1. RosettaStone - May 25, 1999 - 6:30 AM PT
The declassified version of the Cox Report will be posted at http://www.house.gov as soon as the internet version is available.
Printed copies of the report will be distributed to Members of Congress and the media at about 10:30 EST, today.
2. IrvingSnodgrass - May 25, 1999 - 6:31 AM PT
These excerpts are from Slate's "Today's papers":
"The LAT and WP lead with the publication today of the House committee report prepared under the direction of Rep. Christopher Cox that claims that China has over more than twenty years quite successfully obtained numerous U.S. military weapons secrets through espionage."
"Apparently because the LAT got its hands on a 29-page executive summary of the Cox report before going to press Monday night, its coverage of the report's content is more detailed than the other papers. The paper says that according to the document, China stole the secrets behind seven U.S. nuclear warheads, including every one in the current American arsenal, through spying at four U.S. government facilities. Using high-performance computers legally purchased from U.S. firms, China should be able to use this information, says the LAT, to upgrade and expand its small, antiquated nuclear force. The WSJ, in its inside story, paints an even starker picture, stating that China now has the design information "for nearly all the elements needed to launch a major nuclear attack on the U.S." Another Cox finding: the electronic guidance technology found in a variety of frontline U.S. missiles and airplanes has also been stolen by China. Also compromised were sensitive methods for tracking submarines and experimental plans for developing a gun using electromagnetic energy instead of powder that hence could operate in outer space. Most of these details appeared in previous newspaper stories, most notably in the NYT and WSJ. The coverage suggests that the Cox report will lead to a serious reevaluation of U.S./China relations, including of China's most favored nation trading status, up for renewal next month."
3. IrvingSnodgrass - May 25, 1999 - 6:35 AM PT
With this revelation of Chinese espionage, whether through Chinese ingenuity or US bungling, and the recent bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, US/China relations will be worse than they've been in a long time.
Should the US keep China at a distance, or is it in the USA's best interests to maintain good relations with China? On the other side of the coin, is it in China's best interests to have deteriorating relations with the USA?
I'm sure a few of you have an opinion on this topic.
4. IrvingSnodgrass - May 25, 1999 - 7:04 AM PT
The Cox Report is available right now for viewing at CNN.
5. RosettaStone - May 25, 1999 - 7:14 AM PT
MOST DAMNING INFO AGAINST CLINTON, OTHERS, CUT FROM COX REPORT
by Doug Thompson
The 700-page Cox Report, released to the public today, is missing more than 100 pages that detail White House involvement in China's extensive theft of U.S. military secrets, material embarrassing to past Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush and details implicating key officials of the U.S. Department of Energy.
The details were omitted "for national security" under a deal between the House Select Committee and the Clinton White House.
However, those who have read the full, unedited, report say it is a stinging indictment of a White House that clearly helped U.S. secrets fall into the hands of Communist China.
"There was a pattern of clear and consistent White House involvement in the transfer of sensitive technology to China," says one senior Congressional aide who had access to the report. "The pattern shows, at best, a White House that was incompent and, at worst, complicit in the loss of U.S. secrets."
But, under a deal cut by Committee Chairman Christopher Cox of California and President Bill Clinton, the public will not see that section of the report and the public version, while damaging, is not the clear-cut indictment of the White House that some had hoped.
Unlike a still-classified investigation by the CIA, the public Cox Report does not connect the dots between Democratic campaign contributions laundered by the Chinese government and White House actions to approve transfer of sensitive technology.
The CIA report established a clear pattern of political contributions from Chinese sources and the Loral Corp., with the White House approval of transfer of sensitive technology from Loral to China. The CIA report also found U.S. Department of Energy officials tried to cover up discovery of the China spying.
Some Congressional sources say Cox agreed to the deletions in exchange for also c
6. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:18 AM PT
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
7. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
8. RosettaStone - May 25, 1999 - 7:20 AM PT
Some Congressional sources say Cox agreed to the deletions in exchange for also cutting some report sections that could prove embarrassing for past Presidents Reagan and Bush.
"Quid pro quo, pure and simple," says one aide.
Others, however, say Cox allowed the cuts because he is not personally convinced the administrations knowingly sold out the country.
"The Congressman is not prepared to publicly indict the President for treason. That is a very serious charge," said one aide. "The report that the public will see is, without a doubt, a pointed example of how the White House put political consideration above national security, but it does not attempt to assess blame on any single source."
9. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 7:21 AM PT
Cllrdr - I am curious about your response. Exactly why are you so disinterested in this?
10. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:24 AM PT
How old are you JJ? Did youlive through the Cold War? Do you *enjoy* living in an atmosphere of cheap, manufactured fear? Will firing Janet Reno satisfy you? Do you want to know all the detials of how to construct a nuclear device? Do you think the second ammendment allows all Americans access to nuclear weapons?
I could go on and on and on, but --
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
11. RosettaStone - May 25, 1999 - 7:33 AM PT
JJ: Cldrllrdll is in a lot of pain. At least I hope so.
12. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 7:38 AM PT
Cllrdr - I don't believe I am as old as you, but I grew up during the Cold War. I don't think I would call the Cold War "an atmosphere of cheap, manufactured fear". We were faced with an enemy who had the ability to destroy and apparently had the desire to as well. It is true that they were not as technologically advanced as we believed, but the were still capable of mass destruction.
Your complacency seem to indicate that you don't believe we are at risk from China's nuclear expansion. This seems to stem from the belief that we were never at risk from Soviet nuclear weapons. How is it that having Chinese nuclear weapons targetting US cities is not at least an implied threat. Why shouldn't giving a potential enemy the ability to destroy our population centers considered treason?
If Reno is guilty of mishandling this investigation she should be removed. I have no idea what the rest of your questions are for.
13. RosettaStone - May 25, 1999 - 7:43 AM PT
Reno is going down because of this scandal. From Waco to Monica/Wiley, she has consistently taken the wrong path.
Another role model for women crashes into Bill Clinton's White House.
14. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
The spy scandal strikes me as a legitimate disaster, worthy of this thread and serious discussion/ramifications. And cllrdr will come around when Hollywood blacklists everyone who had anything to do with "Red Corner" or "The Replacement Killers."
15. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
You can "consider it treason" if you like JJ. I consider it Programming. (Hi, Wexx!)
My other questions (I had planned to add more, but why bother?) relate to the overall context of this latest piece of horsewoggle. precisely what are we, the "electorate" supposed to do about this? Write our congressman? Answer the next pollster who calls us just before we sit down to dinner tonight? Vote Republican?
We are powerless, babe. Utterly powerless.
Let me make myself clear: POWERLESS!
We matter only for propaganda purposes. Our "duty as citizens" is to remain alienated and in a constant state of fearfulambivalence design to keep us from questioning our "betters."
The China "scandal" is tailor made. While international whores like Murdoch can jump through hooks for Peking so's not to "offend" them in one sphere, he can say whatever he likes here "at home" because it maters not a jot or a tittle. It's all *spectacle* and utterly meaningless.
16. benear - May 25, 1999 - 7:51 AM PT
Having at one time held a DOE "Access Authorization" and having worked at two DOE facilities and having visited many more, I would like to ask a few questions before people start launching into partisan accusations.
1. Who are the Contractors that run Los Alamos, Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Oak Ridge, Sandia and for that matter Brookhaven, Idaho, Savannah River, Argonne, and Pacific Northwest?
2. How are some of these contractors fundamentally different than others?
3. What is the process by which one obtains and maintains a DOE access authorization? What agency investigates individuals as part of the process of obtaining a clearance?
4. How many people have them, especially at the Q level?
5. What does a Q level authorization signify?
6. If you have a Top Secret military security clearance, can you obtain one from DOE through reciprocity?
7. What essentially happened with DOE budgets starting in about 1984 and continued through about 1994?
8. What agencies were lumped together to form DOE?
9. Under what President did this occur, what was his formal educational training and who was the first Secretary of DOE?
If you know the answers to these questions, you are capable of understanding how some of the spying went undetected for so long.
17. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:51 AM PT
Niner, mon cher: Richard Gere's career is hanging by a thread, and Chow Yun-Fat tanked as crossover potential. Mira Sorvino, meanwhile, has joined Marisa Tomei in Best Supporting Actress Hell.
Now run right out and find me some "serious discussion/ramifications" like a good fellow, won't you?
18. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 7:53 AM PT
Niner - Sometimes I think Cllrdr is on autopilot. Any news indicating problems at the White House is met with same projected disinterest. I wonder if China started lobbing nukes across the Pacific, if he would still have the same response.
19. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
Quite a nice list of questions, b. Too bad they'll never be answered.
Rosie you wouldn't feel the way you do about Reno if you found her fuckable. Then she'd be another "Clinton Rape Victim."
20. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 7:56 AM PT
"Any news indicating problems at the White House is met with same projected disinterest."
Do you think I'm alone in this JJ? It's called "crying wolf once too often."
I'm sure the "electorate" is far more exercised about the WB cancelling the season finale of "Buffy."
21. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
cllrdr
No can do. I admit to a lazy perspective on this particular bit of nastiness, only because it will depress me. I'm guessing it is byzantine and requires an investigative reporting that seems like no damn fun, due to the lack of a tit, an ass, or blowjob.
I'm hoping for a decent education at the hands of Ace and Ohio, our resident sparring partners on the issue.
As for Sorvino, agreed.
22. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
Biener,
Do you actually think that the US is "threatened" by China? Or that there is even a remote likelihood that there will be war between the two countries in your lifetime? Or that either country is likely to deploy nuclear weapons against each other?
What the Cox Report shows, IMO, is that China need not "threaten" the US militarily, or ever wage war against this country, in order to achieve its goals. It quite probably has used the diseased campaign finance system in this country to buy, outright, political support for its interests. It has dangled its potential massive consumer market to gain lobbying allies among the biggest companies in this country. And it has used its defence budget to buy the advanced technology (even technology banned for export to other countries) that it can't manage to swipe illegally. Added to all of that is the spying, which apparently has been stunningly effective.
Hence, China is sitting quite pretty. The very last thing the Cox Report implies is a potential military threat from that country, despite the sensitive armament technology involved. Rather, again IMO , it points to internal security problems and contradictions in the US - nothing more.
23. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 7:58 AM PT
And, if possible, I'd like Ohio and Ace to answer benear's questions.
24. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:00 AM PT
marjori
China is indeed a threat to the United States, even without the transfer of nuclear technology, on the sole basis of the Korean situation.
My, how we have moved from the hysteria of "The Day After" to the ho-hum of sophisticated technology transfer.
25. davidtudor - May 25, 1999 - 8:00 AM PT
With post no. 22 now on record, this thread can be killed.
Seriously. Virtually everything else will be as I predicted - farts.
26. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:03 AM PT
I like the new dogma.
We bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? War is hell.
We let slip nuclear technology to the Chinese (and no blame is assessed by me at this stage - this appears to be unalterable, bi-partisan fact) - Boooooooring!
27. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
"China is indeed a threat to the United States, even without the transfer of nuclear technology, on the sole basis of the Korean situation."
Utter nonsense.
The only American interests under "threat" from China belong to the remaining few US toy manufacturers, owners of "intellectual property" and those restaurant customers allergic to MSG.
28. cllrdr - May 25, 1999 - 8:04 AM PT
Viva Marj!
29. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:09 AM PT
marj
I see you've mastered the idiot's riposte.
I much prefer "Balderdash." Too colonial?
30. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:09 AM PT
109,
Can you read? The Cox Report is not particularly boring, and nor are the legitimate allegations of campaign finance abuse. They point to deep contradictions and bunglings within this country and its defence and political mechanisms. What these things do _not_ imply in any way is a "great threat" posed by China's military.
It pains me to say it, but I wholly believe that the Chinese have manipulated the campaign finance system in this country, and have outright bought various politicians and influential people. I'd point out Bush pere as a primary culprit.
31. Ronski - May 25, 1999 - 8:10 AM PT
But where would we get our cartoons from?
32. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:12 AM PT
marj
I don't disagree with your analysis of the report or even some of your excited utterances re: the campaign finance system. That you limit Chinese threat to this report, and somehow miss a rather large forest for the sake of your particular tree is disconcerting.
33. benear - May 25, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
At the end of the day (and I realize the "investigation" and partisan rangling are inevitable) we are back to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) and probably a Reagan like policy to bankrupt China in an arms race. That country is poorer than the Soviet Union was, so the policy should succeed again.
I hope that is not what will happen, but can someone tell me why Chinese nuclear weapons are "targeted at American cities." I guess that means we have targeted theirs. This mutual cooperation between China and the U.S. must not be all it has been purported to be.
34. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
109,
For the amusement of all of us, perhaps you could detail in some credible fashion "the forest" of this Chinese military "threat."
Inchoate blurbs like "the Korean situation" are meaningless, please take the word "credible" seriously.
35. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:16 AM PT
Marj - I don't believe there will be war between the US and China, and I seriously doubt either side would ever use nuclear weapons. However, the transfer of technology and the ability of the Chinese to dramatically improve their weapons shifts the balance of power between the two countries. With the potential power of their economy combined with their new military strength, we have to look forward to a future where we are no longer the sole super-power in the world. Having China as a fellow super-power may not be cause for panic, but it is cause for concern. Their interest and ours will not always coincide.
As for the Cox report, I agree it is far more damning of our own government that the Chinese. I disagree that the Chinese used a "diseased campaign finance system" to gain what it wanted. Had the laws been followed, it never would have happened. What the report showes (IMHO) is that the Chinese were able to capitalize on Democratic desperation after their 1994 loss. It would seem that Democrats were willing to go to any extreme in order to raise funds to regain Congress. It would seem that some even resorted to treason. Had the gambit worked, Democrats would now control Congress and none of this would have ever surfaced. Fortunately for us, the gambit failed and it has been revealed how far the Democrats are willing to sink in order gain and maintain power.
36. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:18 AM PT
On "threat":
"The People's Republic of China (PRC) has stolen design information on the United StatesÌ most advanced thermonuclear weapons. The Select Committee judges that the PRCÌs next generation of thermonuclear weapons, currently under development, will exploit elements of stolen U.S. design information. PRC penetration of our national weapons laboratories spans at least the past several decades and almost certainly continues today. These thefts of nuclear secrets from our national weapons laboratories enabled the PRC to design, develop, and successfully test modern strategic nuclear weapons sooner than would otherwise have been possible. The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give the PRC design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own.The stolen information also includes classified design information for an enhanced radiation weapon (commonly known as the "neutron bomb"), which neither the United States, nor any other nation, has yet deployed. "The PRC has obtained classified information on the following U.S. thermonuclear warheads, as well as a number of associated reentry vehicles (the hardened shell that protects the thermonuclear warhead during reentry)."
If China were the type of government to freely disseminate such information, might this be a threat? I ask, only in that the present definition of "threat" in this thread seems to emanate from the question: Do we have to blockade Cuba? If not, it is not a threat.
37. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:25 AM PT
Biener,
I really can't understand or comment on how you get your findings from a report that clearly covers decades of Chinese "influence" and spying in the USA. If you want to look back over just the recent past, China and its military have not had a better friend in America that former Ambassador George Bush.
109,
Your excerpt demonstrates no military "threat" at all. And your speculation is also meaningless. "If the Chinese did this" or "if the Chinese did that" is not covered in the report, it's just empty speculation.
38. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
Marj - If you look at two situations, one where the Chinese do not have the technology to target and attack US cities with nuclear weapons and the other where they do. Isn't the former situation preferable? Should moving from the former to the latter be cause for the least concern?
In the current situation, we probably have little fear of Chinese attack. However we have no way of knowing how the world situation will change and how Chinese possession of this technology will effect the course of those events. To ignore these events and the individuals in our own government who made them possible seems rather Chamberlinesque to me.
39. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT
As for the Korean situation, it is meaningless only to those who fear the great Chinese monolithic toy invasion of 2002. Look out Hasbro!
That China has sold nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, ah well, what threat is their in that?
Abdul Razak Baginda, executive director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a Kuala Lumpur-based regional think tank, said US concerns over reports that China stole American secrets to produce small nuclear warheads was understandable because of the threat posed by North Korea.
"I think the US will want to flex its muscles and have tighter control of transfer of technology and some degree of control in such exports," he said, adding "nobody forgets the connection between North Korea and China."
40. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:30 AM PT
marj
Good point. Because the report merely sets out facts, on the assumption that intelligent people can draw the conclusion of an eight-grader, indeed, the Cox Report details no actual threats to the United States based upon the technology transfers.
Brilliant.
41. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:32 AM PT
Of course, the report does conclude:
"The Select Committee judges that the PRC will exploit elements of the stolen design information on the PRCÌs next generation of thermonuclear weapons. The PRC plans to supplement its silo-based CSS-4 ICBMs targeted on U.S. cities with mobile ICBMs, which are more survivable because they are more difficult to find than silo-based missiles."
But targeting of U.S. cities? Absurd. After all, we have MAD on our side. In fact, we should have dispensed this technology freely, rather than making the Chinese work so hard for the information.
42. benear - May 25, 1999 - 8:33 AM PT
So, the only other "Superpower" in the world will have sophisticated nuclear weapons. I suppose they are going to use them. Lets just take all those plutonium pits out of storage outside of Amarillo and reassemble what has been taken apart. Let's see, for the next two or three decades, we will outnumber them 3000 to one. Please don't shriek histerically about the Chinese "threat".
Furthermore, we are dealing with a country that I can attest to first hand builds four-lane restricted access highways with pickaxes, shovels and manual labor, NOTHING ELSE. When's the last time you saw that in this country?
43. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:33 AM PT
Marj - I don't believe there is any evidence that Ambassador Bush or even President Bush knew of the Chinese espionage. According to the news reports, US intelligence (if such a term can still be used with a straight face) did not learn of it until 1995. While this could certainly imply incompetence, it does not imply treason. The behavior of the Clinton Administration after 1995 cannot be explained away as simple incompetence.
44. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
"The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give the PRC design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own. Currently deployed PRC ICBMs targeted on U.S. cities are based on 1950s-era nuclear weapons designs. With the stolen U.S. technology, the PRC has leaped, in a handful of years, from 1950s-era strategic nuclear capabilities to the more modern thermonuclear weapons designs. These modern thermonuclear weapons took the United States decades of effort, hundreds of millions of dollars, and numerous nuclear tests to achieve."
Threat, schmett.
Let's talk about knock-off Star Wars action figures. Now, there is a Chinese threat.
45. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:35 AM PT
Biener,
The Chinese had nuclear weapons before this spying. They are signatories to the CTBT (I think) and are prohibited from testing new weapons. All this spying only got them the newest/latest technological secrets from the US. These would be relatively harmless if the US hadn't contravened its own rules and sold them so-called "super-computers" which will theoretically allow them to update their nuke technology. Again, there is no new threat implied by the spying, all it does is point out how stupid and short-sighted American policy has been (whether defence, political, or commercial) in its rush for the bucks.
109,
"Abdul Razak Baginda, executive director of the Malaysian Strategic Research Centre, a Kuala Lumpur-based regional think tank, said US concerns over reports that China stole American secrets to produce small nuclear warheads was understandable because of the threat posed by North Korea. "
This is a real classic. I wish there were a Fray Hall of Fame for desperate reaches to find "sources." Your reliance on this Baginda fellow, and this "K-L based regional think tank" is absolutely hilarious. Hahahahahahahaha.
46. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
Marj
"Your excerpt demonstrates no military "threat" at all."
From the Report:
"Nonetheless, in a crisis in which the United States confronts the PRCÌs conventional and nuclear forces at the regional level, a modernized PRC strategic nuclear ballistic missile force would pose a credible direct threat against the United States."
Your reading comprehension is impressive.
47. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:38 AM PT
marj
Do you deny his conclusion? Of course not. It appears, you cannot even read.
Another non-threatening excerpt from the Cox Report:
"In the near term, a PRC deployment of mobile thermonuclear weapons, or neutron bombs, based on stolen U.S. design information, could have a significant effect on the regional balance of power, particularly with respect to Taiwan. PRC deployments of advanced nuclear weapons based on stolen U.S. design information would pose greater risks to U.S. troops and interests in Asia and the Pacific."
48. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 8:39 AM PT
Benear --
"I hope that is not what will happen, but can someone tell me why Chinese nuclear weapons are 'targeted at American cities.' I guess that means we have targeted theirs. This mutual cooperation between China and the U.S. must not be all it has been purported to be."
Prior to this latest round of borrowing from our national laboratories, the Chinese had targeted American cities because, unlike the U.S., they are unable to massively retaliate, and in fact, can only hit U.S. cities on the west coast. Also, their command and control of their nuclear weapons is not nearly in the same class as ours, so pre-targeting is a necessity. If neither one of us targeted each other's cities, who do you think could reverse that policy the fastest -- we could, and the Chinese know it.
We do not pre-target the Chinese.
I used to think I knew something about this subject, but with the latest reports coming out, showing the situation has changed so much in the last couple of years, I wonder if anyone knows the capabilities of the Chinese now.
One thing no one is discussing (out of politeness, I'm sure), but will have to eventually, is who is transferring this information to the Chinese.
49. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:40 AM PT
benear - How do 3000 US ICBMs prevent a Chinese ICBM from striking LA and killing millions? BTW, it is not hysterical to be concerned about a new threat to our country.
50. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:40 AM PT
marj
"The PRC has proliferated weapons systems and components to other countries including Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and North Korea."
Are you sure you didn't read the Courtney Cox report?
51. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:42 AM PT
109,
Please make sure you regularly update us on the findings of this Mr. Baginda and his impressive K-L based "regional think tank." It's always essential to know what the Malaysians think in these matters.
52. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 8:42 AM PT
Banks --
"This is a real classic. I wish there were a Fray Hall of Fame for desperate reaches to find "sources." Your reliance on this Baginda fellow, and this "K-L based regional think tank" is absolutely hilarious. Hahahahahahahaha."
This is exactly the kind of source you use to support your arguments all the time.
53. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:42 AM PT
marj
From you:
"The very last thing the Cox Report implies is a potential military threat from that country, despite the sensitive armament technology involved."
Well diagnosed, old boy.
54. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
Pincher
Let marj's "The very last thing the Cox Report implies is a potential military threat from that country, despite the sensitive armament technology involved" stand on its own merits.
Me thinks he took a charge in a pick-up game.
Probably called a foul too.
55. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:46 AM PT
But I'm not sure I like his veiled sneering at the Malaysians. Smacks of Mayflower xenophobia.
56. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:46 AM PT
Marj - "These would be relatively harmless if the US hadn't contravened its own rules and sold them so-called 'super-computers' which will theoretically allow them to update their nuke technology."
This would seem to be yet another example of treasonous activity from the Clinton Administration. Commerce approved the sale of the super computers despite warnings from State and Defense.
57. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 8:46 AM PT
109,
I suggest you go look up the word "credible." You seem to mistake its meaning for "hysterical" or "trumped-up" or "highly unlikely".
I have to leave for a couple of hours. Perhaps you'll have managed to leaf though a decent dictionary to find a good definition by then.
58. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:47 AM PT
marj
When your gone, make sure you pick up the Big Cocks report and the Wally Cox report for perusal.
And you toy theory was wonderful. Really. Splendid.
59. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:48 AM PT
Marj - When you come back I would like your opinion on how this new technology will affect the balance of power in the subcontinent.
60. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:49 AM PT
Now, where were we before marj elicited the raising of quality debate . . . .
Yes. Benear's 9 questions. Does anyone have any answers?
61. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 8:50 AM PT
Biener --
There is no balance of power in the subcontinent. Never has been; never will be.
62. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 8:52 AM PT
Pincher - I know. That was the point.
63. benear - May 25, 1999 - 8:53 AM PT
Yea, the Chinese are crazy. They don't realize that if they detonate a nuclear device in a spat with the U.S.of A., we would massively retaliate and, essentially, wipe their country off the face of the planet. NOoooo they are too stupid to realize this.
Nevermind that they are unaware that such an event, even if not retaliated against would result in radioactive fallout, that would eventually fall out on them. (I am assuming that said spat would occur in a place of stratigic to them such as Tiawan or Korea and not say Yugoslavia.) When Chernoble blew there was a significant rise in radioactive isotopes in Lake Michigan. That was but child's play compared to above ground thermonuclear detonation.
64. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 8:56 AM PT
Benear --
What are you babbling about? Is this a response to my post?
65. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 8:58 AM PT
PM
I believe benear is attempting to articulate the "What does it matter? We can all kill each other anyway! This is a mountain out of a molehill" theory.
benear
Would it matter if China passed on the technology to a nation that appeared to you less stable, with regard to MAD?
66. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 9:02 AM PT
Benear - "They don't realize that if they detonate a nuclear device in a spat with the U.S.of A., we would massively retaliate and, essentially, wipe their country off the face of the planet."
Would we, really? Are you sure? Do believe that Clinton would kill a billion Chinese citizens in response to the bombing of LA? I have trouble believing Clinton is capable of that. Maybe Clinton would opt for a "limited" response and only bomb one city. Clinton is not a cold warrior. I don't believe your assumptions about MAD apply.
MAD works when two superpowers can deliver overwhelmingly destructive forces on the other. China is not capable of that yet. Does MAD still work?
67. benear - May 25, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
Message #49 JJ, they drop one on LA (some would argue no great loss) we have 3000, or 300, or for Gods sake 30, right back at 'em. Don't you think it is possible they will think twice. or three times or......
68. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT
Niner --
If the Chinese did not pre-target our cities, then they have to trust us not to use our first strike capability to take out their nuclear arsenal. In their paranoid minds, this is a credible -- not just theoretical -- option for us if they do not pre-target (see the recent response to the bombing of their embassy). The Chinese political leadership wants the option to retaliate, not just know that the U.S. would be hurting itself if it used nuclear weapons against them
69. benear - May 25, 1999 - 9:08 AM PT
I don't know, JJ, Clinton seems pretty fast on the trigger with non-nukes. I have no evidence that he would not be consistent. Ok, so he only sends one back in response, let's see, what is the Chinese equivalent of LA? Hmmmmmmmm.
70. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 9:10 AM PT
Benear --
You have the whole situation backwards. The pre-targetting done by the Chinese is not for a first-strike option, but to prevent the U.S. from having such an option.
71. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 9:13 AM PT
Benear, Biener --
Here is the key information form the Cox Report Irv linked to:
"The stolen U.S. design information will assist the PRC in building smaller nuclear warheads Û vital to the success of the PRCÌs ongoing efforts to develop survivable, mobile missiles. Current PRC ICBMs, which are silo-based, are more vulnerable to attack than mobile missiles."
72. JJBiener - May 25, 1999 - 9:14 AM PT
Benear - My fear is that Clinton will balk. I had complete confidence that our previous Presidents (even Carter) were capable of massive retaliation in response to a nuclear event. I have no such confidence in Clinton, especially if it is a limited attack. I think Clinton would try to negotiate rather than risk further attacks on American soil.
I would feel much more comfortable if we had a system that could take out missles before they ever reached us.
73. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 9:18 AM PT
PM
Point well taken. And it is but one such "threat" to be considered in the wake of the technology loss. There is Taiwan, there is technology transfer to rogue states from China, there is the economic effect (China gets a cheap ride on the technology train due to effective intelligence), there is the as-yet undetermined tie to American domestic politics.
Unfortunately, many get their basis for geopolitical understanding from Sting's "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too."
I, on the other hand, get mine from some cheesy Malaysian.
74. benear - May 25, 1999 - 9:26 AM PT
I get the point PM. In none of my posts thus far have I assumed the US would strike first. I have been arguing that the Chinese are not stupid and also would not strike first because a distinctly POSSIBLE response would be an end to life as they know it.
Message #65 Niner, in my perusal of the Cox report I got the impression that they weren't saying the Chinese stole/bought the latest US technology and were selling that same technology to third countries. I assume, and I admit I have not read it closely, the Chinese would not logically distribute that hard won new technology. Instead they are selling their own 1950's stuff which they arguably have no real need for now.
75. benear - May 25, 1999 - 9:32 AM PT
And most of that 1950's stuff can be picked up in the latest physics text books available at your local campus bookstore. The only technology from that era not readily available is the uranium/plutonium purification processes. Some of that technology is still classified.
76. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 9:32 AM PT
Niner --
Your source might have been a good one (although the idea of a Malaysian think-tank does make me laugh). I have no idea. I granted Banks that part of the argument so I could get to my main point, which is Banks' worldview is derived from such questionable sources.
Had you picked an Indian source, he would have been much more solemn in his response to you.
77. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 9:36 AM PT
benear
"The PRC has provided, or is providing, assistance to the missile and space programs of a number of countries, according to the Congressional Research Service. These countries include, but are not limited to:
Iran. The PRC has provided Iran with ballistic missile technology, including guidance components and the recent transfer of telemetry equipment. The PRC reportedly is providing Iran with solid-propellant missile technology. Additionally, the PRC provided Iran with the 95-mile range CSS-8 ballistic missile. Since the mid-1980s, the PRC has transferred C-802 anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran. The PRC has also provided assistance to IranÌs nuclear programs.
Pakistan. The PRC has provided Pakistan with a wide range of assistance. The PRC reportedly supplied Pakistan with CSS-X-7/M-11 mobile missile launchers and reportedly has provided Pakistan with the facilities necessary to produce M-11 missiles. The PRC provides Pakistan with assistance on uranium enrichment, ring magnets, and other technologies that could be used in PakistanÌs nuclear weapons program.
Saudi Arabia. The PRC provided a complete CSS-2 missile system to Saudi Arabia in 1987. The conventionally-armed missile has a range of 1,200 to 1,900 miles.
North Korea. The Select Committee judges that the PRC has assisted weapons and military-related programs in North Korea.
The Select Committee is aware of information of further PRC proliferation of missile and space technology that the Clinton administration has determined cannot be publicly disclosed without affecting national security."
78. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 9:40 AM PT
PM
See what happens when you try and be all-inclusive. The Mayflower patricians go nutty.
But even a lowly Malaysian can be trusted on the elementary proposal that China has given weapons technology to the nutbag North Koreans. In fact, the Cox Report echoed the same concern (see post 77).
The same Cox Report that marj supposedly read, gleaning therefrom that "The very last thing the Cox Report implies is a potential military threat from that country, despite the sensitive armament technology involved."
79. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 9:43 AM PT
Benear --
"I get the point PM. In none of my posts thus far have I assumed the US would strike first. I have been arguing that the Chinese are not stupid and also would not strike first because a distinctly POSSIBLE response would be an end to life as they know it."
The U.S. has never worried about the Chinese striking first. That is one reason why, even though they targeted our cities, we never responded in turn. Frankly, the PRC's nuclear arsenal was so pathetic, no one worried about it. Now, the Chinese, with our unwitting help, are capable of developing a modern nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear war between the U.S. and China does not worry me, but the shift of resources and energy we will have to make over the next few years to counter these new capabilities does. Also, how will Japan and India respond to this new information.
80. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 9:50 AM PT
Niner --
North Korea has not received nuclear assistance from the Chinese or Russians for some time. They now have an indigenous nuclear capability.
I have only read part of the Cox report. Could you reference the part where they show when the Chinese gave this technology to the North Koreans?
81. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 10:14 AM PT
PM
I have not been through the entire report, but thus far I have post 50 and 77. Neither identifies nuclear transfer (much of the facts are too sensitive for publishing") but I do have my Malaysian source. (g)
As well as the Rumsfeld Commission (in the summer of 1998).
That said, I believe that nuclear technology stopped making its way to North Korea from China in 1997 (when China tried to cozy up on the economic front). hereafter, North Korea just got it from somewhere else, who got it from China.
82. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 10:35 AM PT
As stated by Sven Kraemer, the former director of arms control for the National Security Council Staff, before th Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"I believe that we need to consider all those who supply and support rogues and rogues. I don't think there's any doubt about it that China
has been behaving in a roguish fashion in supplying rogues. And as General Brent Scowcroft -- National Security Advisor -- has said the
Chinese military seems to be willing to sell weapons to anyone who can pay the price, including militant state hostile to the United States.
China has supplied nuclear reactors and missiles to North Korea, nuclear reactors to Algeria and Iran, chemical weapon materials to Syria and Iran, missiles to numerous countries including Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Recently in March of this year, they were caught trying to supply Iran with virtually complete factories of chemical weapons, poison gas materials. And in all of these cases, the Clinton administration has basically exercised no sanctions whatsoever -- only very temporarily and not implemented them. I understand that Senator Larry Pressler, and Ms. Pelosi on the House side, have complained about this frequently on the record and saying, why are they blind to these things, why are they not doing something?
I don't think Sven is Malaysian.
83. elliot803 - May 25, 1999 - 10:37 AM PT
If an imbalance of power is more dangerous than a balance of power, maybe the world will be a safer place if the Chinese have the capability to respond in kind to a nuclear attack from the U.S.
After all, Reagan proposed giving Star Wars to the Russians.
84. 109109 - May 25, 1999 - 10:42 AM PT
Good point. Timely. And iconoclastic.
85. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 10:50 AM PT
Elliot:
That's... genius! Let's give away all our nukes to all who want them! It's a *safer* world with Iran and North Korea and China having nukes! Of course!
Maybe we can extend this theory to domestic issues... Maybe it will be a safer US if *everybody* carries a handgun... Same principle, right?
Nah.
86. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 11:01 AM PT
Elliot --
How has an imbalance of power in America's favor been more dangerous for the world.
Niner --
China has been a supplier of nuclear materials for rogue states, but recently had curtailed its activities to supplying Pakistan only, and now after the nuclear tests in the subcontinent, has even discontinued that.
Of course, it is perfectly legal for China to supply nuclear reactors to whoever it wants, so long as they are within IAEA guidelines. The nuclear reactor in Algeria, although controversial, is subject to IAEA inspections.
I think China only recently joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Until it joined, it was not subject to its guidelines on the export of missiles.
China has not supplied North Korea with any nuclear materials within the last five years.
87. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:03 AM PT
Pincher, all:
If you are relying on the Administration's previous certification that China is NOT providing missile and nuke technology to other countries, you should stop relying on that certification. The Cox Report specifically finds (remember, this was unanimously endorsed by all nine members of the Committee, including four democrats) that China IS still engaging in such proliferation, despite Clinton's certification that it isn't.
88. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
According to the 1997 MTCR Plenary session in Tokyo, here are he member states:
"I. What is the current membership of the Regime?
The current members of the MTCR are Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States of America."
The PRC is not included, but I think they joined very recently under pressure from the U.S.. I can't remember.
89. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 11:05 AM PT
Ace --
To who and when?
90. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:07 AM PT
Pincher:
From the Washington Times' digest of the report:
The report also states that China is not abiding by its promises to adhere to the 29-nation Missile Technology Control Regime. Beijing is providing assistance to the missile and space programs of Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries.
The report also said China supplies assistance to the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and Pakistan.
That finding contradicts President Clinton's recent certification to Congress that China was not supplying nuclear weapons-related goods to rogue states.
91. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
I haven't had time yet to read the report; I'm barely into the Overview. What I know of the report (at this point) comes solely from previously-leaked reports and digests of the report.
I will read it as soon as I can, but at the moment, I am at a disadvantage.
92. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 11:13 AM PT
Yes, but they are not a member, and therefore they are in violation of nothing except breaking their promises.
Here is an interesting article on recent nonproliferation commitments by the two sides(apparently, the Chinese have agreed to detarget American cties; whether we should believe this promise is another matter):
Sino-U.S. Summit Yields Modest Advances in Arms Control Agenda
93. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:18 AM PT
Pincher:
The Cox Report also finds that they *are* targeting US Cities. As a matter of fact, we've known this for a year.
94. incognito - May 25, 1999 - 11:21 AM PT
Well, not to be too parochial or nationalistic or anything like that, but having a balance of power in the world favoring the USA is juuuuuuuust the way I like it!
95. benear - May 25, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
Message #79 And nothing has really changed overnight. If their arsenal was pathetic last week or last year, it is still pathetic and it will take them a decade or more to manufacture a serious "threat". Even so, the diversion of their resources for such an effort will be far more detrimental to them than the diversion of our resources to respond. We just have to take some things out of storage, reassemble a few things at Pantex and we can overwhelmingly outnumber them any day of the week for the next 25 years. Of course that would mean abrogatting the START treaties with the Russians. I have to think that this Cox report will not sit well with them and they may aquiesce to any response we choose to take with the Chinese.
96. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 11:27 AM PT
Ace --
They were targeting American cities for a long time, and we knew it for about as long. I've known they were targeting American cities for several years; again, if you read the article, you discover that the Chinese wanted us to give up our policy of first-use. If the Cox Report is correct that the Chinese still target American cities, it doesn't surprise me. Here is the relevant section form the article:
"Clinton said the detargeting agreement 'would completely eliminate' the prospect of an accidental nuclear launch, show 'mutual confidence and trust,'and would be 'a helpful counterweight' to the recent nuclear tests in South Asia. Critics of such detargeting agreements have argued that the arrangements are not verifiable and are largely symbolic because the missiles can be retargeted in a matter of minutes. China had previously resisted the U.S. detargeting proposal, insisting it should be linked to the United States adopting a 'no-first-use' policy for nuclear weapons. When asked if the United States had made any concessions to get the detargeting agreement, Clinton said, 'W]e have not changed our position [on no first use], nor are we prepared to do so on that.'"
97. AceOfSpades - May 25, 1999 - 11:31 AM PT
"And nothing has really changed overnight. If their arsenal was pathetic last week or last year, it is still pathetic and it will take them a decade or more to manufacture a serious "threat"."
Wrong, Benear. The Chinese are beginning construction of modern warheads and missiles this year, and are expected to be completed woith the first batch of modern long-range nukes by 2002. It's all in the report.
"Even so, the diversion of their resources for such an effort will be far more detrimental to them than the diversion of our resources to respond."
Bullshit. Totalitarian regimes can put their people through absolute hell any time they see fit. The Chinese wiped out a quarter of their population during the Great Leap Forward. You think they give a rat's ass about devoting ridiculous amounts of money to upgrading weapons? You think maybe the population will go on strike?
"We just have to take some things out of storage, reassemble a few things at Pantex and we can overwhelmingly outnumber them any day of the week for the next 25 years."
This assumes the Chinese Government cares about losing a big portion of its population. Why would it? China has too many people already.
98. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
Benear, good posts.
109,
You sound entirely like a shill for the people who want more military expenditure. There is no credible military threat to the US from China, and hyping up the Cox Report won't manufacture one.
The report is troubling, because it exposes an American weakness to spew technology at the sign of a dollar, despite its own bans about proliferation. And it highlights serious security overlapses. Both of these have extended over a couple of decades.
99. PincherMartin - May 25, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
Benear --
"And nothing has really changed overnight. If their arsenal was pathetic last week or last year, it is still pathetic and it will take them a decade or more to manufacture a serious "threat". "
Do you have a case of short-term vision? Is there nothing outside of the latest election cycle worth noting? Ten years in geopolitical terms is a blink of the eye.
"Even so, the diversion of their resources for such an effort will be far more detrimental to them than the diversion of our resources to respond."
Yes, there is nothing China can do that we can't counter. So what. It's still a waste of our resources to try and wage an arms race in East Asia. Should we take solace that China is being even more wasteful? And China's "borrowing" certainly cuts down on the amount of resources they need to put into these programs.
100. marjoribanks - May 25, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
Spades,
You remain a surprisingly accurate barometer of the popular mind, however, you also reflect the widespread ignorant viewpoint.
The Chinese are not going to attack, O man of the people, it is a charade conducted in order to garnishee your/my tax dollars.