. Does anyone know the target type?

“Even if news accounts on Tuesday did not provide details about the test — and whether it destroyed its intended target ”

“Even if news accounts on Tuesday did not provide details about the test — and whether it destroyed its intended target ”

People should be used to these kind of displays from China by now. They were not going to let the Taiwan sale go by w/o showing their displeasure.

Good Afternoon Folks,

Gee China test an anti-ballistic. missile-missile. Just wondering who saw this test, did the Chinese announce it, what evidence do we have that it even happened?

We have the Heritage Foundation saying it happened, perhaps they can provide some evidence. All we have is some guy Dean Cheng with a Chinese sounding name, I guess at Heritage that makes one a China expert, say it happened. It is rather had for anybody to fire a ballistic missile in the world with out satellites noticing, but Heritage Foundation has the story.

It must be noted that Mr. Cheng a few weeks ago posted a story on the buzz under Heritage Foundation that I heavily criticized and no attempt by Heritage was made to defend the story. Is this another fairy tale for Congress?

Right now as the story stands it nothing more then another one of Heritages Tall Tales.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Good Evening Folks,

I inquired to one of my sources who came over and read the story by Colin and with in minutes I found where Heritage Foundation lifted the story. I would appear that at Heritage Foundation plagiarism is a well accepted practice.

The original source is from “China’s Approach to missile defense for the Defense Intelligence Agency.” it was done in 2003. An unclassified version is a public document, so anyone can reprint it but they should also quote it accurately and source out the document they lifted the information from.

A condensed version of 32 pages was put out in 2005 called; “China and Ballistic Missile Defense 1955–2002 and beyond.” by Brad Roberts.

A quote for page 29, I guess sums up the prevailing opinion in China on TMD and BMD; “…there is a rising body of opinion in China that BMD was all a ruse to misdirect resources to cope with these defenses.”

So why would heritage Foundation do this. How about the $1.6 (not $1.1 as reported in the elite media that bothered to cover this story last week) deal with Taiwan that needs Senate approval.

Since Heritage is nothing more then a lobby shop void of any intellectual abilities, it is their job to create the big lie to sell Congress to support voting for this deal, that would enrich those who financially support Heritage Foundation.

What is China’s opinion about TMB and Taiwan, “…it would only aggravate the issue.”

The Senate should vote down this weapons deal and serve notice to Heritage that it won’t put up with this blatant lying any more.

Will they, of course not. The China Lobby (Nationalists China) has bought more Senators over the years then there are Senators.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Byron (and anyone else who is wondering),

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement announcing the missile test and describing it as successful. A Pentagon spokesman later confirmed that it detected some sort of activity. Yet another fine use of DSP and SBIRS. If you search online you will find an excellent AP story about the Chinese announcement..

Here goes Byron on another anti Heritage Foundation rant. The reason they didn’t need to “defend” their article from your criticisms is because you aren’t as important as you think you are.

Your trend of posting “the PRC poses no military threat, nothing to see here, move along” is tiring at best.

Is it so hard to believe that the Chinese actually want an arms race? They want to develop superior equipment and a superior military to our own, they want to prove themselves as a true superpower in a military as well as an economic standpoint. I can’t say I know what the Chinese will do as the world’s leading superpower, but it certainly wouldn’t be in all of our benefit.

Good Morning Colin,

The source of the “nugget” of fact in this story comes from a Sunday or early Monday AFP story. The APF of course is the AMERICAN FREE PRESS​.net that is widely regarded as a right wind news service and has little creditability, I wouldn’t use use it as a confirming source of information.

Anybody writing form publication that uses information for another source should credit the source, Heritage Foundation seems to feel that it is above question.

I guess if your going to steal you are under no obligation to get it right anyway. Just for the sake of accuracy here is what that peculiar Institution call the Heritage Foundation did tell it readers, the conclusion of the AFP story: “…China’s test would keep pressure on the United States over the Taiwan deals, it was likely to have been conducted as a general show of force.”

I guess there is no honor among thieves even when you steal for your own. Lies can’t be defended.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Still continuing your one man crusade against the Heritage foundation? Your not going to discredit them, especially since many other news outlets have reported the same thing about Chinese ABM testing.

Believe me when I say that you have no goddamn clue what you’re talking about.

This from the NY Times:

”We did not receive prior notification of the launch,” Maj. Maureen Schumann, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said. ”We detected two geographically separated missile launch events with an exo-atmospheric collision also being observed by space-based sensors. We are requesting information from China regarding the purpose for conducting this interception as well as China’s intentions and plans to pursue future types of intercepts.”

From the description, this sounds like a true ABM test (exo-atmosphere). This test has less to do with the US, and more to do with matching the Indian introduction of two ABM missiles in 2010 (AD-1, and AD-2).

Good morning,after long time observing cold war ‚no surprise today ‚all the third world countries ‚are able to make nuks and missiles and.… etc .Not only they are threat to usa they are to the world, now hkameneyee regime has the nuk they give free oil to russia and china and other countries.All this countries,do not feed their nation but they want to become the world rullers and compeat with usa ‚is not bad to review the history one moor time,any how is not pleasant to be ruled by khameneies or red chines.thank you all

Does this type of silent Chinese agression towards the USA surprise anyone? It has been happening for years..

Actually, AFP stands for “Agence France-Presse.” Perhaps they are regarded as a “right wind news service and has little creditability,” but in that case, you should take it up with Paris, and not with Colin.

Chief:

Not sure if this is aggression. Not every weapons development, be it by the Chinese, the Russians, the French, or even ourselves is aggressive.

It IS meant to send a signal, though.

But what is the message within the signal, and, separately, what did the Obama administration think they heard?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement