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

Skip to comments.

China Advances Missile Program
The Washington Times ^ | 6/22/2005 | Bill Gertz

Posted on 06/22/2005 10:45:34 AM PDT by Paul Ross

China has successfully flight-tested a submarine-launched missile that U.S. officials say marks a major advance in Beijing's long-range nuclear program.

"This is a significant milestone in their effort to develop strategic weapons," said a U.S. official familiar with reports of the test.

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: chiner; chinese; icbm; jl31; megopeepeeinyourcoke; missiles; slbm; theclintonlegacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last
Gertz gives us another heads up. Another related FR post from yesterday.
1 posted on 06/22/2005 10:45:37 AM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks to Bubba for this one. His administartion took the 5-axis milling machine off of the DO NOT EXPORT list and sold it to China...AGAINST the advice of the military. The 5-axis milling machine allows for tighter tolerances in aircraft and/or missile bodies.


2 posted on 06/22/2005 10:48:05 AM PDT by deadeyedawg (Crush our enemies, listen to their lamentations, and drive them before us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deadeyedawg; All

Naw it is the freetraitors fault for buying Made in China stuff at Walmart... /s


3 posted on 06/22/2005 10:50:41 AM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross


Old news!HAs been posted on FR


4 posted on 06/22/2005 10:52:55 AM PDT by phoenix_004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross


Old news!HAs been posted on FR


5 posted on 06/22/2005 10:53:02 AM PDT by phoenix_004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Bernie Schwartz must be smiling.


6 posted on 06/22/2005 10:53:06 AM PDT by doug from upland (MOCKING DEMOCRATS 24/7 --- www.rightwingparodies.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Some earlier columns about the same sub-launched test...

CHINA'S NEW MISSILE 'WARNING TO U.S.'
  Posted by Iam1ru1-2
On News/Activism 06/21/2005 10:22:52 PM EDT · 15 replies · 379+ views


World Net Daily ^ | Jerry Seper
China's newly developed submarine-launched Ju Lang-2 missile should serve as a warning to the U.S. not to underestimate Beijing's military power, say Taiwanese military experts. "The Ju Lang-2 poses a great threat to the U.S. because it has better precision and guidance and is harder to detect," said Weng Ming-hsien, a professor from the Institute of Strategic Studies at the Tamkang University. Weng said China probably would deploy the Ju Lang-2, which carries nuclear warheads, on its Han-class nuclear submarines. "China wants to tell the U.S. that it has never stopped developing nuclear arms," he said. "China also wants to...
 

China test-fires new submarine-launched missile
  Posted by esryle
On News/Activism 06/17/2005 10:25:20 PM EDT · 41 replies · 793+ views


Times Leader.com ^ | June 17, 2005
TOKYO - (KRT) - China test-fired a new long-range, submarine-launched ballistic missile Thursday, Japanese government sources said Friday. The new missile is believed to be the Ju Lang-2, a modified version of the intercontinental ballistic missile Dong Feng-31 that has a range of about 8,000 kilometers. The new SLBM was believed to be fired from a nuclear submarine in waters off Qingdao and touched down in a desert in China several thousand kilometers away. It has been confirmed that China test-fired an SLBM in 2001. China is believed to possess about 30 ICBMs and has been conducting research on multiple-warhead...
 


7 posted on 06/22/2005 10:56:14 AM PDT by RobFromGa (Send Bolton to the UN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Meanwhile, President Bush wants to help China to become more energy-independent.

Beam me up, Scotty.

8 posted on 06/22/2005 10:56:40 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Meanwhile, President Bush wants to help China to become more energy-independent.

Good luck, GWB. He's having a hard enough time making US more energy-independent.

9 posted on 06/22/2005 11:01:07 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: phoenix_004

But not by Bill Gertz.


10 posted on 06/22/2005 11:03:12 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phoenix_004
One of Bill Gertz's related articles from this last December.

Reprinted herein:


The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

China tests ballistic missile submarine

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 3, 2004

China's military has launched the first of a new class of ballistic missile submarines in what defense officials view as a major step forward in Beijing's strategic weapons program.
    The new 094-class submarine was launched in late July and when fully operational in the next year or two will be the first submarine to carry the underwater-launched version of China's new DF-31 missile, according to defense officials.
    "When fully operational, it will represent a more modern, more capable missile platform," said one official familiar with reports of the new submarine.
    A second intelligence official said building submarines is a top priority of the Chinese, and the Type 094 will be "China's first truly intercontinental strategic nuclear delivery system."
    The new Type 094 was spotted by U.S. intelligence agencies at the Huludao shipyard, located on the coast of Bohai Bay, some 250 miles northwest of Beijing.
    The submarine is in the early stages of being outfitted and is not yet equipped with new JL-2 submarine-launched nuclear missiles.
    The submarine is believed to be based largely on Russian nuclear submarine technology, the officials said.
    A CIA report made public last week stated that Russia was a major supplier of technology to China's naval nuclear propulsion programs.
    The launching of the new missile submarine appears ahead of schedule. A Pentagon report on Chinese military power made public in May stated that the new Chinese missile submarine would not be deployed until around 2010.
    A Defense Intelligence Agency report produced in 1999 and labeled "secret" stated that the new submarine is part of a program by China of "modernizing and expanding its missile force."
    "Mobile, solid-fuel missiles and a new ballistic missile submarine will improve the force's ability to survive a first strike," the report said, "while more launchers, on-board penetration aids, and possibly multiple warheads will improve its ability to penetrate missile defenses."
    The DIA report stated that China is expected to field one new ballistic missile submarine by 2020.
    A Chinese Embassy spokesman had no immediate comment.
    In a related development, U.S. intelligence officials said the Chinese suffered a setback in their JL-2 missile program when a test flight of the JL-2 missile failed over the summer.
    The JL-2 missile program was delayed by the test failure but is continuing to be developed, the officials said. China conducted tests of the JL-2 in 2002 and last year.
    Richard Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessment and Strategy Center, said the launch of the new missile submarine is "an astounding development."
    "The 094 has followed 093 development far more rapidly than the assessments in the annual Pentagon reports on the PLA," Mr. Fisher said, referring to the China's People's Liberation Army.
    China also recently launched a new attack submarine known as the Type 093. Additionally, U.S. intelligence agencies were surprised by China's disclosure in July of a third new type of submarine known as the Yuan-class, a diesel-electric attack submarine.
    "In the very near future, China will have a secure, second-strike nuclear attack capability that it will use to bolster its nuclear strategy of seeking to deter the United States from aiding Taiwan after a PLA attack," Mr. Fisher said.
    Mr. Fisher said the JL-2 likely will have multiple warheads.
    The new submarine will make it more difficult for the U.S. military to take part in a defense of Taiwan because of the threat of nuclear retaliation, he said.
    The Pentagon has deployed a new missile defense system, but a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency has said the current interceptor system is designed to stop a long-range North Korean missile, but not an attack from Chinese or Russian missiles.
    A 1999 report by the House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China stated that the new missile submarine will likely benefit from stolen U.S. nuclear warhead designs.
    The report stated that the JL-2 is expected to have a longer range than the DF-31 and that 16 JL-2s will be deployed on the new submarine.
    The range of the JL-2 is estimated to be about 7,500 miles, enough "to strike targets throughout the United States," the report said.
    "Instead of venturing into the open ocean to attack the United States, the Type 094-class submarines could remain near [Chinese] waters, protected by the [People's Liberation Army,] Navy and Air Force," the report said.
    The new submarine will be a major improvement over China's current ballistic missile submarine known as the Xia, which is equipped with medium-range missiles.
    The current Xia submarine is considered so noisy to underwater detection gear that its chances of surviving attack submarine strikes in ocean waters are limited.
    



Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

11 posted on 06/22/2005 11:10:35 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Are we gonna have to nuke them before they nuke us??


12 posted on 06/22/2005 11:12:17 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

That's an interesting thought. Most of us have been programmed not to go there. But what if, in order for Western civilization to survive another thousand years (or more) we had to preemptively undertake great war against the forces of anti Westernism? What would be the "moral" thing to do?


13 posted on 06/22/2005 11:15:59 AM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GOP_1900AD

It is clearly the moral thing to do. Problem is we have to wipe out most of the West along with the 3rd world.


14 posted on 06/22/2005 11:26:29 AM PDT by conservativewasp (Support John Kerry......... Ho Chi Minh would. Damn! Now I need a new tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Seems like a surgical strike now, before they spring their trap, would be the wise precaution.

They clearly are building up for a confrontation with us. One featuring surprise, asymmetry and clearly, despite all wishful thinking aside...likely on our home soil.

Remember China's PLA-controlled Hutchinson Whampoa taking over both ends of the Panama Canal...and bribing the Panamanians to do it and ignore a superior U.S. bid? Then deploying a rather large quantity...over 10,000... of their "civilians" to these bases. But Colin Powell went down in 2001 and reportedly still sees "no threat." Wow. That places him at direct odds with the assessment of the late Admiral Thomas Moorer, and General Singlaub.

Doesn't that just warm your heart knowing Powell has been so recently our Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.... Keep in mind he was the one who went down to Panama to scope out how dangerous the Chinese were with their bases there and pronounced those concerns "without merit." Keep in mind Powell was rather badly snookered by France going into the Iraq war. Who else has snookered him?

H'mmmm.

This brings to mind that sage observation by Mark Twain:

"The 13th stroke of the clock is not only false of itself, but casts exceedingly grave reservations on the accuracy of the preceding 12!"

15 posted on 06/22/2005 11:28:13 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Keep in mind Powell was rather badly snookered by France going into the Iraq war. Who else has snookered him?

People in govt. lose their integrity and principles pretty damn fast when a job with a seven-figure salary and benefits befitting a corporate officer are waved under their nose. I have no doubt that any company that does business with the Chinese or is Chinese-owned is doing this successfully with our govt. officials. To hell with doing what is right, I wanna get rich and retire in 10 years. Money has a way of blurring the realities and the big war will happen after these guys are dead anyway.

16 posted on 06/22/2005 11:41:18 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Proud infidel since 1970.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Of course, they could still have a series of "accidents" with their submarines that take them out of play. :)


17 posted on 06/22/2005 11:47:54 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Naw it is the freetraitors fault for buying Made in China stuff at Walmart... /s

Just wait when the production of US missiles is outsourced to China. Free market uber alles.

18 posted on 06/22/2005 11:52:42 AM PDT by A. Pole (The Law of Comparative Advantage: "Americans should not have children and should not go to college")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; All
Just wait when the production of US missiles is outsourced to China. Free market uber alles.


19 posted on 06/22/2005 11:55:13 AM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Ha Ha Ha Ha

Kevin, you have strange sense of humor. Missile Technology Sent to China

20 posted on 06/22/2005 12:00:14 PM PDT by A. Pole (The Law of Comparative Advantage: "Americans should not have children and should not go to college")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Amazing that the Bush Administration would allow the transfer of this technology to China.

Not any different than Clinton.

21 posted on 06/22/2005 12:04:21 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

" Beam me up, Scotty."

Aaaah sir...........where to?


22 posted on 06/22/2005 12:08:08 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross


23 posted on 06/22/2005 12:16:52 PM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks for posts.
" "Instead of venturing into the open ocean to attack the United States, the Type 094-class submarines could remain near [Chinese] waters, protected by the [People's Liberation Army,] Navy and Air Force," the report said."

And that is the plan. Keep em boxed in. They cannot launch missiles within their intercoastal waters that would reach the west coast for a long time in the future. Plus they have nothing to gain by wanting to do so. They build this stuff for leverage, just like any other country. The game goes on. No one wins in pre-emptive nor follow up nuclear strikes. I think many of us tend to forget China wants to take the world over by peacefull methods, not by outright agression, and trying to wipe out hundreds of thousands of American cities over a few hours is not the exactly easiest thing to do. And nuclear black mail is a two edge sword to all except some true lunatic who could give a damn less of the consequences, such as a moron perhaps like the eraser head. But no, he doesn't want to be toasted, he only plays games, since he is boxed. China will never be in this position for many good reasons. That's my take on the situation.


24 posted on 06/22/2005 12:19:31 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

YOUR take is a dangerous one, friend. It appears you know NOTHING of the Chinese!!! China has ALWAYS been an aggressive and brutal empire!!! I personally could care less about the current consequences of obliterating their ability to make war against us...The longer we wait to act the more DEAD will tally in our column!!!! I say NUKE THE BASTARDS!!!

P.S. Check out the prophecy inscribed on the inner chamber of the Giza Pyramid. Eerie stuff!!


25 posted on 06/22/2005 1:13:12 PM PDT by Pesmerga ("And I saw 7 heads/ upon them 7 crowns/ checked my ammo knew that I'd last the 7 rounds!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pesmerga

"YOUR take is a dangerous one, friend. It appears you know NOTHING of the Chinese!!! China has ALWAYS been an aggressive and brutal empire!!! I personally could care less about the current consequences of obliterating their ability to make war against us...The longer we wait to act the more DEAD will tally in our column!!!! I say NUKE THE BASTARDS!!!"

I'll only say this. Every POTUS that has to deal with the Chicoms since they came into power could fit the same bill.
As for me knowing nothing. I take no offense. But how can you be so sure what I said is based on knowing quite a bit about China and their particular brand of communism etc..
I see no further dialog being required. I shall say I could also say nuke em. But if you knew anything about how the world works, you would see it just is not that simple. I'll leave it at that.


26 posted on 06/22/2005 1:21:24 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pesmerga
It appears you know NOTHING of the Chinese!!! China has ALWAYS been an aggressive and brutal empire!!!

A complete nonsense! China was a self-contained passive civilization stable for many centuries. She was forced to change by the foregin invasions like Mongols of Manchu. The last bloody and agressive wars came from outside - from British who imposed the opium trade in the name of free trade, Japanese etc ... Present moderniaation drive is an attempt to made Chine able to defend itself. The expression of true Chinese spirit is Great Wall - to keep barbarians and "foreign devils" out.

27 posted on 06/22/2005 1:23:27 PM PDT by A. Pole (The Law of Comparative Advantage: "Americans should not have children and should not go to college")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pesmerga
China has ALWAYS been an aggressive and brutal empire!!!

I say NUKE THE BASTARDS!!!

It is YOUR attitude which is "agressive and brutal". Look in the mirror.

