China’s weapons exceed self-defence needs, says US

[bemildred]

Source: Daily Times PK

WASHINGTON: The United States said Monday it was “troubling” that China’s weapons systems capability exceeded the level Beijing defined as necessary for self-defence.

The head of the US armed forces in the Asia-Pacific, Admiral Timothy Keating, said he was told by Chinese leaders during a visit to Beijing that its so-called “area denial weapons” were “to protect those things that are ours.”

But he said, “we find it troubling that the capabilities of some of these weapons systems would tend to exceed our own expectations for protecting those things that are ‘ours.’”Keating said the United States had “intelligence that reinforces my opinion that China is developing, fielding and has in place weapons that could be characterized as having, amongst perhaps other purposes, an ability to restrict movement in and around certain areas on the sea, in the air or under the sea.

“I’ll go back to the point we made a couple of times already - that we understood PRC (China’s) intentions, not just their transparency, not just the fact that these weapons exist. We know they exist,” he said. “It’s why are they being fielded,” Keating asked, speaking at a Washington forum of the US-based Asia Society. The Pentagon fears China’s area-denial arms, including missiles, can be used to attack US aircraft carriers and ships, reports have said.

Read more: Daily Times

---

Notice the complete lack of any sense of irony here.

[Xipe Totec]

1. This, from a country with enough nuclear weapons

to make the rubble bounce four times world-wide.

[HereSince1628]

2. Pot...Meet Kettle

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. Thank you for taking the words from my mouth...nt

[4dsc]

4. Resource wars are coming

so what do you expect the Chinese to have in the way of military hardware?? The middle east is much closer to China than it is to the USA!!

[happyslug]

13. And US Nuclear Weapons are USELESS in that type of war

Nuclear weapons work on an enemy whose land we DO NOT WANT TO CONTROL (For example the Former Soviet Union), they are useless (except in very small numbers) on enemies who hold land WE WANT TO CONTROL. For example, we could use Nuclear weapons to take the Middle east, but in doing so you destroy the oil fields. If you use deep penetrating Nuclear weapons (Which has been a project of the Pentagon for at least ten years) such weapons are useless if the bunker you want to destroy is mixed in with the oil Fields (i.e. blow the bunker, destroy the cap on the fields and the oil will leach out making it unrecoverable).

To move oil you do NOT only need oil fields and wells, you need the whole infrastructure to move the oil from the well to the tanker, nuclear weapons destroys ALL of that infrastructure. Furthermore you have an area which people will think is contaminated by Radiation, which means less people will want to MOVE they to replace the people killed off by the Nuclear weapons. In simple term we need the PEOPLE just as much as the Infrastructure, and if Nuclear weapons are used, we lose both AND THE RESOURCE WE WILL BE FIGHTING FOR.

In many ways the Old Soviet policy of no first use of Nuclear weapons reflected these same problems. Why use Nuclear weapons and destroy what you want to take? The Soviet Union Nuclear program was to offset the US program, which was to destroy the Soviet Union but NOT to take it over (i.e. No occupation, just a huge bombed out abandoned area). This reflected a military philosophy that became popular in England around 1900 and spread to American afterward (Through the Book on that policy was written by an American Naval Office around 1905). This was the "sea People" vs the "Land people" policy. i.e. if you control the Sea you control the world EXCEPT for central Asia (Germany then Russia). Once Germany and Japan were defeated during WWII they was NO NAVAL power NOT under us Control or allied with the US. The only threat to American world dominance was the Soviet Union and its control of land based lines of Communications do to its control of Central Asia. The US never had a policy to conquer these areas, but saw it as a threat. Based on this policy written in 1905, the US Nuclear policy developed in the 1950s, to just destroy the Soviet Union if war broke out. Thus the huge number of Nuclear weapons the US produced during the 1950s and 1960s. The Soviet Union had access to the same books and connected the two and build its own Nuclear force to be able to do the same to the US. Thus Maturel Assured Destruction (MAD) became the doctrine of the 1960s and 1970s. Once the old Soviet Union saw it had achieved parity with the US in Nuclear Weapons, it did NOT need to use the threat of Nuclear weapons on its goals. Thus the SOviet Union adopted a NON fist use of Nuclear weapons policy. It saw no advantages to using such weapons.

The problem is several of out old Cold Warriors never were able to embrace MAD and always wanted to be able to destroy any threat from central asia. Thus we stayed embraced to Nuclear weapons to this day. They are useless in any war we will likely get involved in, given that the target of the war must be taken and held, two things an Nuclear Weapon can NOT do.

[gratuitous]

5. Thanks folks, I'll be here all week!

Oh, this is Admiral Timothy Keating, not mediocre comedian Timothy Keating. The story should have mentioned this a little more prominently. Aside from the preposterous spectacle of the United States lecturing anyone on outsize defense weapons, there's also the little matter of Keating's positive statement that "we know {these weapons} exist." Just like we "knew" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Have I mentioned recently how much I hate these guys?

