And Now, a Political Endorsement

VIRAL NOTES:  So, now, WILLARD Romney has found yet another foreign endorsement, this time coming from the communist Chinese of the Peoples’ Republic of China (however, we all know that the “People” don’t own diddly, under brutal communist regimes, and that the names mean nothing, there).  From their official state-run, dictator approved news mouthpiece:

China’s official news agency on Wednesday criticised what it called a “blame-China game” by US presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a day after he formally secured the Republican nomination. …

“While it is convenient for US politicians to hammer China and blame China for their own problems, they should be fully aware that their words and deeds are poisoning the general atmosphere of US-China relations,” it said. …

He has pledged to brand China a “currency manipulator” on his first day in office, a move that could enable retaliatory sanctions and that the Obama administration declined to take in May. …

Obama has issued tamer criticisms of the Asian giant, announcing during a campaign stop last month that his government had filed a complaint against it with the World Trade Organization over a tariff on American automobiles.

read the rest at:  http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/01/heartbreak-chinese-government-none-too-happy-with-romneys-agenda/

Seriously?

WILLARD’s “…poisoning the general atmosphere of US-China relations”, when we have sloppy, piss-in-your-pants drunk Chinese doing things like this?:

Chinese UN diplomat in drunken rant against boss and Americans

Sha Zukang, whose role at the UN is undersecretary general for economic and social affairs, was leading a toast at a dinner in Alpbach, Austria, according to Foreign Policy magazine. 

The magazine claims a senior UN official, who attended the event, quotes Sha as saying: ‘I know you never liked me, Mr Secretary General. Well, I never liked you either.’ 

Sha claimed that Ban was ‘trying to get rid’ of him and could fire him ‘anytime’. 

‘I didn’t want to come to New York. It was the last thing I wanted to do,’ the Chinese diplomat said. 

‘I’ve come to love the UN and I’m coming to admire some things about you,’ he continued, offering a bit of a backtrack with a positive utterance. 

Most worrying of all, perhaps, is the diplomat’s admission that he ‘doesn’t like Americans’. 

Acting deputy UN spokesman Farhan Haq told the publication: ‘Sha Zukang was deeply apologetic when he met the secretary general in person early the following morning at his own request.’ 

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/840457-chinese-un-diplomat-in-drunken-rant-against-boss#ixzz25QFkYnOG

So WILLARD, who isn’t even in political office is the one poisoning things between the brutal, murderous and communist PRC and the USA?

Timothy Geithner: China ‘Very, Very Aggressive’ In Stealing U.S. Technology

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Thursday that China is holding to its decades-old strategy to steal American intellectual property, in a pointed statement reflecting U.S. officials’ growing impatience with Beijing.

“They China have made possible systematic stealing of intellectual property of American companies and have not been very aggressive to put in place the basic protections for property rights that every serious economy needs over time,” Geithner told a forum in Washington.

“We’re seeing China continue to be very, very aggressive in a strategy they started several decades ago, which goes like this: you want to sell to our country, we want you to come produce here … if you want to come produce here, you need to transfer your technology to us,” Geithner said.

Although unusually direct, Geithner’s comments echo a common refrain from U.S. officials and executives. The new U.S. Ambassador to China, Gary Locke, who has assailed China in the past for its trade practices, has put the defense of U.S. intellectual property among his chief priorities.

China has said it would drop some of its “indigenous innovation” rules that have riled foreign companies who say access to government equipment and technology orders hinge on their transferring patents and other intellectual property.

But business associations in China argue that enforcement of Beijing’s promises has been spotty, particularly at the local government level, hampering foreign companies’ access to a market estimated to be worth as much as $1 trillion a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/timothy-geithner-china-very-aggressive-stealing-technology_n_977509.html

Even Turbo Tax Cheat Timmy didn’t mince too many words, when pointing out the rank dishonesty and hostility of the Chinese (PRC, not to be confused with the ROC, the good guys of China) government.  Not enough to convince you that its not WILLARD that’s causing problems on an international scale, but Hu Jintao, PRC dictator president?

Sights on Taiwan
On Feb. 28, 1991, the United States and its allies called a halt to combat operations in the Persian Gulf War, just four days after U.S. tanks started to roll across the desert, and a few weeks after launching an air campaign. “The Chinese watched with dismay the ease of the U.S. victory over Iraq,” says Toshi Yoshihara, visiting professor at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala. In response, he says, modernizing the country’s vast but primitive arsenal became a top priority for Chinese officials. 