28 posted on 06/22/2005 1:25:00 PM PDT by A. Pole (The Law of Comparative Advantage: "Americans should not have children and should not go to college")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: deadeyedawg

Statement by

Mr. John J. Fialka

before the

Joint Economic Committee
United States Congress

June 17, 1997






CHINA AND ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
Spies are normally associated with wartime and the theft of military technology. In the vast popular literature about espionage, there is hardly a mention of peacetime economic spies. One reason may be because spy stories tend to blossom when wars end. War is relatively clear cut: there is a winner and an eventual loser; a beginning and an end. The end is normally the signal for the memoir writers to begin.

But economic espionage is different. Winners win quietly and losers are often either unconscious of loss, or too embarrassed to admit it. My book argues that this is like a war because war-like damage can result, but there is no beginning, no end, and, consequently, no memoir writers. As far as I know, my book is the first thoroughly-documented book on the subject.

Although few Americans are aware of it, our nation's history has been heavily influenced by economic espionage. Shortly after the American Revolution, we were the spies. And the richest, most industrialized part of the world at that time--Europe--was our target. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and many others among the founders' generation were involved in it, but one American spy stands out--Francis Cabot Lowell. He managed to steal the design of one of Great Britain's technological marvels, a water-powered loom that was so efficient that it could produce acres of cloth with relatively little human labor. Using this technology, Lowell created the New England textile industry which was, in turn, the foundation for America's industrial revolution.

One hundred and eighty four years later, the world that Mr. Lowell knew has been stood on its head. What he managed to start, the American industrial economy, is now the richest in the world. As such it has become the chief target of the world's economic spies. There are quite a number of them--from at least 20 major countries. Meanwhile, Americans have become complacent. Unlike our ancestors, who scoured the world for new ideas, we have lost our hunger for that. Many of us have come to assume that the best technology will always be here.

The thesis of my book is that that assumption may no longer be true. Unless we can understand the efforts currently being made against us and raise our awareness to the point where we win at least as many episodes as we lose, we will be in serious trouble. The National Economic Council, which includes experts from the CIA, FBI and the Departments of Treasury, State, Defense, Commerce, Justice and elements of the White House prepared a secret estimate of the current situation for Congress's intelligence committees in 1994. The report says that "economic espionage is becoming increasingly central to the operations of many of the world's intelligence services and is absorbing larger portions of their staffing and budget."[1]

This could involve a lot of people and a lot of power because nations have brought a their Cold War spy apparatus with them into economic espionage including giant computer data bases, word-activated eavesdropping scanners, spy satellites and an almost unbelievable array of bugs and wiretaps.

Economic espionage carried out in the U.S. breaks down into three major styles. The study says agents from China, Taiwan and South Korea are aggressively targeting "present and former nationals working for U.S. companies and research institutions." Japan, which does not have a formal intelligence agency but sometimes collectively resembles one, uses Japanese industry and private organizations to gather "economic intelligence, occasionally including classified proprietary documents and data." The result is an exceptionally efficient spy network that "is not fully understood" by the U.S. Meanwhile, France has relied upon "classic Cold War recruitment and technical operations," which generally include bribery, discreet thefts, combing through other peoples' garbage and aggressive wiretapping. There are recent signs, however, that France has decided to stop.

Another Cold War ally, Germany, is described as planning to increase the number of its Federal Intelligence Service (BND) agents in Washington to improve its collection capabilities. And Russia and Israel also conduct economic intelligence gathering operations in the U.S. with "varying degrees of government sponsorship.[2]

The most aggressive operations against U.S. companies occur overseas, especially in home countries where spy agencies are freer to act and where, the National Economic Council report notes, "government controlled national phone networks" and other electronic means can be used to slither inside company communications and data banks. The best places to recruit foreign nationals who work for U.S. companies overseas is said to be in third countries where "a host country's counterintelligence services do not pose a serious barrier to effective foreign intelligence operations directed against U.S. targets. Furthermore, U.S. citizens tend to be more lax about security matters when living in countries perceived as friendly to the United States."[3]

"Lax" is probably a polite way to describe the laid back attitudes that many Americans have toward our technology. A recent study by the National Research Council found that one way Japanese businessman collect information about the U.S. aerospace industry--one of Japan's current major targets--is to get their U.S. counterparts to brag. "Ego comes into play as engineers try to impress their foreign contacts..."[4]

Part of Japan's approach is simple: they have many more people looking here than we do there. In 1988 Japan sent 52,224 researchers to the U.S. Meanwhile 4,468 U.S. researchers went to Japan.[5] Japanese companies invest the time and money to teach their people English and the U.S. culture. U.S. companies rarely bother.

And what Japan has accomplished in the U.S. has caused a stir of envy, especially in the Peoples Republic of China whose collection efforts in the U.S. are likely to be larger and, in the long run, more threatening than the Japanese campaign, which they appear to be using as a model. Like Russia and Japan, China's initial target has been U.S. universities. In 1991, 51 percent of all science and engineering doctorates awarded by U.S. universities went to students from Pacific Rim nations with the dragon's share going to the two Chinas. Many of these students--educated largely at the expense of the U.S. government--get jobs in the U.S. after obtaining their doctorates and a large number of high tech companies and U.S. government research laboratories are becoming hooked on this stream of cheaper, often smarter and more biddable talent.[6] Some of these students eventually become U.S. citizens and help renew the American dream by achieving breakthroughs that mean new jobs and new markets. But many go back and government recruiters from their homelands are working here to lure more back home, where they become serious and sometimes dangerous competitors. What makes this scary is that while the influx of foreign students has been growing, the faltering U.S. public education system has been producing fewer and fewer qualified applicants for graduate level science and engineering. What this means is that many new U.S.-invented technologies that we expect to drive our economy in the 21st century--such as biotechnology and photovoltaics--are being quietly targeted and exported overseas.

My book shows how the Japanese, Russians and the French do economic espionage, but I would like to keep this testimony focused on China, which poses problems that, I think, will become more serious over time. In this game China is a dragon with two heads. Other competitors look for commercial advantage, China, a nuclear power, looks for that as well as military advantage and they often find both in the same deal. Its commercial companies are often parts of its military. They have tank companies that sell us teddy bears and toilet seats. Their profits from the U.S. go to modernize a Army, Navy and an Air Force that has begun to flex its growing military muscle in the Pacific. China's prime intelligence agency, the Guojia Anquan Bu, or Ministry of State Security (MSS), has flooded the U.S. with spies, sending in far more agents than the Russians even at the height of the KGB's phenomenal Cold War campaign. About half of nine hundred illegal technology transfer cases being investigated on the West Coast involve the Chinese. The MSS recruits students. When money is not persuasive, threats against family members back home often are. And unlike the KGB, China's spies easily find protective cover in the large U.S. Asian population.[7]

While the FBI makes an effort to watch foreign students and businessmen, China's flood has simply overwhelmed the bureau. "The FBI is ensnarled in a cess pool of Chinese agents and their cases are all stuck at first base," says James Lilly, former U.S. ambassador to China and former CIA station chief in Beijing.

While the Japanese focus on things like disc brakes and video cassette recorders, China's strategists shop for missile guidance systems that can use signals from our satellite-based global positioning system for precise targeting information. They go after small cruise missile engines, night vision equipment, upper stage rockets and nose cones for globe-spanning nuclear weapons. These are all things that may fundamentally shift the balance of power in the next decade and drive threatened countries like Japan and Taiwan into full-blown nuclear weapons programs.

You will find that a lot of trade experts and business executives don't see and don't want to see this side of China's balance sheet. The prevailing intellectual fashion is to regard the lowering of trade barriers and the influx of foreign goods and students as part of a vast, multi-cultural economic march toward a peaceful "globalism." Increasingly, sovereign issues such as national borders, intelligence and military matters are dismissed as old hat.

But they are not old hat to China's current leadership, which is using a whole range of Cold War espionage tactics, such as the insertion of "sleepers," or long term spies, against the U.S. Federal Court documents in Norfolk, Va., show how one young Chinese philosophy professor, Bin Wu, was sent to the U.S. under orders to become a successful businessman, to steal weapons-related technology and to develop political sources in the U.S. Senate and the White House. Before he was sent, he was told that the U.S. was one of the major enemies of China, and that China was preparing for a "long battle." As his U.S. career blossomed, he was told by his MSS handlers, he would never be alone. "Someone will always be worrying about you."[8]

China's Ministry of State Security was formed by combining the espionage, intelligence and security functions of the former Ministry of Public Security with the investigations branch of the Communist Party's Central Committee. What had been largely an internal instrument used to hunt down and annihilate political dissidents in China, was recalibrated to work abroad. In its modern form it supports its budget by hunting here for technology like its model, the Soviet Union's huge, far-flung KGB.

Bin Wu's case was a classic spy recruitment, a process that is known in the intelligence trade as putting an agent "under discipline." Wu, who had been under investigation in China for political crimes, was hooked through a combination of personal fear, threats against his family and the other baits they had dangled before him. While many other nations recruit spies in this process, China's operations are different because the MSS recruits armies while other nations field platoons. A former FBI official told me: "A lot of people are using their intelligence agents to collect from us in the economic area, but the Chinese do it like a fare thee well. The Chinese are a giant vacuum cleaner."

Because China currently floods the U.S. with 15,000 students a year and recruits its agents from among the candidates being considered for student visas, a Defense Intelligence Agency expert estimates there could be "a minimum of several hundred long-term agents operating here."[9]

U.S. intelligence agencies have discovered that one of the MSS's many skills is getting the U.S. to pay most of the costs of their espionage. China and other Far East countries are believed to siphon money from consulting firms they form to help U.S. companies create business ties abroad. The money is then used to finance espionage in the U.S. "We tell U.S. businesses this activity is going on," says Robert A. Messemer, a former FBI counter intelligence expert in Los Angeles. "Many of these efforts are directed at the very same companies that they are cooperating with overseas...they're funding the operations that are being run against them."

Another favorite Chinese tactic is squeezing defense-related high technology out of U.S. companies as a necessary part of business deals. One incident that is currently being investigated by a federal Grand Jury in Washington began on August 1993 when a group of Chinese visitors entered a U.S. defense plant, called Plant 85 in Columbus, Ohio. One of the visitors carried a video camera and slowly panned down the length of some of the factory's biggest machines. They were from a subsidiary of China's National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corp. (CATIC), which deals in both military and civilian equipment.

This was a very bold move. The machinery CATIC's team was eyeing amounted to an entire military aircraft plant, the largest east of the Mississippi. It would be impossible to steal it and smuggle it out. It would be illegal and impolitic for China, on its own, to try to buy it and ship it out. Some of the equipment could machine metal to tolerances so precise that they were on the U.S. State Department's list of "very sensitive" technology. Whoever had them had the capability of machining state-of-the-art nuclear warheads.

But CATIC had found another way. It was trolling an enormous bait, a $1 billion aircraft order in front of McDonnell Douglas. The hook was that, to get the order, the U.S. aircraft company would have to make the political case in Washington to get the export licenses that were was necessary to ship the machines to China.

The pull being exerted by China on U.S. companies is enormous. For many of them, China is the moon and they hope to ride on the tides created by a growing market of 1.2 billion people. Because China doesn't recognize a lot of U.S. business law, dealings there can pose enormous risks. It is a place where business, military and criminal deals often intermingle. By some measures China is one of the most corrupt places on the planet.[10] Nonetheless, business there still remains tempting. "The only thing worse than being in China is not being in China," Edgar S. Woolard Jr., the chief executive officer of Dupont, once reasoned. "If your competitor catches on there, they're going to come after you with this enormous base."[11]

Much of what U.S. aerospace companies have to sell has "spun off" of U.S. military technology. In China, U.S. military experts have begun to notice something they call "spin-on." As the Chinese learned how to make fuselages and nose cones for McDonnell airliners, for example, emerging versions of Chinese fighter planes had fuselages that were better made and aluminum skins that were smoother.[12]

The team from CATIC offered to buy Plant 85's best machines for roughly 10 cents on the dollar. While it looked like the start of a commercial deal, CATIC is simply not another widget company. It is part of China's aviation ministry. It can apply the leverage of a government agency, which is what it is. It has the technological knowhow of a big defense contractor, which develops fighters and missiles for China's Air Force. It is developing a keen sense of the world's commercial markets: CATIC runs some 66 commercial companies, whose profit-making business ran from making airliners to running luxury hotels and shopping centers to making fashionable watches.[13]

CATIC's sister agency, the Peoples Liberation Army, runs over 10,000 private businesses. They export a wide spectrum of commercial products, from tea sets to fork lifts, many of which are sold in the U.S. Part of the money is then used to modernize China's sprawling military--the largest in the world. Just how much money flows from the commercial businesses of China's government into the business of developing new weapons is a mystery, but it is probably a substantial sum. U.S. analysts believe that as much as two-thirds of China's defense budget is hidden.[14]

McDonnell officials told Craig M. Ziegler, an investigating U.S. Customs agent, that the plant's most sophisticated machines, called "5-axis profilers" were not being offered to CATIC.[15] Then CATIC raised the ante. It said a failure to sell the machines in Plant 85 would have a "big influence" on the $1 billion plane deal and future deals with China.[16]

After that, McDonnell's position appears to have been hastily revised. "We always wanted to sell them (China) the machines," explained Tom Williams, a spokesman for McDonnell. As for the peculiar back-and-forth in the negotiations and the threat imperiling the $1 billion plane deal, Williams dismissed it as "normal." "If you have ever bargained with the Chinese, they are always picking up and leaving the room."[17]

Thirteen of the plant's sensitive five-axis machines were sold after CATIC promised to use them only to make parts for the McDonnell-designed airlines, The Clinton Administration approved the sale on the rationale that the U.S. needed the sale to help offset what was then a $30 billion trade deficit with Beijing.[18] (The deficit is now approaching $45 billion.) Although many items in this avalanche of imports were produced in Chinese military factories, Clinton Administration economists ignored that.

The matter of why China needed these machines is a question that should not be ignored because it probably has military, not commercial significance. For reverse engineering, you only need one machine to make copies. China's buyers were collecting dozens of them as Cold War-era controls relaxed. By the winter of 1993, U.S. intelligence agencies estimated that China was in the process of importing some 40 of the big machines, counting the ones in the McDonnell deal. It was an amount that seemed far beyond the commercial needs of China's fledgling aircraft industry, or any other industrial country in the world, according to one U.S. official. What is going on?

One theory is that China is gearing up to export a large number of airliners, sales that would compete directly with Boeing and McDonnell. Another is that China is preparing what U.S. defense planners call "surge capability," the capacity to produce a large number of high technology military planes and precision-guided missiles in a hurry. What is worrisome to experts in the Pentagon is that, when it comes to China, the two goals are not incompatible. There is plenty of evidence that Beijing wants both guns and butter.

Pentagon experts, trying to block the sale, argued that as far as high technology military equipment is concerned, China is a sieve that steadily leaks it into the Third World. It has sold missile guidance systems and computerized milling machines to Iran and missiles and a jet trainer powered by a U.S.-designed engine to Pakistan. F. Michael Maloof, the Pentagon's director of Technology Security Operations asserted that once Plant 85 machines arrived in China, the U.S. had no way to keep them from being put to military use.[19]

McDonnell replied that it "has been assured by CATIC that this factory will only produce parts for civil aircraft."[20] When it took an inventory of the machines, however, it found two of them in Nanchang at an aircraft facility not covered by the agreement. The Nanchang factory makes cruise and ballistic missiles. "That was not a proper end use, so that was rectified," explained Williams, the company's spokesman. According to one government official, McDonnell's way of rectifying matters was to ask the U.S. Commerce Department to suspend the export license it had granted for the machines--a move of dubious value since the machines were already in China, somewhere.

In the summer of 1995, Barbara Shailor, an official of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, watched two U.S.-built five-axis machines--which, she was told, also came from the batch shipped from Plant 85--being installed at a plant in Xian, in China's heartland. The plant's workers, who make approximately $50 a month, were working simultaneously on the B-6D, a medium range, nuclear weapons-carrying bomber, making tail sections for the Boeing 737, and planning for a new airliner, which could be largely indigenous. She asked a technician for an American company working at the plant whether the two-headed nature of the plant bothered him. "Everything around here is dual use," he shrugged.

The final mechanism that China uses to find and siphon away U.S. technology is its enormous stock of students studying here. Again, it is borrowing from Japan's model. While Japanese students were flooding the campuses in 1981, the Peoples Republic of China had no doctoral candidates in the U.S. Ten years later it had 1,596.[21]

The Chinese students tend to be super-bright, an elite skimmed from a nation of over 1.2 billion people.[22] There are so many of them that they have come to dominate the lower levels of faculties in many universities and they regularly win highly-prized research and teaching assistant ships, which means that they teach and have the keys to the laboratory and that their education is subsidized by the schools and U.S. taxpayers. It has reached the point where American undergraduates frequently complain that they can't understand their teacher's English.

The idea that the U.S. can manage its growing dependency on these students is still popular on U.S.campuses. One reason is that it fits the needs of many senior U.S. scientists, who can select brighter researchers from overseas to do their research papers and their teaching, often at a fraction of the cost of a U.S. student.

For years the myth has been that most foreign science graduates remained in the U.S. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service kept no records on it. "It's not something we're interested in because it doesn't help with our work," explained a spokesman for the agency.[23] But recently Michael Finn, an economist at the Department of Energy's laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tenn., found a way to test the myth. Checking students' Social Security numbers ten years after graduation, he found that between 50 and 60% percent of the graduates no longer worked in the U.S.

"We definitely hear more anecdotal evidence that foreign countries are putting more efforts into recruiting students to come back," says Finn. One exception is the Peoples Republic of China which, according to Finn, appears to have made a decision to keep a pool of talented scientists working in U.S. companies and university laboratories, a pool that China can draw on later.

One reason may be that the U.S. pays their salaries as they continue to learn. Plus, according to Finn, the "vast majority" of Chinese students in U.S. science and engineering schools are supported by assistant ships or other means provided by the universities, usually through U.S. government funding.[24]

Mr. Finn's agency worries that the dwindling number of U.S. scientists and engineers may mean that the nation will no longer have enough native-born scientists to work on classified weapons projects. When you think about it, that is a problem that should give us all pause.

You have decided to hold these hearings at an historic moment. For the first time in almost decade there appears to be growing awareness among the American public that China may not be the most exemplary trading partner. It continues to trample the human rights of its own people. It continues to proliferate weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It sends spies to steal U.S. weapons technology--which amounts to an act of war. At the same time, it makes secret moves to deny U.S. companies access to its markets, such as telecommunications. And now, in addition, we see a growing body of evidence that it has tried to manipulate the U.S. political process to its own advantage.

The question facing you is whether we continue to appear numb to this threat, or whether we do something that tells China it must modify its behavior. "Trade experts" would have you believe this is an enormously sensitive, touch-me-not question. In its simplest form, I'm not so sure that it is. Remember the third grade? What happened to you if you continued to appear weak and stupid in front of the class bully? Was that complex? No, it was predictable. You lost your lunch money.

In past history, we protected our companies by erecting a wall of tariffs. I think that age is past, but selected trade barriers, such as removing China's most favored nation status, would send the message that our laws and our commercial and political processes must be respected, not abused. In the long run, however, I think the best defense will be an offense. We must make ourselves better, more world-savvy competitors. Companies should understand when they lose, we all do. Like some companies do now--notably Kodak and Motorola--they must be willing to take the fight overseas, studying foreign cultures to find legal means to learn what their competition is doing. Here, companies must also become more willing to bring cases to court, using new laws such as last year's Economic Espionage Act to create a body of case law and an actuarial basis for risk can be used by insurance companies to help protect people. Lessons are not learned if you hide them.

Companies and the government must also be made aware that reliance on foreign scientists to develop and guard our secrets is--as the Romans once discovered--a short-run fix. In the long run we will either fail as a leader of technology, or we will have to restore our broken public school system so our students can continue to compete with the best in the world. As a body, China's students here are exemplarily people that we can learn much from, but among them are some spies, people whose assigned mission is our downfall. As Francis Cabot Lowell once vividly demonstrated, we should never lose sight of that. Nations that take their technological edge for granted have a great deal to lose.













Endnote


1. Report on U.S. Critical Technology Companies, Report to Congress on Foreign Acquisition of and Espionage Activities against U.S. Critical Technology Companies, 1994, p.5
2. Report on U.S. Critical Technology Companies, p.23.

3. Ibid, p. 25.

4. "High-Stakes Aviation: U.S.-Japan Technology Linkages in Transport Aircraft," p. 88.

5. U.S.-Japan Technology Linkages in Biotechnology, National Research Council, 1992, pp. 34-35.

6. North, David S., Soothing the Establishment; The Impact of Foreign-born Scientists and Engineers on America. p. 78 & ff.

7. Eftimiades, Nicholas, "Chinese Intelligence Operations," Naval Institute Press, 1994, p.17 and p. 27.

8. The account of Wu's meeting at the Old Cadre's club comes from the trial transcript of U.S. vs. Bin Wu, Jing Ping Li and Pinzhe Zhang, CR 92-188-N, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk, Va. The trial was held in May, 1993.

9. Eftimiades, op. cit., p. 67.

10. Transparency International, a Berlin-based group dedicated to curbing corruption in international business transactions, ranks 41 countries on a "corruption index," based on polls, reports of businessmen and business journalists. With a possible high score of 10, China scored 2.16, ranking it just above Indonesia, which was in last place.

11. Woolard made his remark in November 1995 at a symposium on international security issues at the State Department.

12. "Civil-Military Integration; The Chinese and Japanese Arms Industries," a background paper published by the Office of Technology Assessment, a branch of the U.S. Congress, in 1995, p.142.

13. "CATIC; United, Realistic, Competitive, Innovative," brochure produced by CATIC, undated.

14. "Impact of China's Military Modernization in the Pacific Region," U.S. General Accounting Office, June 1995, p. 18.

15. Report by Ziegler to the director of the Strategic Investigations Division, U.S. Customs Service, Oct. 4, 1993.

16. Letters exchanged during the negotiation were later released by the Pentagon.

17. Interview with Williams, October, 1995.

18. "China Swiftly Becomes An Exporting Colossus, Straining Western Ties," Wall Street Journal, Nov. 13, 1995, p. A1.

19. China's position, according to Li Daoyu, its ambassador in Washington, is that it has "all along adopted a serious and earnest attitude toward the issue of non-proliferation and opposed the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction pending their complete elimination globally." Arms Control Today, op. cit., p. 9.

20. "Background--CATIC Machining Co. Ltd.," part of McDonnell's application for an export license for the Plant 85 machinery submitted to the U.S. Commerce Department.

21. "Foreign Participation in U.S. Academic Science and Engineering: 1991," special report by the National Science Foundation, February 1992, pp. 28 and 85.

22. Some come from China's military elite. Gen. James A. Williams, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recalls a chat with a number of lieutenant colonels in the Peoples Liberation Army during a visit to Beijing in 1983. They spoke with American-accented English and talked about their days on U.S. college campuses. When he returned to the U.S., Gen. Williams, now retired, had their names checked against U.S. immigration records. There were no records. "All I can figure is that they must have come in under different names," says Williams.

23. Interview with INS spokesman, April 4, 1994.

24. Interview with Finn, Sept. 1995.


29 posted on 06/22/2005 1:31:11 PM PDT by dennisw (See the primitive wallflower freeze, When the jelly-faced women all sneeze)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; Jhoffa_; FITZ; arete; FreedomPoster; Red Jones; Pyro7480; ...
Although few Americans are aware of it, our nation's history has been heavily influenced by economic espionage. Shortly after the American Revolution, we were the spies. And the richest, most industrialized part of the world at that time--Europe--was our target. Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and many others among the founders' generation were involved in it, but one American spy stands out--Francis Cabot Lowell. He managed to steal the design of one of Great Britain's technological marvels, a water-powered loom that was so efficient that it could produce acres of cloth with relatively little human labor. Using this technology, Lowell created the New England textile industry which was, in turn, the foundation for America's industrial revolution.

One hundred and eighty four years later, the world that Mr. Lowell knew has been stood on its head. What he managed to start, the American industrial economy, is now the richest in the world. As such it has become the chief target of the world's economic spies.

In the Brave New World of Free Trade the economic espionage is OBSOLETE. It is enough to provide free parcel of land, cheap labor and the all desired technology will be brought to you for FREE.

Not only that, the original factories will be CLOSED, the engineers who developed the technology will be made to train your people and then given the boot. No need to worry about the competition.

30 posted on 06/22/2005 2:55:04 PM PDT by A. Pole (The Law of Comparative Advantage: "Americans should not have children and should not go to college")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Are we gonna have to nuke them before they nuke us??

China and Russia are developing strategic weapons. The U.S. is not.

At some point, the U.S. will be blackmailed into submission/defeat/destruction.

31 posted on 06/22/2005 3:13:37 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican'ts have no spine--they ALWAYS cave-in to the RATs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
This could easily solve the problem...


32 posted on 06/22/2005 3:40:41 PM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: deadeyedawg

The Clinton legacy lives on...


33 posted on 06/22/2005 3:40:59 PM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
Maybe not. Excerpt below from a recent article:

For over two decades, a compact, powerful warhead called the W-76 has been the centerpiece of the nation's nuclear arsenal, carried aboard the fleet of nuclear submarines that prowl the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. But in recent months it has become the subject of a fierce debate among experts inside and outside the government over its reliability and its place in the nuclear arsenal. Questions also surround the weapon's basic design. Four knowledgeable critics, three former scientists and one current one at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which designed the W-76, have recently argued that the weapon is highly unreliable and, if not a complete dud, likely to explode with a force so reduced as to compromise its effectiveness.

Our weapons are old, perhaps even non-functional. We have had no strategic weapon development in decades. Russia and CIna spend their military $ on weapon R&D and procurement. The U.S. military $ goes toward pay, police action, and misc BS.

We have gone from a world power to a world power of bygone days.

34 posted on 06/22/2005 3:47:20 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican'ts have no spine--they ALWAYS cave-in to the RATs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888

We could easily change that...if someone were willing.


35 posted on 06/22/2005 3:53:05 PM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888; All

No sir we are still the top dog.. I'm sure there are a lot of stuff that is going on that we don't know about..


36 posted on 06/22/2005 4:37:41 PM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
No sir we are still the top dog

1] If India, China and Russia align against us, we lose.

2] The direction is important--Russia, China and India are expanding their military capability, we are contracting ours.

3] The rate of change is important. China is rapidly expanding their strategic capability. We are not only NOT expanding, but we are contracting.

Don't fall into the trap that we will "always" be the top dog. Kennedy and Reagan demanded such. Bush, Clinton and Bush Sr did not. Bush seems content to sacrifice national sovereignty, he could care less about national security and he seems more interested in giving money away than in preparing our nation for the looming showdown with China. Under Bush, we are rapidly getting weaker, and we are rapidly trashing our national sovereignty.

37 posted on 06/22/2005 5:00:55 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican'ts have no spine--they ALWAYS cave-in to the RATs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Unless they saw us coming and launched their retaliation which will reach us, thanks to the being that inhabited the White House from 1993-2000.


38 posted on 06/22/2005 5:03:02 PM PDT by Two Thirds Vote Aye (9/11/2001 - clXXXon Legacy #1; N. Korea NUKES - #2; RED CHINA NUKE DELIVERY - #3 :(()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dont_Tread_On_Me_888; All

Ok.... Explain in how we are getting weaker... Not the usual crap.. I heard that crap when Reagan was President....


39 posted on 06/22/2005 5:05:05 PM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

The threat looms much larger when you consider the growing Eurasian Alliance

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/12/171703.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/14/172106.shtml

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15218


40 posted on 06/22/2005 6:13:44 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BringBackMyHUAC
The threat looms much larger when you consider the growing Eurasian Alliance

The current acronym is "BRIC": Brazil, Russia, India, China. You can find a lot of links by doing a Google on the search "BRIC Brazil Russia India China".

From Google news, for instance, you can find this June 15, 2005 article:

Will BRIC lead the world economy?

DEBIPRASAD NAYAK

INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK[ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005 10:43:30 PM]

Recently international bank loans recorded one of the strongest growths in three of the four BRIC economies, according to the latest report released by the World Bank. While it doubled in India from $3.5 bn in 2003 to $7 bn in 2004, in Russia it went up from $4.9 bn to $8.2 bn during the period. In Brazil it also more than doubled from $3.8 bn to $8.9 bn. According to investment banker Goldman Sachs, over the next 50 years, the BRIC economies could become a much larger force in the world economy.

What is BRIC?

BRIC stands for four emerging nations, Brazil, Russia, India and China. It is a coalition of emerging superpowers proposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The coalition encompasses over 40 per cent of the world's population and holds a combined GDP of $12.14 trillion. The idea was proposed because of growing concerns regarding the domination of the US and the European Union over the world economy and political scene. As all the members have experienced enormous growth in the past few years and are expected to continue this, the coalition will likely grow to be a larger threat to developed countries. Unlike other developed nations, BRIC economies do not want to dominate the world economy. What they want is an end to their poverty and an end to the global and unilateral leadership of the United States.

What is Goldman Sachs report on BRIC?

A recent Goldman Sachs report has forecast that Brazil, India and China together with Russia (BRIC) will outstrip the current dominant members of the global economy within half a century. By 2050, the BRIC’s economies together could be larger than the G6 (the US, Japan, England, France, Italy and Germany) in dollar terms. By 2025 they could account for over half the size of the G6. Currently they are worth less than 15 per cent. Of the current G6, only the US and Japan may be among the six largest economies in dollar terms in 2050. The list of the world’s ten largest economies may look quite different in 2050.

According to Goldman Sachs India’s economy could be larger than Japan’s by 2032, and China’s economy could be larger than the US by 2041. Among the BRIC members, India has the potential to show the fastest growth over the next 50 years. Growth could be higher than 5 per cent over the next 30 years and close to 5 per cent in the next 20 years. By 2030, China’s per capita income could be around $30,000. In the US, income per capita by 2050 could reach roughly $80,000.

What are the driving forces behind this surge?

The major driving force behind the soaring economy is the GDP growth. China will continue to witness a GDP growth of over 7 per cent till 2010 and over 4 per cent till 2035. At the same time, India will grow at a rate of 5-6 per cent. In the case of Russia and Brazil, the growth rate will vary between 3-4 per cent. Both rising currencies and faster growth will narrow the gap between BRIC and developed economies.

What is driving India?

In India, the main driving force behind the constant growth is the technology sector. Other factors like consumer boom, rising stock market, the booming auto and pharma exports and growing real estate market are also boosting the economy.

By 2010, annual export revenues from India's information technology (IT) sector are predicted to hit $50 bn, up from $16.3 bn in 2004-05. Low inflation, encouraging government policy and a lower exchange rate can also help to promote growth.

Over the last few years, restrictions on foreign direct investment and foreign equity ownership have been relaxed. India is home to 17 per cent of the world’s total population and the country has witnessed phenomenal educational development. One factor that puts India in a position of great advantage is its growing proportion of 'intelligent' working population.

How is Brazil moving to be a giant economy?

Brazil's economy is around $560 billion and it makes up around half of South America's entire economic output. From 1930 onwards, Brazil has achieved exceptionally high growth and it is the eighth largest economy in the world. In 1994, rising inflation rates had disrupted economic activity and discouraged foreign investment. However, it has recovered from the recession and is moving towards a bright future. Today, more than 2,000 US companies operate in Brazil and Brazilians purchase 18 per cent of the US exports.

Out of 500 largest multinationals, 405 have a Brazilian subsidiary. If Brazil falls into recession, it is likely to drag the rest of Latin American economy with it. If demand dries up, it could bring an end to the growth in the US economy.

Brazilian economy is distributed widely with 7.5 per cent working in primary sector (agriculture), 35.8 per cent in industry and 56.7 per cent in the services sector.

What about the dragon?

The driving force which has transformed the communist-controlled economy into market giant is the export-oriented development. The Asian Development Bank has reported that the Chinese economy is expected to expand rapidly from 2005 to 2007, with growth rates expected to reach 8.5 per cent, 8.7 per cent and 8.9 per cent respectively. The industry sector is likely to expand by 9-10 per cent over the next few years. China continued to be a favored destination for foreign investment, which rose by 13.3 per cent to $60.6 bn in 2004.

Moreover, the country's infrastructure has been strengthened and its business environment has improved significantly over the last decade. While the GDP growth will remain above 8 per cent, the inflation rate is expected to be around 3.5 per cent. The nation's future economic development will continue to be fuelled by the rapid growth of fixed asset investment, backed by the high savings rate and a major inflow of foreign direct investments.

Will Russia again emerge as the world leader?

Russian growth in 1999-2003 was around 6.5 per cent. Since 2000, the main driving force behind the growing Russian economy is the private oil companies’ performance. The oil industry accounted for slightly less than half of GDP growth. The private oil companies have played a crucial role in keeping Russia’s external balance in surplus. The government has estimated the GDP to grow by 5.4 per cent in 2005. Foreign investments in Russian economy is also expected to reach $100 bn by 2006.

Each BRIC member faces different challenges to keep development on track. If they can remove the barriers, they will be able to oust the developed economies which are shrinking with the passage of time.


41 posted on 06/22/2005 7:27:58 PM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Ok.... Explain in how we are getting weaker

1] Smaller % of total spending going to military. Domestic and global welfare taking an ever increasing share of total % of spending.

2] What $ do go to military has a very small % going to procurement and R&D (mostly going toward police actions in Middle-East, pay, logistics).

3] Lack of strategic weapon development.

4] We no longer have superior weapons over Russia. Russia can outclass us in certain performance areas of various weapon systems.

5] Spy activity (especially from China) is at historic highs, yet Bush admin seems to do nothing about it.

6] Open borders with a flood of invaders--more so now than ever under any other president.

7] Fixation on giving away the national treasury (Africa, et al.) as we push our debt toward $10 trillion mark.

8] We have lost our edge as world's most powerful economy. Pacific rim has closed gap and trend will continue.

9] Weaker leadership. The RATs no longer care about the nation, only gaining power. It used to be we had statesmen like Sam Nunn, Scoop Jakson et al. in the RAT ranks--no more. Zell Miller, the only RAT holdout, has retired.

10] The major weapon systems we employ were mostly developed in the Reagan years. Our hardware is getting old, and the replacements keep getting scaled back (F-35), delayed (F-22), or eliminated (Crusader et al.).

11] Unilateral disarmament in WMDs (chemical and biological) as other nations ramp up production of WMDs.

12] No new ICBM in years. Russia will soon outclass us in ICBM capability (scramjet, maneuverable warheads/final stages), etc.

This is just a fraction of the many examples. We no longer have the edge. The most important area that we have become weaker in is national focus. Under Reagan, he had a nationalistic undertow to his agenda. Under Bush, there is not a gram of nationalism in his thinking. His sole focus seems to be "what scrap of remaining remnants of national sovereignty can I give away today." Every act undertaken internationally favors foreign nations and weakens our nation, from trade agreements to the draining of our national treasury as we pump it to corrupt dictators.

We are getting weaker. If you don't understand this, you are not crunching numbers and keeping up with international events.

42 posted on 06/22/2005 9:19:31 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican'ts have no spine--they ALWAYS cave-in to the RATs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

Thanks for the helpful post...I'll look into that (BRIC).


43 posted on 06/22/2005 11:55:35 PM PDT by BringBackMyHUAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
What we like to see isn't what is likely happen. No president in right mind is going employ a first strike against a large nuclear power. One boomer doesn't make real threat, I think the Russian at the end of the Cold War had 200 according to FAS,and we have now 191 nuclear powered subs. Eighty-seven of which are large platform subs, Ohio, Los Angeles, and Virgina Class.
44 posted on 06/23/2005 5:23:13 AM PDT by Kuehn12 (Kuehn12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle; Alamo-Girl; Jeff Head; Travis McGee; GOP_1900AD
No one wins in pre-emptive nor follow up nuclear strikes.

The luminaries of the nuclear defense establishment disagree with you: I.e., the late Herman Kahn, Edward Teller,Laurence Beilenson, and President Reagan, plus our current Sec. Defense Donald Rumsfeld all believed that your thesis is dead wrong. Hence Rumsfeld was the principle architect of getting the MX deployed. He started the R&D. And Weinberger and Reagan finished the job. The MX and Tridents counterforce capability had the effect of denying the aggressor Communists from being able to assume they would have anything left to coerce a civilian population with after attacking our military assets. Thus, it was another layer of "deterrence" plugging a very serious and real gap since the Soviets manifestly believed and taught that they could win a nuclear war. (The big secret of the nuclear freeze movement).

You see, what you fail to realize is just how successful a pre-empt can be with modern GPS technology nowadays, the vulnerability of our current low-alert posture (read "sitting duck"), and strikes from the South of the U.S. (not just from SLBMs, but their cruise missiles launched from container "farms" and ships the PLA controls near our shores) where our radar coverage is thin....followed up with a devastating series of EMP explosions. GWB has retired half our Trident fleet, all of our MX missiles. Half our B-1Bs. Most of our B-52s. Kept everything on Xlinton's ordered stand-down.

Your notion of counter-strikes assumes anything survives. Almost all the Tridents will be in one port on the West Coast...sitting ducks. And with the new GPS commonly available, the Chinese could easily take out the few remaining Minutemen we have...which have very few MIRV warheads after GWB signed the Moscow Treaty.

The U.S. could be completely routed in relatively short order. Hence, we need to do a number of things right now to get ready.

First and foremost. Toughen up the domestic infrastructure against EMP. It can be done with federal subsidies and Civil Defense structures now for about $15 billion. The U.S. has to have stashes of vulnerable components stockpiled for emergency replacement. The generators need special emergency trips to prevent over-revving. And the transformers need to have massive fast breakers, and we need an indigenous manufacturing supplier of transformers again. Yes. They got outsourced and left the country entirely.

Second. Plug the leaks in radar coverage. High and low. Cruise missile sneak attacks are to be taken seriously as well. This means massive new deployments of U.S.-based hardware. And deployment of the new NMD-capable SM-3 toting Aegis cruisers stationed around each and every suspected PLA container-farm. All Chinese vessels must be required to obey a restricted approach to the U.S.-- only in convoys where they are "escorted" by such a vessel. Unescorted vessels inside the security zone get immediately sunk by whatever assets we have.

Third. Deploy PAC-3 missile defenses at all extended U.S. military and civilian sites, plus along the entire periphery of the continental ocean-front, particularly defending bases and population centers. No gaps for the Chinese to surprise.

Fouth. Deploy the sea-based NMD system in depth. Fully fund deployment of 25-50 or so DDX cruisers.

Fifth. Deploy Brilliant Pebbles type ICBM defense in orbit. Now. Secretly. Most people wrongly assume we have already done something along the lines of deployment for the money spent on SDI.

Sixth. Redeploy Safeguard, pulling it out of mothballs.

Seventh. Deploy Gatling-type projectile terminal defenses at all ICBM complexes.

Eighth. Reactivate the MX missiles and deploy in road-mobile format. Deploy several hundred dummies as well to complicate targetting.

Ninth.Reactivate all remaining B-1B bombers, and restore to nuclear readiness.

Tenth. Reactivate all Trident missle submarines.

Eleventh. Place all nuclear assets on routine "Cold-War" alert status, reactivating all their decommissioned or soon-to-be decommissioned interior USAF bases with air crews ready for immediate scramble. Submarines in-port time is to be immediately reduced to barest minimums, and constantly redeployed.

45 posted on 06/23/2005 6:27:48 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Thanks for the ping!


46 posted on 06/23/2005 7:01:10 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kuehn12; Submariner; navyvet
One boomer doesn't make real threat,

What makes you think, now that they have an effective 1-2 design (sub and missile) that they will stop with the one first of class? We didn't. The Russians didn't. It is believed that their second boat-of-class is ready to launch now.

I think the Russian at the end of the Cold War had 200 according to FAS,

No, they didn't... Boomers are SLBMs. Not attack subs, your number implies you are counting their attack subs...and likely their diesel electric attack fleet as well. Under SALT-I , at their zenith, the Soviets had about 67 Nuclear SLBM submarines, i.e., "boomers." We had about 42*.

and we have now 191 nuclear powered subs.

B'zzzt! Way, Way Wrong.

How many Trident submarines are currently deployed? Would you believe 13? And were you aware that the East Coast Trident base in Bangor is to be closed...leaving us only the West Coast base in Kings Bay?

Eighty-seven of which are large platform subs, Ohio, Los Angeles, and Virgina Class.

The number of attack subs is generally relevant, but not in this particular discussion of strategic deterrence. And you are numerically wrong on your assumptions thereto...we only have 50 Los Angeles Class submarines. And the Virginia and Seawolf class (the latter class's production terminated at two ships) are numerically insignificant.

Again...how many currently active Ohio Class submarines with their full load of Tridents, not converted into Tomahawk wagons do we have, h'mmm?

You may want to check here before you venture any further numbers...

Disposal Note: All previous Poseidon-class SSBNs (George Washington Class) have been discarded, except Daniel Webster (ex-SSBN 626) and Sam Rayburn (ex-SSBN 635) survive as immobilized dockside training platforms, with their missile compartments removed.

47 posted on 06/23/2005 7:15:17 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

Not to worry. After all, we stopped Iraq's extremely advanced nuclear program.


48 posted on 06/23/2005 7:17:05 AM PDT by Gone GF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
I say NUKE THE BASTARDS!!!
It is YOUR attitude which is "agressive and brutal". Look in the mirror.

He is justifiably frightened by the looming threat.

And he likely also does not intend to annhilate their population. I for one, don't.

But I suspect the Chinese masters may not be so squeamish with regard to our population. Look to the unprovoked sneak attack by China upon our troops in the Korean War. We should simply have nuked their forces rear-areas then, rather than try and slug it out conventionally. Truman's political rules of engagement nearly cost us that war. Do you know how many people we lost in their aggression? And how many of their own troops did they heedlessly throw away in suicide attacks on us?

In that alternate approach, then, after surgically dismantling their armies... we should have dictated terms to Mao in Bejing.

Unconditional Surrender, and disband the Communist Party. Stalin would not have dared interfere. Look how he was afraid of the pilots he sent getting caught...unmasking his role in the aggression.

49 posted on 06/23/2005 7:29:46 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Ok.... Explain in how we are getting weaker... Not the usual crap.. I heard that crap when Reagan was President....

What "crap" are you alluding to???

I assume you don't mean the objective assessments that our military was in gross decline versus the Soviets prior to Reagan's rebuilding of our forces?

50 posted on 06/23/2005 7:47:11 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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