[truth2power]

6. What a joke! This...from the mouths of the most warmongering military

on the face of the earth. Do these people know how stupid they sound?

[Solly Mack]

7. and come March, the US will put out a human rights report

labeling China poor on upholding human rights

Because the giggles never cease...

[Roland99]

8. Well, since ours obviously don't, why should theirs?

Oh wait....

[paparush]

9. OMFG! That is the Everest of Hubris!

[endarkenment]

10. Too fucking bad.

Perhaps we should lead by example and reduce our military forces to a border defense mission?

[endarkenment]

11. This is classic:

"The Pentagon fears China’s area-denial arms, including missiles, can be used to attack US aircraft carriers and ships, reports have said."

So basically their area-denial arms are a threat to our area-denial arms. WTF?

[LynnTheDem]

12. ROTFLMAO!!!

Now that's hilariously ironic!

:rofl:

[clixtox]

14. Not much that the USA can do about it except snivel...

I wonder which demographic this drivel is supposed to resonate with.

The clueless 29%?

Anyone else?

I doubt it.

What a hypocrite and dissembler!

Sounds like the typical cement head spokesperson for our endless criminal pursuit of other nations' resources.

Our government is counting on the fact that the Amerikkkan sheeple are now too stupid to recognize hubristic hypocrisy when they hear this B.S.

The Chinese have to be laughing their asses off.

[Zorra]

15. Dear Admiral: Your Commander in Chief just closed the sale of America to the Chinese.

While you were busy protecting our country, your traitorous boss defeated you from with an inside job.

[smiley_glad_hands]

16. China is no cute little bunny rabbit.

Aren't we legally bound to protect Taiwan? Doesn't china want the island back? Area denial weapons in the land, air and sea? Shit we don't have anything like this. I am more worried about China than some damn dude running around in the desert and caves.

[boricua79]

26. we're not legally bound to defend Taiwan

and if we're smart, we'll stay the hell out of a conflict that does not involve us. Taiwan is a historical legacy of their Civil War...it's unfinished business between them.

Unless you feel it's necessary to risk nuclear war over an island that most Americans rarely even think about.

[donkeyotay]

17. Unbeleevable. Aside from the incredible hypocrisy from Arms Central,

no one made America ship its entire economy over there so they'd have the means to kick our butts now did they? Bonus: now we get to compete with their consumer class, too. Such a deal.

[davekriss]

18. US weapons exceed self-defense needs, says davekriss

Noting that we spend more than the next 38 nations combined on our military. A tidy little sum, there.

[jody]

19. What if China decided to defend itself, it must make a preemptive attack against California? n/t

[east texas lib]

20. In the event of an attack on California by the Chinese...

We would, of course, immediately attack Switzerland and their evil ally, Antarctica!

[jody]

21. You crack me up! n/t

[east texas lib]

22. Glad to be of service!

But on a more serious note now, what I fear is that our foreign policy geniuses will
rationalize the deployment and use of "tactical nukes" (what's the big deal, we only
vaporized a few square blocks and a few thousand civilians!), neutron weapons (great
shot Bob, the oilfields are all intact!) and the like. If one nation does this others
will rapidly follow suit. You know, use 'em or lose 'em.

[jody]

23. My fears also. A wise saying "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and

to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

It's a shame Bush can't read anything other than "The Pet Goat" or he might use the power that We the People allow him to use for a few years for good rather than evil.

[BulletproofLandshark]

24. This is satire, right?

Right?

[boricua79]

25. USA's weapons exceed self-defence needs, says China.

Pot meet kettle.

Why do they hate us, you ask? Because of our hypocrisy and arrogance when exhibiting that hypocrisy.

Age old question ANSWERED.

[tom_paine]

27. In other news: Hitler says American weapons buildup troubling.

"Everyone knows the German People only want peace and freedom," said the German Fuhrer.

:rofl: :rofl:

We have become the Kinder and Gentler Nazis, no doubt about it. Been that for seven years now.

[struggle4progress]

28. US annually spends about $1750 per capita on the military, China about $50

[struggle4progress]

29. Chapter 8. Military expenditure (2006 SIPRI yearbook)

Petter Stålenheim, Damien Fruchart, Wuyi Omitoogun and Catalina Perdomo

World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1001 billion at constant (2003) prices and exchange rates, or $1118 billion in current dollars. This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of world GDP or an average spending of $173 per capita .... The .... 15 countries with the highest spending now account for 84 per cent of the total. The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4–5 per cent each .... China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending .... Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth .... http://yearbook2006.sipri.org/chap8

[Doctor_J]

30. The irony meter is broken yet again

Bravo!