Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China's Naval Game-Changer
IBD Editorials ^ | August 6, 2010 | Investors Business Daily staff

Posted on 08/06/2010 4:12:06 PM PDT by Kaslin

Military Superiority: By the end of the year, China could deploy an anti-ship missile capable of hitting U.S. aircraft carriers at long range. The naval dominance that American foreign policy depended on may be at an end.

When the naval planners of Imperial Japan were laying out the attack on Pearl Harbor, the major question on their mind was — where are the American carriers? In the end, their failure to find them doomed Imperial Japan to defeat.

Since World War II, every president alerted to a crisis has asked the same question — where are the carriers? These floating air bases the size of small towns were visible signs of American power, that we meant business and were able to project that power deep within a potential enemy's territory.

Now our naval supremacy is being challenged with the final testing and imminent deployment of the Dong Feng 21D, a land-based ballistic missile capable of traveling 10 times the speed of sound and hitting fast-moving and heavily-defended American carriers at a distance of 900 miles with deadly hull-penetrating warheads.

China is building its own carrier fleet, but it does not have to match us ship-for-ship with such a long-range carrier-killer. "China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back," said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College.

Such carrier-killers "could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers," Yoshihara told the Associated Press. "It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II."

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: aircraftcarriers; antishipmissiles; asbm; carrierkiller; carriers; china; defense; defenseless; dongfeng; dongfeng21d; gamechanger; globalism; military; nationaldefense; nationalsecurity; navair; naval; navy; obama; obamalateral; peacethroughstrength; pearlharbor; surrender; surrendercrats; usnavy

1 posted on 08/06/2010 4:12:08 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
By the end of the year, China could deploy an anti-ship missile capable of hitting U.S. aircraft carriers at long range. The naval dominance that American foreign policy depended on may be at an end.

Not to worry, Obama has a plan for this.

We will crush the Chinese through niceness and debt.

2 posted on 08/06/2010 4:15:18 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

And give them a few trillion in Afgan mining rights.


3 posted on 08/06/2010 4:17:05 PM PDT by omega4179 (PREVIEW IS MY FRIEND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Skeptical.


4 posted on 08/06/2010 4:18:11 PM PDT by denydenydeny (You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice. --Spencer Tracy, Bad Day at Black Rock)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hype to the extent that not even a mention or consideration of the multiple layers of air defense (i.e.: AEGIS, etc.) that incorporate a US CVs defense.


5 posted on 08/06/2010 4:20:28 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The military equivalent of the Edsel.


6 posted on 08/06/2010 4:20:50 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Goodness gracious, you mean we won't say. "where are the carriers anymore?" You mean we will have to say,"Where are the nuclear subs, and no one will know?" OMG! Run, the yellow hoard is coming!With big Roman candles with guidance systems Bill Clinton gave them ( He had to off Ron Brown to get that to happen, but since we designed the systems we know the SD codes!). And then evey AC we have has a laser secret laser system that fries them ncoming! Obama is an idiot. He isn't going to be around much longer.AAMOF, he will be lucky to last until next spring, without being put behind bars.
7 posted on 08/06/2010 4:23:26 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama .......yes......is a fascist... ..He meets every diagnostic of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The welfare state so depleted Britain, the nation that long boasted the mightiest Navy on earth, that its war with Argentina in 1982 was a close run thing. Without our help, Argentina may have won.

In like fashion, Hussein intends to bleed our military forces at the expense of the destructive welfare state. The difference is that when Britain retreated, the US picked up the baton of freedom.

Not so this time. When the world says adios to PAX Americana, it says hello to a new Dark Age.


8 posted on 08/06/2010 4:35:11 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In the next real war, any US aircraft carrier will simply be a big fat target and a floating death trap. They won’t last past the first couple of days of real combat. In fact, I’m sure they will be taken out of the equation at the outset of hostilities.


9 posted on 08/06/2010 4:37:06 PM PDT by Paratesties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Now our naval supremacy is being challenged with the final testing and imminent deployment of the Dong Feng 21D,”

Oh, for Pete’s sake, the Chicomms can’t even manufacture a set of socket wrenches that work. Anyone who thinks the ChiComms are some sort of genuises are idiots. The ChiComms are at best monkeys looking for banana treats.

And no, the Chicomms aren’t worth squat as fighters. The lowly Vietnamese kicked the Chicomms butts in 1978. ( Go look it up.)

And all you monkeys who want to bring up Korea..

First, the UN gave up every Allied tactic to the ChiComms.

Second, Truman nixed bombing Peking, as MacArthur correctly suggested...

