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

Skip to comments.

China's New ICBMs Targeting New York and D.C.?
Newsmax ^ | 7/16/02 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on 07/16/2002 3:49:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

Tuesday July 16, 2002; 1:46 p.m. EDT

China's New ICBMs Targeting New York and D.C.?

Coverage of Friday's Pentagon report on communist China's military buildup got lost on the inside pages of Saturday's newspapers and didn't even rate a mention on the Sunday talk shows. But at least one of the national security shockers contained therein truly deserves front page coverage.

Beijing is building a new fleet of nuclear capable intercontinental ballistic missiles with a strike range that will include, according to U.S. military experts, nearly all of the United States.

China's older fleet of 20 liquid-fueled ICBMs was dangerous enough, because they had the capacity to reach America's West Coast. In fact, one of China's top military men, Lt. Gen. Xiong Guangkai, explicitly warned in 1996 that Beijing's war planners had Los Angeles in their nuclear crosshairs.

But according to the Pentagon's review of the Chinese buildup, in just three years Beijing's generals will be able to count on a fleet of ICBM's that can penetrate much more deeply into U.S. territory.

"Two new DF-31 missiles will be deployed sometime in the middle to later years of this decade," reported the Washington Times, quoting the Pentagon report as saying that China's new solid-fueled ICBM's "can reach much of the United States."

The New York Times coverage of Beijing's nuclear buildup was no more reassuring, warning, "China is replacing its current arsenal of 20 DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles, which can strike the western United States, with a longer-range version."

Worse still, by 2010 the People's Liberation Army hopes to triple the size of its ICBM arsenal, bringing the total number of missiles in China's U.S. nuke strike force to 60.

The estimated range of the new Chinese missiles was left vague in the Pentagon document. But the implication was clear enough. Chicago is now certainly within striking distance in any Chinese nuclear attack.

Add New York and Washington, D.C. to the list of U.S. cities that may soon become vulnerable - if they aren't already.

As the Pentagon's report makes clear, China is modernizing and expanding its nuclear arsenal with a specific purpose in mind: "reunification" with Taiwan. If the island nation's democratically elected leaders don't heed the handwriting on the wall in the next few years, Beijing means to force the issue.

China's ever-growing fleet of intermediate range missiles will crush Taiwan in a lightning quick strike. Meanwhile the U.S. Pacific Fleet will be held at bay through nuclear blackmail.

Six years ago, Gen. Xiong warned former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Charles Freeman:

"In the 1950s, you three times threatened nuclear strikes on China, and you could do that because we couldn't hit back. Now we can. So you are not going to threaten us again because, in the end, you care a lot more about Los Angeles than Taipei."

According to the latest Pentagon analysis, China's ability to make good on its nuclear blackmail now covers significantly more U.S. territory.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

China/Taiwan


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; chinastuff; dc; missiles; newyork; targets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
Boy, That'll mess up rush hour .
1 posted on 07/16/2002 3:49:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

2 posted on 07/16/2002 3:52:02 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firebrand; Cacique; rmlew; Oschisms
ping
3 posted on 07/16/2002 3:52:22 PM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Chicago is now certainly within striking distance in any Chinese nuclear attack.

Oh boy ;-)

4 posted on 07/16/2002 3:52:51 PM PDT by ChicagoRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
What are the chances that our military has a way of stopping some nukes and taking out chinas satelites ?
You would think we have lots of weapons that are kept under wraps.
5 posted on 07/16/2002 3:55:50 PM PDT by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Wow !! 60 whole missiles ? I'm like terrified ..... we had what 2000 at the height of the Cold War plus 10, nuclear warheads .....

Besides .... I'll bet good money that like the SR-71, the missile shield has been in place for a while. The public just doesn't know about it.

6 posted on 07/16/2002 3:59:26 PM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
-Links for Missile Defense- Nuke News--

Regarding those 60 missiles? Top them with our stolen W-88 MIRV ( nominally 8 X 150 kiloton, but I've been told they can carry more, smaller warheads ) and that's 480 targets.

7 posted on 07/16/2002 4:08:55 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: backhoe
Yes. I remember reading Gertz' China Threat a few years ago. The Chinese military actually sent the CIA the plans for our W-88 nuclear warhead.

Of course, no one noticed and no one cared at the time. And no one ever bothered to get to the bottom of what happened concerning our nuclear labs, Clinton, the Chinese.

8 posted on 07/16/2002 4:12:57 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: winodog
Thanks to Bubba Clinton, the weapons we "had under wraps" from 1992-2000 are now being sold in Chinese K-Marts as PlayStation II software.

Pre-Clinton, the Chinese were still working on their next generation rickshaws...

9 posted on 07/16/2002 4:18:13 PM PDT by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All
As with the UK after her forces and morale were decimated during the 15 years following the Treaty of Versailles, the vast majority of Americans delude themselves either with platitudes about the "Fast World" and "Falling Walls" so heartily proclaimed by Thomas L. Friedman and ilk, or, with fantastic visions that a military 1/2 the size of the one we had ~ 1985 will be able to best any and all threats. We have fallen as dupes for our own version of the suicidal "10 year rule," and are either too dumb to see the forest for the trees, or, too scared of the harsh realities, sacrifices, and, God forbid, overruling of the current Corporatist idiots who pass for "leaders" (and lead us to the veritable gallows featuring rope that we made and sold to our enemies). Real conservatism includes the ability to say no to corporations as well as to communists, something we apparently fail to grasp.

And to those who think that the PRC stand alone as an enemy, think again, and think "Axis." In this case, major axial partners include the DPRK, Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and.... Russia! That's right, Russia.... our "Weimar Republic." Ah, the prognostications of budding "democracy" and a new age of lasting peace! We never learned that an "armistice" (in this case, the one sided one known as "Parastroika") without repentence and hanging of "former" Axis leaders is nothing more than a "time out in the game" allowing the enemy to regain their strength. And those of you who experience the urge to mouth the words "tin foil" I heartily retort with the single word "history!"

10 posted on 07/16/2002 4:22:24 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Newsmax, as usual, got it wrong. The current ICBM force can hit New York and Washington. The DF-31 can barely cover Seattle, and it won't hit IOC until 2005 at the earliest.

And 60 missiles isn't a war-winning ICBM force by any stretch of the imagination.

11 posted on 07/16/2002 4:26:52 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: belmont_mark
Belmont, a few years ago I would have said your foil hat needed re-inforcement; or, at the very least, you were overstating your case to make a point.

Once I retired, I had a chance to catch up on what was going on in the world, and began to wonder who needed the foil hats: us or the people in charge !

I'd love to see a total boycott of China; and to those "useful idiots" who invested corporate funds in China, I say : "Nasty break ! "

12 posted on 07/16/2002 4:32:14 PM PDT by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
( Where did I hide that dam' file? )

The W88 Warhead
... In the fall of 1990 Congress directed that a study be done on W-88 safety due to
the use on non-insensitive high explosive. In December the study committee ...

Panel of Experts.W-88
Panel of Experts -- W-88. With respect to this second widely reported general and
specific allegation (p90) in the Cox Report of the "theft of design ...

C-SPAN: Report on Chinese Espionage
... warhead in the US intercontinental ballistic missile arsenal. Together, these include
the W-88 Trident D-5 thermonuclear warhead, and the W-56 Minuteman II ...

Trident II (USA) - D-5 - USNI Military Database
... a hard target kill capability. It is estimated that a D-5 W88 warhead has an 88%
probability of kill against a target hardened to 7,200 psi (506 kg/sq. cm). ...

Russia May Sell Nuke Subs to China [Free Republic]
... per warhead. The USA's W88 warhead carried by the Ohio class (D5 warhead - 2nd gen
Ohio's) ICBM submarines have a nominal yield of 475 kilotons ... 24 missiles ...

13 posted on 07/16/2002 4:33:05 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
The current ICBM force can hit New York and Washington

Please excuse my ignorance.
In order to reach those targets, will the flight path be over the north pole or across the continent?

14 posted on 07/16/2002 4:41:47 PM PDT by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Beijing is building a new fleet of nuclear capable intercontinental ballistic missiles with a strike range that will include, according to U.S. military experts, nearly all of the United States.

If we'll be taking out Iraq because of WMD development then surely we must do a pre-emptive strike on China as well ;-)

15 posted on 07/16/2002 4:42:44 PM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
DF-31s are already in service and can reach the west coast and Alaska. Longer range DF-41s are being developed and should be ready in 2-3 years and will cover all of the US. They are both part of a newer mobile ICBM force (much like Russia, hint) that will replace the static liquid ICBMs that are currently used by the PRC.
16 posted on 07/16/2002 4:42:48 PM PDT by Aaron_A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aaron_A
A Little Food For Thought

Bob Schaffer, Member of Congress from Colorado


Congressional Record: February 28, 2002 (Extensions)
Page E242                    



 
                   CHINA'S LONG-RANGE MISSILE PROGRAM

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 28, 2002

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, on several occasions I have addressed this 
House on the matter of National Security and the threat to it posed by 
China's aggressive arms buildup. Particularly, with regard to China's 
long-range missile program, America's vulnerability is growing, not 
shrinking.
  While I applaud the leadership of our President to advance a national 
missile defense program, Congress must rely upon complete, accurate, 
and candid assessments of the threat posed by China, or any other 
nation. Without such candid assessments, Americans are burdened by 
excessive risk.
  I hereby submit for the Record, a letter I have today posted to Mr. 
George Tenant, who heads America's Central Intelligence Agency. I urge 
each of our colleagues to review this letter and respond to its 
contents or reinforce its sentiments to the Director, and to the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit the following for the Record.

       Dear Mr. Tenet: Last month, your agency produced the 
     assessment of China's ballistic missile threat to the United 
     States in the unclassified summary of the January 2002 
     National Intelligence Estimate "Foreign Missile Developments 
     and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015." The lack of 
     attention to the pronounced and growing danger caused by 
     China's ballistic missile buildup, and its aggressive 
     strategy for using its ballistic missiles cannot go 
     unchallenged. The report is misleading, and, because it 
     understates the magnitude of threat, is profoundly dangerous.
       Perhaps the unclassified National Intelligence Estimate was 
     meant to conceal from foreign eyes what the CIA really thinks 
     or knows. But this government has a duty to defend the lives 
     and freedom of its citizens. A large part of that defense is 
     informing the American people of the threats they face rather 
     than downplaying, for example, China's ballistic missile and 
     military buildup.
       In this regard, I protest the inferior quality and lack of 
     information compared to Department of Defense reports such as 
     the Soviet Military Power series initiated by Secretary of 
     Defense Caspar Weinberger in the 1980's, which addressed the 
     Soviet military threat in detail, providing numbers of 
     missile, bombers, and warheads, and location of forces.
       Your report is an issue because China has focused on a 
     buildup of ballistic missiles to defeat the United States. In 
     addition to its ballistic missile and information warfare 
     buildup, you yourself have noted the threat posed by China's 
     growing anti-satellite capabilities. China is engaged in 
     economic and surrogate terrorism, and diplomatic initiatives 
     using its mouth to promise friendship while preparing for 
     war. America needs to be informed and warned.
       Without adequate intelligence about the ballistic missile 
     threat, or the courage to act on the intelligence it has, the 
     United States will not be able to defend itself. President 
     Bush's proposed defense budget understates the need to 
     accelerate ballistic missile defense programs, and emphasizes 
     a poor design for a ballistic missile defense using 
     groundbased defenses over space-based defenses that can 
     provide boost phase interception, global coverage, and 
     multiple opportunities for interception.
       One point is how China's program for multiple reentry 
     vehicles for its road-mobile ICBMs and SLBMs is 
     "encountering significant technical hurdles and would be 
     costly," giving an impression that China may not develop a 
     MIRV capability, at least in the near future.
       In contrast, in 1999 defense analyst Richard D. Fisher, 
     Jr., could convincingly write, "Both the DF-31 and DF-41 
     ICBMs are expected to incorporate multiple independently 
     targeted reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads." Fisher further 
     noted China has been suspected of trying to develop MIRVs for 
     years, and that in 1998 Air force General Eugene Harbinger 
     said China is developing MIRVs for its ICBMs. One would 
     suspect that China would have made some progress since 
     Fisher's analysis in 1999, especially given technological 
     assistance from the United States and Russia. In January 2002 
     Fisher noted the CIA report appeared to be too low in its 
     estimates of China's threat.
       On the issue of MIRVs, the report appears to understate how 
     China's spy and intelligence gathering program, highlighted 
     by the 1999 Congressional Cox Committee report, was focused 
     on obtaining information on U.S. nuclear warheads and 
     ballistic missile technology, which makes extensive use of 
     MIRVs. In addition to U.S. missile, nuclear warhead, and 
     satellite technology that could be used for MIRVs, China has 
     obtained considerable technological help from Russia. China 
     is one of Russia's largest arms customers and has signed a 
     strategic partnership with it. Russia has perfected the 
     technology for multiple warheads in its advanced rail and 
     road-mobile ICBMs--the SS-24 and SS-27 Topol-M, and 
     reportedly transferred to China SS-18 technology that would 
     presumably include MIRV technology as the SS-18 was designed 
     to carry 10 nuclear warheads, and could be fitted with even 
     more.
       Of surprise is the CIA statement that "China could begin 
     deploying the DF-31 ICBM during the first half of the 
     decade." In contrast to the uncertainties contained in the 
     CIA report, in May 2001 Taipei Times defense reporter Brian 
     Hsu noted China has built two bases for housing the DF-31 and 
     plans to build more. It would be very reasonable to assume 
     that these bases house DF-31s. In addition, according to a 
     story by Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz, China was 
     expected to obtain an operational capability for the DF-31 by 
     the end of 2001, before the release of the CIA report.
       If China's deployment of the DF-31 ICBM follows its pattern 
     of deploying short-range road-mobile ballistic missiles over 
     a number of bases as it has done with its ballistic missile 
     buildup aimed at Taiwan, the United States should expect 
     China to deploy the DF-31 over more than two bases to blunt 
     the effect of any potential counterattacks or preemptive 
     strikes.
       The CIA report, rather than telling the American people how 
     China is taking steps to deploy the DF-31 and apparently has 
     achieved an operational capability, is content to word its 
     analysis as a possibility. In addition, it overlooks why 
     China is building the DF-31--its ballistic missile strategy.
       The Taipei Times noted that China's buildup of the DF-31 is 
     part of its "Long Wall Project" that "is aimed at the US, 
     not Taiwan," and said that "The Chinese military leadership 
     plans to put longer-range ballistic missiles in the 
     southeastern provinces so that they can cover US military 
     targets in the Pacific."
       The CIA report, moreover, appears remiss with respect to 
     China's buildup of intermediate-range ballistic missiles such 
     as the DF-21-X and DF-25, which can attack U.S. forces and 
     bases in the Far East and Pacific. The report also projects 
     that by 2005 China will have a force of short-range ballistic 
     missiles that will number "several hundred missiles." Yet, 
     throughout 2000 and 2001 China was reported as having massed 
     300-350 short-range ballistic missiles against Taiwan in a 
     number of news accounts, and increased production to more 
     than 50 per year. China already has an arsenal exceeding 
     "several hundred missiles."
       China's view on using its long-range ballistic missiles is 
     very aggressive. It does not believe in a "balance of 
     power" dictated by equal numbers of missiles or nuclear 
     warheads. Rather, according to one Chinese analyst, China 
     believes that "It is not necessary for China to seek a 
     nuclear balance with the US. If we have the capacity to 
     launch a nuclear counterattack, there will be no difference 
     between 10 and 10,000 nuclear warheads." This same view 
     appeared in an August 1999 planning document of China's 
     Central Military Commission headed by President Jiang Zemin.
       In May 2000, the late Congressman Floyd Spence, quoting the 
     Liberation Army Daily, noted that China "is a country that 
     has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack 
     and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike . . .  
     It is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as 
     China, a point which the U.S. policymakers know fairly well 
     also." In 1995 PLA General Xiong Guangkai issued a similar 
     threat.
       China has used its ballistic missiles to intimidate, seen 
     in its launch of ballistic missiles off Taiwan in 1995 and 
     1996. While the diplomatic failure which occurred resulted in 
     the tempering of its diplomacy, the fact that China has 
     changed its diplomatic tactics toward Taiwan and the United 
     States should not obscure its strategy for using its 
     ballistic missiles for aggression. China's words of 
     friendship are a mask for its ballistic missile and military 
     buildup.
       American should be concerned with its defense. The 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 showed what can 
     happen with a lack of vigilance. The United States needs to 
     realize that China is engaged in a military and ballistic 
     missile buildup pointed at Americans. We must take the 
     necessary steps to defend our citizens, and we should build a 
     space-based ballistic missile defense. We must have better 
     information about China's ballistic missile threat. 
     Regrettably, your report on this matter is insufficient.
           Very truly yours,
     Bob Schaffer,
         Member of Congress from Colorado.


                          ____________________



17 posted on 07/16/2002 4:52:12 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
Buy a Replogle 12" globe. Remove it from its stand and turn it over so you can see along the shortest line from China to New York. Also note the location of Alaska. The ABM system is being located in Alaska. Before they can launch past Alaska, they have to hit Alaska, which should be enough warning to respond with the land-based missiles, as well as get a message to all the subs on station, and take off all Zig for great justice.
18 posted on 07/16/2002 4:52:24 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Freebird Forever
Not quite polar--they'd go way over Canada.

The current Chinese ICBM is roughly equivalent to the old Titan II.

19 posted on 07/16/2002 4:59:38 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Aaron_A
Can you say "outsourcing" and "joint development?" ;)
20 posted on 07/16/2002 5:04:41 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 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