According to U.S. deputy undersecretary of defense Richard Lawless, China’s sense of urgency stems partly from concern over the future of Taiwan. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawless said that China wants “a variety of credible military options to deter moves by Taiwan toward permanent separation or, if required, to compel by force the integration of Taiwan” with the mainland. Since the United States has pledged to defend Taiwan, that means China is seeking the ability to go toe-to-toe against America’s best weaponry. Some U.S. officials argue that China’s ambitions go beyond Taiwan to encompass the global stage. Rather than trying to address all its military shortcomings at once, Yoshihara says, the Chinese government focused on obtaining “leap ahead” technologies already in use by the United States. Former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin called these technologies “shashoujian,” translated variously as “assassin’s mace” or “silver bullet.” They ranged from advanced communications equipment to long-range missile systems. 

A Credible Threat
The result of China’s 15-year effort has been “the largest military buildup the world has witnessed since the end of the Cold War,” says Richard Fisher, a China specialist for the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC), a Virginia-based think tank. China is now termed a “credible threat to other modern militaries operating in the region” by the Department of Defense, despite languishing perhaps 25 years behind the States in a number of areas. By next year, Chinese nuclear missiles could have the capability to hit any target in the United States from launch sites on mainland China. By 2008, the country is expected to possess submarine-launched nuclear missiles, giving it global strike capabilities. 

The nuclear arsenal is backed by an increasingly sophisticated navy and air force. Currently on Chinese military drawing boards are plans for combat aircraft, the Chengdu J-10 and Xian JH-7A fighter jets; a combat helicopter, the Z-10; advanced warships; and even space-based weapons designed to knock out communications satellites. U.S. observers fear that much of this will be made possible by espionage. 

In June 2005, China began sea trials of its new Luyang II guided-missile destroyers. When the armaments were unveiled, jaws clenched in the Pentagon. The ships were equipped with a knockoff of the latest version of the U.S. Navy’s Aegis battle management system, a critical command-and-control technology. The technology enables U.S.–and now Chinese–forces to simultaneously attack land targets, submarines and surface ships. It also runs fleet defense tactics to protect against hostile planes and missiles. Federal sources insist that the only way the relatively backward Chinese military could have developed such a system was by copying it. 

Into the Arms Bazaar
Anthony Mangione is a quiet-spoken man in his mid-40s whose office in Fort Lauderdale’s federal courthouse is decorated with old newspaper cuttings celebrating the D-Day landings, two fish tanks (one full, one empty) and a door covered with dozens of curling Post-it notes. 

As the assistant special agent in charge of the Fort Lauderdale department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Mangione heads a team of undercover agents who have spent years infiltrating what he terms a global “arms bazaar.” The agents are assigned to ICE’s Arms and Strategic Technology Investigations (ASTI) unit, which has operations in 43 countries as well as in the United States. Last year, ASTI agents conducted more than 2500 investigations worldwide, many of them involving China. 

The Moo case got under way after two arms dealers, who also work as paid informants, introduced some of Mangione’s undercover agents to a French middleman, Maurice Serge Voros. During a phone call on Feb. 26, 2004, Voros asked the agents, who were posing as arms dealers, for help obtaining engines used in the U.S. Black Hawk combat helicopter. The engines, manufactured by General Electric, are on the U.S. Munitions List, a catalog of restricted arms and technology administered by the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. It is illegal to export Munitions List items without a special government license. 

Over the following year, ASTI learned that Voros represented Moo, and that Moo in turn was working for the People’s Liberation Army. In a Dec. 4, 2004, e-mail, Moo wrote that China did not want its name on any of the contracts. “These cases take a long time,” says Mangione. “It can be frustrating. But you have to let the game play.” In March 2005, Voros told the undercover agents that Moo had now shifted priorities. His new top goal was to buy an F-16 engine–and, said Voros, Moo had been given “the green light” to make a deal. 

Read more: How China Steals U.S. Military Secrets – Popular Mechanics

And, from Hotair.com:

Pakistan gave China access to the previously unknown U.S. “stealth” helicopter that crashed during the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May despite explicit requests from the CIA not to, the Financial Times reported Sunday.

The disclosure, if confirmed, is likely to further shake the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, which has been improving slightly of late after hitting its lowest point in decades following the bin Laden killing in a Pakistani garrison city.

The report said Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed aircraft as well as samples of its special “skin,” which allowed the helicopter to evade Pakistani radar.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/15/super-pakistan-lets-china-see-downed-us-stealth-helicopter/

I have long maintained that borrowing a PENNY from the (red) Chinese is a criminal offense, and even treason.  These are our military enemies, every bit as much as the Soviet Union, and now they’re supposed to be our bankers?  Unacceptable.  A friend of mine says her father wants to go back to China to live, because they’re supposedly such a powerhouse, now, and they’ve finally achieve their dream of eclipsing the United States as a financial and military superpower.  Uh, no.  The (red) Chinese castle is, in reality, a big house of cards on a shaky table.

For the last 40 years, Americans have lagged in recognizing the declining fortunes of their foreign rivals. In the 1970s they thought the Soviet Union was 10 feet tall — ascendant even though corruption and inefficiency were destroying the vital organs of a decaying communist regime. In the late 1980s, they feared that Japan was going to economically overtake the United States, yet the crony capitalism, speculative madness, and political corruption evident throughout the 1980s led to the collapse of the Japanese economy in 1991.

Could the same malady have struck Americans when it comes to China? The latest news from Beijing is indicative of Chinese weakness: a persistent slowdown of economic growth, a glut of unsold goods,rising bad bank loans, a bursting real estate bubble, and a viciouspower struggle at the top, coupled with unending political scandals. Many factors that have powered China’s rise, such as the demographic dividend, disregard for the environment, supercheap labor, and virtually unlimited access to external markets, are either receding or disappearing.

Yet China’s declining fortunes have not registered with U.S. elites, let alone the American public. President Barack Obama’s much-hyped “pivot to Asia,” announced last November, is premised on the continuing rise of China; the Pentagon has said that by 2020 roughly 60 percent of the Navy’s fleet will be stationed in the Asia-Pacific region. Washington is also considering deployingseaborne anti-missile systems in East Asia, a move reflecting U.S. worries about China’s growing missile capabilities.

The current economic slowdown in Beijing is neither cyclical nor the result of weak external demand for Chinese goods. China’s economic ills are far more deeply rooted: an overbearing state squandering capital and squeezing out the private sector, systemic inefficiency and lack of innovation, a rapacious ruling elite interested solely in self-enrichment and the perpetuation of its privileges, a woefully underdeveloped financial sector, and mounting ecological and demographic pressures. Yet even for those who follow China, the prevailing wisdom is that though China has entered a rough patch, its fundamentals remain strong.

Americans’ domestic perceptions influence how they see their rivals. It is no coincidence that the period in the 1970s and late 1980s when Americans missed signs of rivals’ decline corresponded with intense dissatisfaction with U.S. performance (President Jimmy Carter’s 1979 “malaise speech,” for example). Today, a China whose growth rate is falling from 10 to 8 percent a year (for now) looks pretty good in comparison with an America where annual growth languishes at below 2 percent and unemployment stays above 8 percent. In the eyes of many Americans, things may be bad over there, but they are much worse here.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/29/everything_you_think_you_know_about_china_is_wrong?page=0,0

Then, there is the problem with the PRC’s currency, the Yuan.  In order to slant the playing field in their favor, economically, its no secret they’ve been manipulating their currency by devaluing it.

Economists: Chinese Currency Significantly Undervalued

By Phil Izzo

Last week, a Chinese central bank official said the yuan’s exchange rate with the dollar “isn’t clearly undervalued.” Economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey beg to differ.

Twenty-eight of 41 economists who responded to the question said that yuan was undervalued, and 23 of them said it was undervalued by more than 5%. Nine economists said the level was about balanced, and just four said the yuan was overvalued.

Stephen Stanley of Pierpont Securities was among those who said the Chinese currency was at about the right level. “The trade balance is getting less lopsided,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ram Bhagavatula of Combinatorics Capital thinks that while the yuan is undervalued, it’s not a large number. “Other countries in the region are proving more attractive,” he said.

But most of the respondents disagreed. Allen Sinai of Decision Economics estimates the currency is undervalued by up to 30%. And Julia Coronado of BNP Paribas say that if the exchange rate is balanced, China’s currency policy makes no sense. “If it weren’t [undervalued by more than 5%] then what would be the harm in letting it float?,” she said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/13/economists-chinese-currency-significantly-undervalued/

As if that wasn’t enough, the PRC, in it’s continued pretense at being a free-market economy (which it isn’t), has been playing another trick, which amounts to nothing short of massive, global-scale tax fraud:

Undervalued Currency Isn’t Beijing’s Only Export Trick

For years, the U.S. has accused China of keeping its currency undervalued to help Chinese exporters, although it hurts competitors elsewhere.

But a new study by three researchers say Beijing has used a far more obscure tool to manage trade: fiddling with the level of tax rebates, which can greatly boost or reduce the profits of Chinese exporters.

“This amounts to export management on a grand scale and reinforces a long standing finding from economic history, namely that each major downturn results in governments finding new ways to beggar-thy-neighbor,” write economists Simon Evenett and Johannes Fritz of the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland and researcher Yang Chung Jing. The work is done as part of the Global Trade Alert, a free-trade group that Mr. Evenett heads, which tracks global trade protection.

To understand their allegations, consider the case of computer exporter in South China, who imports computer chips from, say, Malaysia. The exporter must pay a 17% value-added-tax on the Malaysian imports. After the chips are assembled into the computer and shipped abroad, the Chinese government rebates the VAT import tax to the exporter. Other big exporters, including the European Union and Japan also grant rebates for their exporters. (The U.S., which doesn’t have a VAT, doesn’t face this issue.)

But China doesn’t always give importers a full rebate. It changes the level of the rebate, the authors say, to accomplish certain goals. It dials back the size of the rebate when it wants to help manufacturers who ship overwhelmingly to the domestic market. Sometimes it also cuts the rebate when it wants to reduce exports in sectors that are contributing to a global glut and prompting anti-dumping lawsuits overseas.

Bo Xilai, the recently dismissed politburo member, had a big hand in one of the most notable examples of VAT rebate reduction. In the mid-2000s, Mr. Bo was Commerce Minister and from that perch cut rebates sharply. It was a big step in the process of guiding Chinese businesses away from a low-wage, assembly business model — a shift that is being pursued especially hard in Guangdong, the export-heavy province next to Hong Kong.

In times of global turmoil, though, when China wants to boost exports, it turns back to full rebates. Since 2011, Beijing has eliminated the VAT altogether on imports in some sectors. Hong Kong manufacturers regularly lobby for full VAT rebates to boost their profits on exports from Guangdong and elsewhere.

“Given the relatively high shares of imported content used in Chinese exports and the low profit margins of Chinese exporters,” the researchers write, increasing the VAT rebate by a single percentage point can boost the profitability of Chinese exporters by between 12% and 18%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/06/28/undervalued-currency-isn%E2%80%99t-beijing%E2%80%99s-only-export-trick/

China Hurts Its Own Citizens with Under-Valued Currency

Now that we confirmed that China is devaluing its currency. But how does this affect the world economy?

Well, for countries that do not print money as fast as China, Chinese products became cheaper for foreigners and many foreign companies shift their productions to China because of lower production costs (including labor costs). This means that the foreign countries, including the US, can use less of their money to produce the same amount of goods. In turn, they can use the extra savings to invest in their more competitive and leading industries such as pharmaceuticals and financial services. As for the foreign citizens, they can use the extra savings for a nice vacation or an extra car.

At the same time, we will see that comparatively less productive industries such as plastic production will be shifted oversea to China – where they can be competitive. This, in turn, will require foreign workers to shift their industries or move to China in order to be productive. The workers who are unwilling to find a new career or migrate will be likely to lose their jobs. This is why we usually seemore complaints from worker unions than from the firm managers.

On the opposite end, we also see that foreign products are more expensive to Chinese citizens. Why? Because prices are rising everywhere in the world because governments are on their race to print money in order to close their spending gap. However, since Chinese government is fixing their exchange rates, the Chinese citizens now have to earn more yuan to buy the same the product. As the result, the Chinese citizens can afford less and less things in their daily lives.

In brief, we can see that, by devaluing the yuan, the Chinese government is hurting its own citizens and some incompetent foreign industries & workers. At the same time, this Chinese trade-surplus is enriching foreign citizens and competitive industries by allowing them to invest money in something better.

http://talk.onevietnam.org/china-hurts-its-own-citizens-with-under-valued-currency/

We also see, from the same sources, how the intentional devaluation of the yuan hurts the American economy:

If you are following the news recently, you will realized that many people andindustries are frustrated about the under-valued Chinese currency. These folks are blaming that such action by China is increasing the US current trade-deficit with China and it is weakening the American economy. Some others are citing China as the main reason why American is too slow in recovering from the last financial crisis. Especially, Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the US Federal Reserve, who claimed that China is growing at the expense of everyone else. However, we should note that a trade-deficit does not necessary mean an unhealthy economy, check my trade deficit article to see why.

Before addressing the topic of China’s under-valued currency, let us step back to see why is Chinese yuan under-valued and what caused it?

In a free-floating exchange rate global economy, if a country offers high interest rates, then international investors will pour their supply of funds into that market and lower the interest rates until they are no longer attractive. The followingsupply & demand of loanable funds should make it clear:

Along with this in-pour of investments, if China does not expand its currency reserve, then we should see a rising in exchange rate between China yuan & US dollar. The reason is because if there are more US dollars for the same amount of Chinese yuan, then the dollars become less and less valuable.

However, for the decade of 1995-2005, China has been fixing its RMB to USD exchange rate by printing money and expand its currency reserve to match the 1995′s RMB to USD level. In addition to doing this, China does not allow its citizens to freely invest abroad by putting a tight control on the exchange between RMB and other foreign currencies. In this way, China is devaluing its currency. China took a short break but began to do this again since 2008.

http://talk.onevietnam.org/china-hurts-its-own-citizens-with-under-valued-currency/

Still think the PRC’s the new powerhouse of the world, on track to becoming the dominant superpower?  Still think that WILLARD’s the problem?  Things get worse.  For them:

China is heading for Stagflation

Panos Mourdoukoutas, Contributor

Economists use the term “stagflation” to describe an economy that experiences high inflation while its growth falters—a paradoxical term, as inflation and economic growth are usually positively correlated. When it comes to China, the term is even more paradoxical as the country has been growing by leaps and bounds.

Statistics coming out of China recently confirm that the country may be heading to some sort of stagflation. Economic growth is slowing down, while inflation remains high.  Last Saturday, The China Federation of  Logistics and Purchasing (CFLP) announced that nonmanufacturing sector slowed down sharply, with the non-service Purchasing Manager’s Index (PMI) dropped from 57.7 in October to 49.7 in November.

The slow-down in the non-manufacturing sector follows a similar slow-down in the manufacturing sector, as announced last Thursday; the manufacturing PMI dropped to 49 in November from 50.4 in October– a contraction that comes at time inflation is still running above 5.5 percent.

China’s stagflation complicates economic policy, posing dilemmas to policy makers.  An effort to stimulate economic growth by raising bank reserves and by boosting infrastructure spending will worsen inflation (as it is currently underway), while an effort to curtail inflation will lead to slower growth. But what does Chinese stagflation mean for investors?

For investors in Chinese equities, stagflation isn’t good, especially when expectations run high. Slow growth certainly affects negatively corporate sales and profitability. High inflation is usually positive for corporate revenues, but only for companies that can raise prices ahead of cost–usually State-Owned Enterprises like PetroChina (PTR) and Sinopec (SHI).

For investors in commodities, a prolonged Chinese stagnation means lower demand and prices for commodities, especially industrial commodities.  This means that the rally in commodities may have to pause for a while, if not end, at least in the near term. Conservative investors may want to trim positions in commodity ETFs like GLD,SLVOIH, and FCX, especially after their recent run up. Aggressive investors may want to establish short positions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2011/12/04/china-is-heading-for-stagflation/

Yep.  Stagflation.  Economic stagnation, and runaway inflation.  That’s Jimmy Carter economics stuff, right there (and Obama’s looking to duplicate that roaring success).  Now, the Chi-Coms are about to waltz right into it.  I hope they do, actually.

 

Then, let’s address the PRC’s military capabilities:

China’s military lacks allies, can’t catch US: analyst

Asia strategy expert Michael J Green says China’s military forces have not been able to catch up with the US because the country has been over-reliant on overseas resources and sea lanes. The country also lacks strong allies, he said.

Green said the US may misjudge the situation and messages from Beijing. The Chinese military has modernized faster than the US estimated over the past five to 10 years and has developed key anti-access area-denial technology that could threaten America’s military bases, said the former senior director of Asian affairs at the National Security Council of White House.

China’s influence has grown beyond the island chain that includes Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Guam to the offshore waters in the Pacific Ocean near Japan, according to Taiwan’s Central News Agency.

Yet compared to US forces, the Chinese army is less experienced in battle and only has allies such as Pakistan and North Korea, Green said. The country has also been relying heavily on shipping lanes to bring resources home. More than 90% of its resources are imported from channels in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, according to Taiwan’s Central News Agency.

It would be very difficult for the Chinese military to grow as strong as America’s, but Washington should remain cautious and avoid misjudgment, said Green.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20120804000027

Hell, even the Soviets (Russians, to the politically impaired) aren’t holding too high an opinion of the military technologies that come out of that part of the world:

China to conquer world arms market with poor quality rip-offs

US experts believe that China has copied Russian weapons again. This time it goes about submarines. US analysts say that the new Yuan class (type 41 A, B, C) diesel-electric submarines are rips-off of Russian Kilo and Lada projects.

China purchased several Kilo project submarines from Russia at the end of the 1990s. Back in those years, the subs were considered Russia’s most modern non-nuclear submarines as NATO specialists said. Kilo submarines are capable of covering distances of up to 700 kilometers at the speed of 5 km/h in a noiseless mode, without the risk of being detected by enemies. US experts acknowledged that Kilo submarines equipped with SS-N-27 cruise submarines were very dangerous for American aircraft carriers. The cheap price of the deal was the main factor that attracted China: Russia was selling the subs for $200 million each, whereas the cost of Western analogues began from $400 million.

First kilo submarines entered the Soviet navy at the end of the 1980s. Russia built 54 such subs, the Russian navy received 24 Kilo subs, 30 others were exported to China, North Korea and Iran.

Soviet engineers started working on another version of Kilo submarines – 877 Lada – shortly before the collapse of the USSR. The works were suspended in 1997 because of the lack of funding. Russia’s first Lada submarine was launched only in 2009. Now Russia is building another Lada submarine and plans to build eight others.

China has built three submarines that bear a striking resemblance to Russian Kilo and Lada subs. It is not really clear how Chinese engineers have managed to rip off the Lada sub, because Russia has not exported any of them yet.

NATO experts consider Lada subs more dangerous claiming that it is much more difficult to detect it because of the sound-absorbing coating and so-called quiet propellers. Lada is eight times less noisy than Kilo submarines; its endurance and operational range is much more considerable.

As for China’s underwater fleet, the nation currently has 56 submarines, including three nuclear-powered ones. The increased interest in diesel submarines can be explained with the fact that Chinese nuclear submarines are considered very noisy and therefore are easily detected by US warships.

Have Chinese engineers observed quality? Most likely, they have not. Foreign military experts said that the new Chinese Yuan is larger than Kilo and Lada, but have common design features. A larger size implies larger tonnage, which in its turn negatively changes military qualities.

China previously had the licensed production of Soviet Romeo submarines, which were dubbed in China as “Type 39.” Chinese engineers acknowledged that their developments were based on Russian state-of-the-art defense technologies. However, they vehemently denied the fact of blunt copying claiming that that they had considerably improved them.

It is an open secret that China has copied quite a number of Russian weapons. The list begins with Soviet I-15 and I-16 fighter jets, not to mention the legendary Kalashnikov rifle.

The list continues with D-30 howitzer, BMP-1 armored vehicle, BMP-3, Malyutka anti-tank complex, An-12 military cargo plane, Strela-2 shoulder-fired missile complex, S-300 missile system, Msta-S howitzer, Smerch volley-fire system and other weaponry. The last rip-off report was referred to Su-33 deck-based fighter jet.

It may seem strange that Russia has not set forth any claims to China yet. However, China is Russia’s long-time partner in the field of arms trade and Russia is not willing to ruin relations with China. Does Russia overestimate the importance of defense cooperation with the Asian giant? China usually makes small one-time purchases that do not bring much profit to Russia. Moreover, the purchases are made to simply copy the original. For example, the Chinese bought one or two radars for fighter jets from Russia only to launch their serial production several years later.

“China is acting like a superpower, whose military power can be noticed both at sea and in the air. To accomplish the goal, China has been copying other weapons, presumably of the Russian origin, to catch up with its primary competitor – the United States. It is not ruled out that China will eventually pursue its goal. Russia did the same during the 1930s and so did the Japanese, who currently top the pedestal of the technological progress. As a result, Chinese submarines will be patrolling US coastlines, like Soviet vessels used to do it,” Konstantin Sivkov, vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Problems told Pravda.Ru.

The fact that China has become very quick in copying Russian arms and launching them in serial production shows that the nation has reached the modern industrial level. The problem is about the quality. Chinese weapons have been reputed in the world as cheap and disposable. However, the Asian giant may eventually solve this problem too some day. In this case, China will easily conquer world markets of arms.

Sergey Balmasov
Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/04-10-2010/115203-china_arms_market-0/

Let’s look at it another way:  Chinese tools are notorious for being of poor quality.  Would you want to have to rush into combat with a Chinese assault rifle (http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/qbz95.htm)?  Their tools suck, but their weapons don’t?  The Taliban’s been learning that, the hard way, as they’ve been rushing into combat not only with Soviet AKs, but Chinese the Type 56 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56_assault_rifle).  Yeah.  See how well that’s been working out for them?
China’s Dirty Big Secret

April 27, 2012: China’s leaders are not happy with the state of their armed forces. The critics include many irate generals and admirals. These complaints tend to be made in private meetings. But so many people attend these meetings that details do eventually get out to the general public. Since these leaks do not represent official policy they do not get repeated in the Chinese media, and foreign media tends to ignore it as well. It’s more profitable for the foreign media to portray the Chinese military as scary. The truth, as Chinese leaders describe it, is more depressing. It’s all about corruption among the military leadership and low standards for training and discipline. In short, Chinese military power is more fraud than fact.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20120427.aspx

I’m not saying that the Chinese are going to be pushovers, as they are dedicating themselves to developing weapons to attempt to counter US military superiority:

Report: China building electromagnetic pulse weapons for use against U.S. carriers

Thursday, July 21, 2011

China’s military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday.

Portions of a National Ground Intelligence Centerstudy on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of China’s so-called “assassin’s mace” arsenal – weapons that allow a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces.

EMP weapons mimic the gamma-ray pulse caused by a nuclear blast that knocks out all electronics, including computers and automobiles, over wide areas. The phenomenon was discovered in 1962 after an aboveground nuclear test in the Pacific disabled electronics in Hawaii.

The declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on China’s EMP weapons and plans for their use. Annual Pentagon reports on China’s military in the past made only passing references to the arms.

“For use against TaiwanChina could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) … to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland,” the report said.

The report, produced in 2005 and once labeled “secret,” stated that Chinese military writings have discussed building low-yield EMP warheads, but “it is not known whether [the Chinese] have actually done so.”

The report said that in addition to EMP weapons, “any low-yield strategic nuclear warhead (or tactical nuclear warheads) could be used with similar effects.”

“The DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile has been mentioned as a platform for the EMP attack against Taiwan,” the report said.

According to the report, China’s electronic weapons are part of what are called “trump card” or “assassin’s mace” weapons that “are based on new technology that has been developed in high secrecy.”

Trump card would be applicable if the Chinese have developed new low-yield, possibly enhanced, EMP warheads, while assassin’s mace would apply if older warheads are employed,” the report said.

According to the report, China conducted EMP tests on mice, rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys that produced eye, brain, bone marrow and other organ injuries. It stated that “it is clear the real purpose of the Chinese medical experiments is to learn the potential human effects of exposure to powerful EMP and [high-powered microwave] radiation.”

The tests did not appear designed for “anti-personnel [radio frequency] weapons” because of the limited amounts of radiation used.

Read more: Report: China building electromagnetic pulse weapons for use against U.S. carriers – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/21/beijing-develops-radiation-weapons/?page=all#ixzz25QTgIpo6

China Testing Ballistic Missile ‘Carrier-Killer’

Dr. Andrew Erickson is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute and a Truman Security Fellow. This is his first post for Danger Room; these are solely his personal views.

Last week, Adm. Robert Willard, the head of U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), made an alarming but little-noticed disclosure. China, he told legislators, was “developing and testing a conventional anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21/CSS-5 [medium-range ballistic missile] designed specifically to target aircraft carriers.”

What, exactly, does this mean? Evidence suggests that China has been developing an anti-ship ballistic missile, or ASBM, since the 1990s. But this is the first official confirmation that it has advanced(.pdf) to the stage of actual testing.