So, sue me.....


10 posted on 08/06/2010 5:28:19 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The fact is after the Cold War the Navy moved from long range fighters such as the F-14 and bombers like the A-6 to Strike Fighters like the F/A-18. The bombs got smarter but the carriers have to move closer.


11 posted on 08/06/2010 5:36:26 PM PDT by Trueblackman (hmmmmmm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; lowbuck; ...
SONOBUOY PING!

Click on pic for past Navair pings.

Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.

12 posted on 08/06/2010 6:08:31 PM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paratesties
You don't really understand carrier operations do you?

American carriers operate as part of a Carrier Battle Group. The carrier is only one part of the Battle Group. It is the center piece to be sure but carriers do not act alone. They are formidable even if they were alone.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

13 posted on 08/06/2010 7:45:45 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Keep living in your little fantasy world, bud. You’re going to say that our enemies have no chance against the US military right up until the time that the USA, and the US military, get annihilated in the next real war by both China and Russia. People like you that think our enemies are incapable “monkeys”, as you stated, are almost as dangerous to our national security as Obama.

The last time I looked, the US military has been shrinking both in size and capability on all fronts, while our potential enemies are modernizing and rapidly expanding their capabilities. We have been disarming as fast as we possibly can. The Chinese and the Russians have been doing just the opposite.

I suggest that you stop living in the 1950’s.


14 posted on 08/06/2010 7:47:42 PM PDT by Paratesties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I say we should initiate the only meaningful game changer, we have.

Which we better use, before we lose everything:

Begin turning all those container ships around. Commence the trade war. And don’t back down.

It’s that. Or we’re heading to history’s dustbin. Industrial, financial and technical Davy Jones Locker for the US of A.

Wake up people.


15 posted on 08/06/2010 7:50:52 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1fDL7x1Sg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If they actually have this, everyone thank Bill Clinton.


16 posted on 08/06/2010 10:08:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

are these missiles invulnerable to AEGIS?

I’d think we have been working on this issue for a very long time....... the article doesn’t even mention AEGIS

do these missiles have some special evasive or ECM capabilities to enable them to penetrate AEGIS?

or does it depend upon trying to overwhelm the system with numbers?

I’d thought that AEGIS is up to handling even hundreds of incoming “targets” nowadays but I have no idea what the Chicoms are up to with this missile...... anyone really KNOW something?


17 posted on 08/07/2010 10:16:11 AM PDT by Enchante ("The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." -- George Orwell --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Enchante; Vroomfondel; SC Swamp Fox; Fred Hayek; NY Attitude; P3_Acoustic; investigateworld; ...
are these missiles invulnerable to AEGIS?

I’d think we have been working on this issue for a very long time....... the article doesn’t even mention AEGIS

do these missiles have some special evasive or ECM capabilities to enable them to penetrate AEGIS?

or does it depend upon trying to overwhelm the system with numbers?

I’d thought that AEGIS is up to handling even hundreds of incoming “targets” nowadays but I have no idea what the Chicoms are up to with this missile...... anyone really KNOW something?

Enchante, you ask some very good and interesting questions. I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to even tell you a good sea story.

I did ping the list to your post on the hope that someone else may know more, but your questions are not directly Navair related. If there was an ALLNAV list, someone on it might be better qualified to answer them than we are.

18 posted on 08/07/2010 12:00:20 PM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: magslinger; Enchante; Jeff Head

I’ve been out of the community for quite a while, but when I was active (90-96) the main vulnerability of the Aegis system was the sea-skimming missile. NATO Sea Sparrow was much more effective against those threats. Aegis was designed to handle 100 Backfire Bombers launching 2 or 3 missiles each at long range. Aegis was very effective against those mass raid threats, but the sea skimmers were a different story. Remember, you had a 12 mile horizon to detect and engage an incoming threat. I don’t know if that helps, but that’s what I remember...

Jeff Head is kind of the Aegis expert, but I don’t know if he’s been freeping much lately...


19 posted on 08/07/2010 12:38:40 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Freedom's Fortress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Enchante; magslinger
The long pole in the tent is magazine size.

An AEGIS system can burn through a lot of missiles very fast.

After that it is the distance at which the missile is detected. Do we detect it via our radar or via ESM?

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

20 posted on 08/07/2010 1:00:07 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neodad; LonePalm; Enchante
They defined the Dong Feng 21D as a ballistic missile. That would, to me anyway, indicate a high trajectory and therefore easier for Aegis to handle?

Like I said, this isn't my thing.

21 posted on 08/07/2010 1:30:42 PM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LonePalm; neodad

Thanks for your responses.


22 posted on 08/07/2010 1:32:22 PM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

One reason, I believe that we made such a demonstration shooting down the dead satellite by the Lake Erie


23 posted on 08/07/2010 2:12:13 PM PDT by neodad (USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Freedom's Fortress")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neodad; magslinger; Kaslin
China and the press have been hyping this missile for months...and China for 3-4 years now.

There has not been one operational test...not one.

It presumes a long range recon, tracking, and ID capability, and a better ECM capability than the Chinese are known to possess.

In addition, it is supposedly a mid-range ballistic missile. Will not do much manuevering in terminal phase, and will not have much time to do it. The carrier will have moved good distances by the time the mmissile arrives.

Finally, as a ballistic misile it strikes at a part of the AEGI system that has been testd very successfully. We now have the BMD defense capability with AEGIS. They are striking at a strength of the most effective defensive system in the world.

I believe this missile is hype and is a Sung Tsu attempt by the Chinese to create a threat out of nothing while they are probably working on some other asymetrical weapon in the mean time.

Make no mistake, the Chinese Navy (PLAN) is developing rapidly into a threat...but this supposed system has never been seen...only talked about.

24 posted on 08/07/2010 3:14:10 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: magslinger
do these missiles have some special evasive or ECM capabilities to enable them to penetrate AEGIS?

A friend of ours used to train Navy officers on the Aegis system. According to what he had said to me a couple of years ago this is not really that new and our Navy has been planning on it for a while.

Apparently our intell and development is further ahead than we might think.
25 posted on 08/07/2010 4:17:35 PM PDT by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Trueblackman
"bombers like the A-6"

The Israeli's have done wonders with the A-6 and all the variants they came up with on that air frame.

Oh and the F-14 was so far ahead of everything else if we hadn't destroyed those airframes, and if it wasn't so damn expensive (time and man hours) to maintain we would still be flying them. The removal of those plane from our air fleet saddened me. Just because it was so cool I thought it still deserved a place in our Navy.
26 posted on 08/07/2010 4:25:42 PM PDT by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: magslinger; neodad; Enchante
The Dong Feng 21D is indeed a ballistic missile. This only changes the problem but doesn't necessarily make it more difficult. The US has demonstrated that a SM-3 can make a skin-to-skin hit on a deorbiting satellite.

The major drawback of the 21D is its reliance on secondary assets for targeting information, primarily radar satellites. If you take out the satellites, you significantly degrade the system.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

27 posted on 08/07/2010 4:30:53 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: magslinger
indicate a high trajectory and therefore easier for Aegis to handle

You are correct. We can actually shoot down satellites with the Aegis system. Yet I have heard it manages ground level (cruise missiles and air craft) nicely too._
28 posted on 08/07/2010 4:31:23 PM PDT by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

(knock, knock)

Excuse me.

Has anyone possibly bothered to notice, it is our “free trade” dollars, financing this?

Just a reminder...


29 posted on 08/07/2010 4:36:07 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1fDL7x1Sg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this subjsct. This is what makes FR the best source of news in the world. Real time fact checking (and fact checking of the fact checking). One FReeper knows missiles and counter measures. Another FReeper knows about the spacing of letters on typewriters. No one FReeper knows it all, but between us all we come close.


30 posted on 08/07/2010 4:37:58 PM PDT by magslinger (DISCLAIMER: No liberals were harmed in the making of this post. I'm sorry and will try harder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yawn,,,,,, 900 mile range? big whoop. If things were bad enough between us that this was a threat, the carriers would not be in range. However, in event of a “sucker punch” kind of engagement, The US response to a strike like this could be dicey. Do we go all in by turning loose the Tridents? ? Or convene a blue ribbon panel to determine why everthing is our fault. Only TheOne knows. God help us.


31 posted on 08/07/2010 4:43:44 PM PDT by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joelt

With the ‘one” in power, the attack would be debated to death and no action taken.


32 posted on 08/07/2010 7:39:42 PM PDT by NY Attitude (Make love not war but be prepared for either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Chinese Missile could shift Pacific power balance

When I tried to link the original article from this post and another recent post of yours from IBD, the only text I get is just comments at IBD. I used to have no problems reading their editorials. Do you have any idea why I can't get the original article? I tried to register there, but I couldn't.

33 posted on 08/07/2010 10:09:19 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magslinger

The AEGIS system no longer works because of Obama’s stripping from the Navy maintenance money so he can give the money to career racists and welfare bums. Read the Navy Times. It is a sad story of DDG-51s abd CG-47s that cannot use their weapons because they are rusted shut and cannot use AEGIS because it has fallen into disrepair.


34 posted on 08/08/2010 9:56:09 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; neodad; magslinger

Thanks to all for the info — I thought it sounded over-hyped but had no basis for knowing..... “interesting” how reporters could write an article on such a system and not do even the slightest pretense of research on the matter....


35 posted on 08/08/2010 10:54:53 AM PDT by Enchante ("The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." -- George Orwell --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
good to see you back and hope you're feeling better...
36 posted on 08/08/2010 4:52:50 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; neodad
I agree. I remember 20 years ago when the Sunburn was supposed to be sounding the death knell of the US carrier fleet, yet here we are.

It presumes a long range recon, tracking, and ID capability, and a better ECM capability than the Chinese are known to possess.

I think that's the key. Some people don't realize that it is hard to find ships - even a carrier battlegroup - in the middle of the open ocean. I know China has at least one naval reconnaissance satellite, but do they have enough for effective coverage of the Western Pacific?

Also, we sent the Chinese a message concerning the vulnerability of such an asset when we shot down one of our own malfunctioning satellites a couple years ago. That's a capability we're going to need to stay on top of.
37 posted on 08/08/2010 5:54:41 PM PDT by The Pack Knight (Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JSteff; magslinger; Enchante; Jeff Head
This seems to be the future. The nice thing about a laser is it's easier to get it on target and keep it their. The nice thing about warships is they have large generators in them to make lots of nice mega watts.

The competition, will be as always, development of shielding, and development of more powerful lasers. Nothing really changes over the centuries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRFEAIdmQ_8

38 posted on 08/08/2010 7:26:35 PM PDT by DariusBane (People are like sheep and have two speeds: grazing and stampede)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
Ah yes, the USN has been thrashing around for over 40 years to come up with a target missile threat to properly exercise our defenses against. They really do not have a clue what will work against the Sunburn.

Don't believe me? Go do a search on SLAT and follow on supersonic sea skimming targets and see just how much the navy has had to practice against to prove defenses.........

Color me a pessimist at to the survivability or the supercarrier.........

39 posted on 08/08/2010 11:04:35 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Do any carrier battle groups include accompanying submaries? Just curious.


40 posted on 08/08/2010 11:09:56 PM PDT by John Leland 1789 (Grateful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Yes, but we rarely know on any given occasion.


41 posted on 08/09/2010 1:27:52 AM PDT by Candor7 (Obama .......yes......is a fascist... ..He meets every diagnostic of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude
With the ‘one” in power, the attack would be debated to death and no action taken.

I think Obama's performance would mirror that of Krishna Menon, the Communist defense minister of India who stalled when the Chinese attacked the Himalaya passes in 1961 or 1962. He was fired, but the damage was done in the first 24 hours.

42 posted on 08/09/2010 2:12:49 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doorgunner69
Color me a pessimist at to the survivability or the supercarrier.........

For years, the Atlantic Fleet conducted an annual exercise called LANTFLEX ("Atlantic Fleet Exercise") on the same scenario: opposed transit by a carrier battle group. The OPFOR was usually a group of an couple of SSK's, a "Juliet" SSG or "Echo-II" class SSGN, and a modern SSGN like a "Charlie" or an "Oscar", all role-played by Allied submarines exercising their Soviet counterparts' operational characteristics. The submarines always won, the carriers always lost.

The exercise was supposed to provide the answer to the strategic question, "If the Soviets attack the Fulda Gap and try to cut Germany in two, can we 'roll over them' and sealift the necessary troops and logistical support to NATO forces in Germany?"

Fill in the blanks and discuss among yourselves.

43 posted on 08/09/2010 2:20:44 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nice to see that John Huang, Charlie Trie, and the boys got a good bang for their buck.


44 posted on 08/09/2010 6:41:06 AM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Inwoodian; JohnHuang2

For a moment I thought you was talking about Freeper JohnHuang2


45 posted on 08/09/2010 6:47:58 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Heck, no!


46 posted on 08/09/2010 8:25:52 AM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

You are so correct. We could lose in excess of 5,000 service men and women with a single strike. Meanwhile, the “one” will probably go golfing and be unreachable for comment.


47 posted on 08/09/2010 12:23:03 PM PDT by NY Attitude (Make love not war but be prepared for either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NY Attitude

Yep!


48 posted on 08/09/2010 4:20:54 PM PDT by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Yes, pretty much all the time an Ssn accompanies the CSG.


49 posted on 08/09/2010 7:10:26 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson