Antifa's anarchist dream comes to Haiti: Bullet ridden bodies in the streets of the safe part of town

Haiti violence: Residents see no end to crisis as capital city reels from gang warfare

12 hours ago

By Will Grant, BBC News, Cap-Haitien, Haiti

Reuters

 

Violence has engulfed the streets of Port-au-Prince

"Port-au-Prince is in panic mode," a friend in the Haitian capital texted me.

Residents of Petionville, a wealthier area of of the city, are shaken after their most violent day so far in the country's spiralling security crisis.

More than a dozen bullet-ridden bodies lay in the street - the victims of the latest gang rampage.

As well as the early morning killing spree, the home of a judge was also attacked - a clear message to the country's elites vying for power.

All this in what is supposedly the safe part of town.

Unicef's executive director, Catherine Russell, has called the situation in Haiti "horrific" and likened the lawlessness to the post-apocalyptic film, Mad Max.

Certainly the latest violence in Port-au-Prince is a reminder, if any were needed, that Haiti remains closer to anarchy than stability.

In that malaise, the UN has also estimated, because of the closure of so many hospitals in the capital, some 3,000 pregnant women were at risk of having to give birth with no maternity care.

More here.

 

Remember the $13 billion poured into Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake?

 

Money is no match against guns, which are strictly prohibited in Haiti, so the vast number of law-abiding people there are completely defenseless against the gangs.

The Declaration of Independence's Anarcho-Tyranny of King George III holds up pretty well, requires but little updating for today

 He Joe Biden has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Illegal Alien Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

The always feckless Barack Obama makes speeches abroad for $1 million, blames threat of China on Trump when he himself failed to recognize the new threat in Xi Jinping from 2012

 The vacuum was all his.

Here's Obama:

“With my successor coming in, I think he saw an opportunity because the U.S. president didn’t seem to care that much about a rules-based international system,” Obama said, the Daily Mail reported. "As a consequence, I think China’s attitude [is], 'Well, we can take advantage of what appears to be a vacuum internationally on a lot of these issues.'"

 

It was Obama who never cared about the rules, never challenged China's military expansion in the South China Sea under Xi, and telegraphed nothing but weakness to China. 

Here's Xi Jinping as early as 2014:

Tabled by the popular ultranationalist blogger Zhou Xiaoping, the plan would authorize the assassination of blacklisted individuals—including Taiwan’s vice president, William Lai Ching-te—if they do not reform their ways. Zhou later told the Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao that his proposal had been accepted by the conference and “relayed to relevant authorities for evaluation and consideration.” Proposals like Zhou’s do not come by accident. In 2014, Xi praised Zhou for the “positive energy” of his jeremiads against Taiwan and the United States. ...

But the most telling moments of the two-sessions meetings, perhaps unsurprisingly, involved Xi himself. The Chinese leader gave four speeches in all—one to delegates of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, two to the National People’s Congress, and one to military and paramilitary leaders. In them, he described a bleak geopolitical landscape, singled out the United States as China’s adversary, exhorted private businesses to serve China’s military and strategic aims, and reiterated that he sees uniting Taiwan and the mainland as vital to the success of his signature policy to achieve “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese ethnos.”

In his first speech on March 6, Xi appeared to be girding China’s industrial base for struggle and conflict. “In the coming period, the risks and challenges we face will only increase and become more severe,” he warned. “Only when all the people think in one place, work hard in one place, help each other in the same boat, unite as one, dare to fight, and be good at fighting, can they continue to win new and greater victories.” To help the CCP achieve these “greater victories,” he vowed to “correctly guide” private businesses to invest in projects that the state has prioritized.

Xi also blasted the United States directly in his speech, breaking his practice of not naming Washington as an adversary except in historical contexts. He described the United States and its allies as leading causes of China’s current problems. “Western countries headed by the United States have implemented containment from all directions, encirclement and suppression against us, which has brought unprecedented severe challenges to our country’s development,” he said. Whereas U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has emphasized “guardrails” and other means of slowing the deterioration of U.S.-China relations, Beijing is clearly preparing for a new, more confrontational era.

On March 5, Xi gave a second speech laying out a vision of Chinese self-sufficiency that went considerably further than any of his previous discussions of the topic, saying China’s march to modernization is contingent on breaking technological dependence on foreign economies—meaning the United States and other industrialized democracies. Xi also said that he wants China to end its reliance on imports of grain and manufactured goods. “In case we’re short of either, the international market will not protect us,” Xi declared. Li, the outgoing premier, emphasized the same point in his annual government “work report” on the same day, saying Beijing must “unremittingly keep the rice bowls of more than 1.4 billion Chinese people firmly in their own hands.” China currently depends on imports for more than a third of its net food consumption.

In his third speech, on March 8 to representatives from the PLA and the People’s Armed Police, Xi declared that China must focus its innovation efforts on bolstering national defense and establish a network of national reserve forces that could be tapped in wartime. Xi also called for a “National Defense Education” campaign to unite society behind the PLA, invoking as inspiration the Double Support Movement, a 1943 campaign by the Communists to militarize society in their base area of Yan’an.

In his fourth speech (and his first as a third-term president), on March 13, Xi announced that the “essence” of his great rejuvenation campaign was “the unification of the motherland.” Although he has hinted at the connection between absorbing Taiwan and his much-vaunted campaign to, essentially, make China great again, he has rarely if ever done so with such clarity.

One thing that is clear a decade into Xi’s rule is that it is important to take him seriously—something that many U.S. analysts regrettably do not do. When Xi launched a series of aggressive campaigns against corruption, private enterprise, financial institutions, and the property and tech sectors, many analysts predicted that these campaigns would be short-lived. But they endured. The same was true of Xi’s draconian “zero COVID” policy for three years—until he was uncharacteristically forced to reverse course in late 2022.

Xi is now intensifying a decade long campaign to break key economic and technological dependencies on the U.S.-led democratic world. He is doing so in anticipation of a new phase of ideological and geostrategic “struggle,” as he puts it. His messaging about war preparation and his equating of national rejuvenation with unification mark a new phase in his political warfare campaign to intimidate Taiwan. He is clearly willing to use force to take the island. What remains unclear is whether he thinks he can do so without risking uncontrolled escalation with the United States.

The absolute number of nuclear warheads matters but their hard-target kill capability matters more, and we don't have it against the Chicoms

All presidents since Reagan/Bush have failed to prioritize US hard-target kill capability, including Trump, so our enemies both in Russia and China have been compensating for that.

Eroding the certainty of destruction erodes deterrence.

The Chicoms haven't been emphasizing concrete manufacturing just to build vacant buildings and roads to nowhere.

Mark B. Schneider:

In 1985, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Vessey briefed President Ronald Reagan about the need for improved hard-target kill capability, including the need for 100 MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs. We actually got 50. Of the three U.S. hard target capable systems created by the Reagan administration, two (the Peacekeeper ICBM and the Advanced Cruise Missile) were eliminated by the George W. Bush administration. This left only the high-yield WW-88 Trident warheads. Reportedly, the U.S. produced only 400 of the high-yield WW-88 warheads for the Trident II missile. Obviously, they can’t all be used against Chinese silos even if one makes a number of best-case assumptions. Moreover, it is not clear that the 1990 accuracy of the Trident II will be adequate if the Chinese are building silos based upon the new 30,000 psi super concrete now commercially available. The 1970 accuracy of a Minuteman III, while a great achievement in 1970, is hardly the same today against really hard targets. Unfortunately, the Minuteman III life extension program did not aim to upgrade the accuracy of the Minuteman.[8] It is not comparable to the Peacekeeper. There are plenty of important targets, including hard targets, the Minuteman III can cover, but super hard targets are not among them.

Even before the discovery of the new Chinese silos, a case could be made from a targeting standpoint for a strategic nuclear force of 2,700-3,000 nuclear warheads. There is a great difference between target coverage (assigning a warhead to a target) and damage expectancy (the probability of target destruction). Claims by Minimum Deterrence advocates, such as the Global Zero "Commission" report that a small nuclear force can do effective counterforce targeting are bogus. Regarding China, the report’s targeting plan involved “(85 warheads including 2-on-1 strikes against every missile silo), leadership command posts (33 warheads), war-supporting industry (136 warheads).” With the new Chinese silos, this targeting approach would require almost 1,000 warheads. Moreover, the approach itself is flawed because it ignores the Underground Great Wall, which protects the Chinese mobile ICBM force, the Chinese Navy and Air Force, and the large Chinese force of nuclear-capable theater-range missiles. The Global Zero report also assigned two warheads against every Russian silo. The report talked about target coverage, not damage expectancy, because its recommended force structure would likely have performed very badly against the facilities it targeted.

Against the very deep hard, and deeply targets (HDBTs) [sic; should read "very hard deeply-buried targets] there is essentially zero chance that they can be destroyed with a single U.S. nuclear warhead. The 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review only partially reversed the Obama administration’s decision to eliminate the two most effective U.S. bombs against HDBTs, the B61 Mod 11 and B-83. These bombs will be retained longer than planned but not be life extended. Once again, numbers matter, and we no longer have the numbers. Conventional weapons have little and declining capability against HDBTs.[9] As one report stated, “One GBUJ-57A/B [Massive Ordnance Penetrator] can only penetrate 8 meters of 10,000 psi rock or concrete. This could drop to 2 meters of 30,000 psi material.” 

More.

More US Navy shame, more proof China's our enemy: Chicoms successfully hack 614 gigabytes of highly sensitive data from contractor

WaPo reports here:

Chinese government hackers have compromised the computers of a Navy contractor, stealing massive amounts of highly sensitive data related to undersea warfare — including secret plans to develop a supersonic anti-ship missile for use on U.S. submarines by 2020, according to American officials. ...

In September 2015, in a bid to avert economic sanctions, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to President Barack Obama that China would refrain from conducting commercial cyberespionage against the United States. Following the pact, China appeared to have curtailed much, although not all, of its hacking activity against U.S. firms, including by the People’s Liberation Army. Both China and the United States consider spying on military technology to fall outside the pact.

Cost-effective warfare using the B61-12

The B61-12, here:

The B61-12 atomic bombs, for instance, are to undergo a life-extension program that will cost roughly $9.5 billion. There are 400 to 500 of these bombs, says Gronlund, which means refurbishing one will cost about $20 million.

Wikipedia vindicates Sean Spicer: "The Nazis did not extensively use chemical weapons in combat"

Here.

It's no joke: We WARN the ISIS enemy before we attack, strafe to shoo away, and then hold press conferences bragging about it

Not only are we unserious about killing ISIS people and breaking ISIS things, flying a leisurely seven sorties a day, most of which come back with 75% of their ordnance, under the traitorous pansy Obama we actually leaflet the targets before we attack.

And notice the spokesman admits this is the first attack on oil shipments even though this war has been going on for well over a year already. The goal of warfare is to destroy the enemy's ability to make it, and until now Obama hasn't lifted a finger to deprive ISIS of its number one source of income, resulting in the deaths of thousands and thousands of Christians, millions of refugees, and terrorist attacks in Paris and elsewhere in the interim.

From the transcript featuring one Colonel Steve Warren, Operation Inherent Resolve Spokesman, on November 18th, here at the DOD:

In Al-Bukamal, we destroyed 116 tanker trucks, which we believe will reduce ISIL's ability to transport its stolen oil products. This is our first strike against tanker trucks, and to minimize risks to civilians, we conducted a leaflet drop prior to the strike. We did a show of force, by -- we had aircraft essentially buzz the trucks at low altitude. So, I do have copy of the leaflet, and I have got some videos, so why don't you pull the leaflet up. Let me take a look at it so I can talk about it. As you can see, it's a fairly simple leaflet, it says, "Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them." A very simple message. And then, also, "Warning: airstrikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life."

And so, these are the leaflets that we dropped -- about 45 minutes before the airstrikes actually began. Again, we combine these leaflet drops with very low altitude passes of some of our attack aviation, which sends a very powerful message. ...

So, we spend some time developing some TTPs that I read out earlier -- the leaflets, the low pass. We did some -- I didn't mention in my open, but we did some strafe runs as well -- to kind of shoo people away without harming them. So we had to go through that whole process of one, determining whether or not we felt it was in our best interest to strike these trucks. And then once we determined that, yes, it is in our interest to strike these trucks, how do we go about ensuring that we're able to mitigate the potential of civilian casualties? ...

So these trucks were -- they were just sitting there, not moving. So, you know, we dropped the leaflets. We did a low pass. We chased any of the -- you know, the truck drivers away, and we destroyed them. So, they weren't moving. They were all, as you saw on the video, they were all stationary. Nothing was driving anywhere. So it was a pretty straightforward, you know, attack.

Looming global financial catastrophe: Anglo-Saxon pioneers of QE have yet to pay its price

William White, former chief economist to the Bank for International Settlements, quoted here:

Those who argue that the US and the UK are growing faster than Europe because they carried out QE early are confusing "correlation with causality". The Anglo-Saxon pioneers have yet to pay the price. "It ain't over until the fat lady sings. There are serious side-effects building up and we don't know what will happen when they try to reverse what they have done."

Speaking of Grubers, this, from the things you thought were true but are not department

Adolf Hitler was not a Schicklgruber, and proven not to be already in the early 1950s, as recounted here in 1990 in the New York Times:

'Almost 40 years ago, however, in ''Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,'' which remains a standard biography of Hitler, Alan Bullock exploded this myth. Bullock noted that Hitler's father, Alois, had been born out of wedlock to Maria Anna Schicklgruber.

'Eventually, the acknowledged father, Johann Georg Heidler, married Maria, but he never bothered to legitimize his son.

'In 1876, however, the brother of Johann Georg Heidler, then dead, took the necessary steps to legitimize Alois and legally change his name. Thus, records Bullock, ''From the beginning of 1877, 12 years before Adolf was born, his father called himself Hitler, and his son was never known by any other name until his opponents dug up this long-forgotten village scandal and tried, without justification, to label him with his grandmother's name of Schicklgruber.'''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter to the editor of the Times points out that the Schicklgruber myth was perhaps the most successful propaganda victory of American psychological warfare experts, believed even by the Times in 1990.

Warren Buffett, Amoral Crony Capitalist, Bought An Indulgence From The Left

So says Daniel Mitchell of The Cato Institute, here:

"If you’re an amoral person with political connections, it’s possible to make a lot of money.

"Warren Buffett lined his pockets by making a government-subsidized investment in Goldman Sachs during the financial crisis.

"The rest of us suffered and he got richer, but the left seems to be okay with that perverse form of redistribution because he supports class-warfare tax hikes. Sort of like buying an indulgence in the Middle Ages."

I really like that analogy with the church because it speaks to the failure of all idealist conceptions to deliver on what they promise. This is as true of socialism as it is of capitalism, of fascism as it is of Christianity. All offer a promised land which never seems to arrive, but you have to ask yourself who thought this stuff up.

Like beer to Homer Simpson, it is we who are the cause of and the solution to all of life's problems.

Michigan Gov. Snyder Is 83% Correct On Ballot Proposals

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder is 83% correct on the 6 ballot proposals facing voters in Tuesday's elections. He's against all of them except Number 1, the emergency manager law, according to this story in the Detroit Free Press, here:

A gubernatorial bus tour hit Sterling Heights today to reinforce Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's message to vote yes on Proposal 1, no on the rest. ... Proposal 1 asks if the emergency manager law should stay in place. Proposal 2-6 are constitutional amendments that would protect collective bargaining, require utilities to use more renewable energy, put union rights in place for home health care workers, require a two-thirds vote in the legislature for any tax changes and require a vote of the people before an international bridge or tunnel could be built.

Amending the constitution is simply a way for legislators to avoid responsibility for taking a stand on these issues. And Michiganders seem hell bent on helping them do just that when they already have the option of punishing representatives at the polls for voting contrary to their wishes on the matters. They should exercise that option. If government isn't representing the people to their satisfaction, I suggest increasing representation, not sabotaging it by making such representation as we have even less representative by going over its head. Amending the constitution over and over again is nuclear warfare against our form of government.

The first proposal is really the same sort of thing, but if the voters really hate the emergency manager law then they should throw the bums out who passed it. Going over their heads to a ballot proposal really takes the heat off of them when it should really be on them all the more if it's such a bad law.

I happen to think it's a bad law, but I'd rather vote against my representatives who passed it.

Unfortunately, the horse is already out of the barn on this one.

Russian Attack Sub Punks Obama's Navy In Gulf Of Mexico For A MONTH

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars abroad on nation building and protecting US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf, Obama's US Navy continues to go to hell in a handbasket, and along with it the very security of the US mainland.

A Russian attack sub operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for weeks in June and July, armed with nuclear-warhead-equipped cruise missiles in easy range of Kings Bay, Georgia:

The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles. ...

The Navy is facing sharp cuts in forces needed to detect and counter such submarine activity.

The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017.

The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

Bill Gertz has the story here, detailing the growing threat being orchestrated by our Russian enemy Vladimir Putin in our own backyard in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the arctic. 

David Stockman Misses An Opportunity: The Warfare State IS The Welfare State

The New York Times is only happy enough to run an op-ed from David Stockman, here, attacking the phony conservatism of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan, in which he rather relishes pointing out, among other things, that when push came to shove Rep. Paul Ryan "folded like a lawn chair" and voted for TARP:

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Mr. Stockman never once calls this Republicanism what it is. I suppose if he had the Times wouldn't have printed it. And I don't know how he really could since his family is allied with liberal social positions anyway. Paul Ryan isn't the only phony conservative liberal around.

But the truth is (someone's got to say it) the warfare state since Reagan is another consequence of liberalism, expressed as a failure of nerve with respect to conscription. Good wars are wars for which Americans more or less readily submit to the draft, fight successfully and end relatively quickly. They have the consent of the governed and are representative wars, conducted as they are by a cross-section of the population. Bad wars don't have the consent of the governed. And so these must emphasize among other things protecting warriors and civilians, not destroying the enemy's ability to make war, and are all too often fought to draws after protracted efforts. These cannot be conducted except with compliant volunteers, who come from more or less distinct sectors of American society: the South, and poor minorities. And these volunteers require enducements in addition to a commitment from government to their safety, such as citizenship, a college education, or a pension. As in the private sector, the military's single biggest cost is personnel, which explains perhaps more than anything the drive to mechanized war in a new form, the vanguard of which is drone technology. Can The Terminator be far behind?

The war in Afghanistan would be long over if we had destroyed its infrastructure, annihilated its people, and salted its poppy fields. But we couldn't do that. That would have been a war crime. And besides, where we would get our drugs then?

Liberalism, you see.


"Yet Reason frowns on war's unequal game,
Where wasted nations raise a single name,
And mortgaged states their grandsires' wreaths regret,
From age to age in everlasting debt;
Wreaths which at last the dear-bought right convey
To rust on medals, or on stones decay."

-- Samuel Johnson

Obama Plagiarizes Elizabeth Warren, But She's The More Articulate Redistributionist

Obama quoted here on Saturday:

Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.

Elizabeth Warren quoted here last September:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

All the social contributions claimed to have been made by others by these two wack jobs were also made by the successful business builders, in addition to their own superlative efforts, but those go unacknowledged by Obama and Warren.

The biggest lies are always about what is left out. 

Obama is a leech . . .

. . . and the IRS can go audit itself.

Oh the delights we enjoy from PJ O'Rourke, here, who proposes a 35 percent tax on the federal budget, which will eliminate its current deficit. Problem solved!

Have another beer!

Now Add "Shorters" to "Truthers" and "Birthers" in Conspiracy Theory Pantheon

I kid you not:

Another economic warfare tool that was linked in the report to the 2008 crash is what is called “naked short-selling” of stock, defined as short-selling financial shares without borrowing them.

The report said that 30 percent to 70 percent of the decline in stock share values for two companies that were attacked, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were results of failed trades from naked short-selling.

The collapse in September 2008 of Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest U.S. investment bank, was the most significant event in the crash, causing an immediate credit freeze and stock market crash, the report says.

In a section of who was behind the collapse, the report says determining the actors is difficult because of banking and financial trading secrecy.

“The reality of the situation today is that foreign-based hedge funds perpetrating bear raid strategies could do so virtually unmonitored and unregulated on behalf of enemies of the United States,” the report says.

For the complete story at The Washington Times, go here.

The paranoid style in America lives to die another day!

Is Ron Paul the Republicans' Dennis Kucinich?

He was one of just three Republicans in the US House to vote with the Democrats today to send a bill to the Senate which extends the Bush tax cuts only to those making less than $250,000/$200,000.

Can't wait to hear from Dennis Ron the chapter and verse from the US Constitution which allowed him to vote Yea on a tax increase for only "wealthy" Americans.

TheHill.com reports here the independent Democrats who voted against Pelosi's class-warfare tax increase bill on the "rich":

Here are the Democrats who voted against the bill (nine of whom lost their reelection bids):

Rep. Brian Baird (Wash.)

Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)

Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)

Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.)

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) 

Rep. Ron Klein (Fla.)

Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (N.C.)

Rep. Mike McMahon (N.Y.)

Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)

Rep. Walt Minnick (Idaho)

Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)

Rep. Jim Moran (Va.) 

Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.)

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) 

Rep. Bobby Scott (Va.)

Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.)

Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)

Rep. Pete Visclosky (Ind.)

Among the brave above who were re-elected to return next year I count Dan Boren, Lloyd Doggett, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Jerry McNerney, Gwen Moore, Jim Moran, Collin Peterson, Bobby Scott, Mike Thompson, and Pete Visclosky. 

Why couldn't the three Republicans have been more like these eleven Democrats and voted No?

Libertarians are nuts.

Was Monday's California Missile Launch a Chinese Cruise Missile?

Did history just rhyme on Monday with an incident which embarrassed the US Navy back in October 2006? Has the People's Liberation Army been (California) dreamin' about this since 1996?

Consider this from James Kraska, a former adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

In 1999, the PLA Navy introduced the sophisticated Song-class diesel electric submarine. Reportedly quieter than the fast attack US Los Angeles-class boats, the Song was equipped with wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles. In one incident in October 2006, one of the ultra-quiet Song submarines surfaced inside the protective screen of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. Admiral Gary Roughead, who was commander of the US Pacific Fleet and who would later go on to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was visiting China at the time of the incident. In 1996, at the end of the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, PLA General Xiong Guangkai warned a visiting US envoy, ‘‘. . . you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei.’’ ...


[T]he US Pacific Fleet was in panic after the Kitty Hawk embarrassment over its vulnerability to Chinese diesel-electric boats.


In the decades after the end of the Cold War, China closed the gap in naval capability, even surpassing the United States in some areas in terms of both quantity and quality of platforms. For example, China concentrated on advancing its large diesel-electric submarine force. Sweden became the first nation to develop a diesel-electric submarine with air-independent propulsion (AIP), which extended underwater endurance from a few days to one month. The first in class of these vessels, the HMS Gotland, was leased by the US Navy for two years in order to practice anti-submarine warfare. The Gotland proved extremely quiet and effective, and AIP submarines are able to sprint under water—greatly increasing their attack radius. China integrated AIP technology into the Type 041 Yuan-class boats, which followed the Song. Having launched several of these smaller, stealthy boats each year since 2004, a decade later, the US Seventh Fleet could never be certain whether China was shadowing US vessels.


Monday's incident could have been a shot across our bow, meant to embarrass the president in his own backyard while he's visiting in theirs.