If they can be deployed successfully, Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles would be the first capable of targeting a moving aircraft-carrier (.pdf) strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers. And if not countered properly, this and other “asymmetric” systems — ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, torpedoes and sea mines — couldpotentially threaten U.S. operations in the western Pacific, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Willard’s disclosure should come as little surprise: China’s interest in developing ASBM and related systems has been documented in Department of Defense (.pdf) and National Air and Space Intelligence Center (.pdf) reports, as well as by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) and the Congressional Research Service. Senior officials — including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair (.pdf) and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead — have pointed to the emerging threat as well.

In November 2009, Scott Bray, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer-China, said that Chinese anti-ship ballistic missile development “has progressed at a remarkable rate.” In the span of just over a decade, he said, “China has taken the ASBM program from the conceptual phase to nearing an operational capability.… China has elements of an [over-the-horizon] network already in place and is working to expand its horizon, timeliness and accuracy.”

When someone of Bray’s stature makes that kind of statement, attention is long overdue.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/china-testing-ballistic-missile-carrier-killer/

(Oh, and for your edification:  anybody can target a carrier.  The problem is hitting it.  Carriers don’t operate alone.  They are part of fleets, and, thus, are surrounded by such things as Oliver Hazard Perry missile frigates:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/surfacewarfare/FFG7_oliverhazardperry.html

As well as Aegis Combat System driven cruisers and destroyers.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/aegis.htm

Then, let us not forget that carriers are busier than most major metropolitan (ground-based) airports, and always have planes in the air.  These aren’t 747s; these are things like the Lockheed EP-3A/B Orion
EP-3E ARIES / ARIES II:

This is a SIGINT (Signal Intelligence) reconnaissance aircraft, capable of detecting the presence of transmissions and broadcasts, homing in on them, and possibly decrypting and hacking into them.

Boeing EA-18G Growler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA-18_Growler

This is the EW (Electronics Warfare) variant of the F/A-18F Super Hornet.  It can (and most likely, will) provide early warning of incoming objects (such as planes and missiles), and can attack them by attacking their onboard electronics (such as their guidance and targeting systems).

There are many more types of planes, and there are bunches of anti-ballistic missiles that could home in on an incoming EMP weapon, or target a ground based weapons facility, but I’m sure you get my drift.  After all this boring fiscal/financial stuff, coupled with arcane militaria, the bottom line I’m trying to make, here, is that the Chinese of the PRC don’t have a leg to stand on, a pot to piss in, nor a window to throw it out of, when it comes to fingerpointing at WILLARD Romney.  He’s not poisoning anything.  They’ve done a more than admirable job with their verbal assaults against the US, their institutionalized unfair trade policies, currency manipulation and tax fraud.  They’ve aggravated this with their parallel programs of stealing American technologies (especially military technologies), and their, at times, idiotic rhetoric.  I don’t know if WILLARD’s got the guts for it, but its time we start treating the PRC like what they are:  a Cold War enemy.  Through fiscal policies that I’ve outlined, earlier in another post, we could put America back on track to not only socioeconomic prosperity, but to paying back each and every single penny we’ve immorally borrowed from an immoral power, overseas.  This will mean that they will have absolutely nothing on us, putting us back in a position of strength, and anybody with a brain knows you cannot successfully deal with an enemy from any position other than strength.  I also proposed that we put an immediate and complete moratorium on all immigration from enemy countries.  This means, no more people from basically any Middle Eastern nation, several from South America, Russia, and, of course, the PRC.  Their students need to be removed from our schools, their citizens removed from our workplaces, if they are in a position to take technological knowledge back to our enemies.  Why would we employ the citizens of a nation we are at war with?  Why would be allow their people to enter our universities?

It is very possible to put a lid on the PRC, just like we did with the USSR.  However, we let the USSR come back, and we’re paying for it.  By dealing with them both as I know we have the power to, it would become incumbent upon us to insure that measures were put into place to keep those dogs leashed, in perpetuity, for the safety of future generations.  Again, I am neither fan, nor friend, of WILLARD Romney, and I do not know (and do not believe) that he has the know-how or backbone to actually do what must be done to put the Red Menace (something that never fully went away; it just went into remission) back in the trash can, back on the ash heap of history, where it/they belong.

I am VIRUS-X, Republic Commando, and I approve this message.

Advertisements

~ by virusx on September 3, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: