Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. – Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977-1981 NSA advisor to president Jimmy Carter
World Military Spending Out Does Anything Else
Military spending costs a lot … and “someone” receives all this moneypaid by all taxpayers
- The world spends some $1,500 billion (1.5 trillion) annually on the military [military expenditure ]
- U.S. military spending – Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons – is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.
SOURCE: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, armscontrolcenter.org
- The United States accounts for 47 percent of the world’s total military spending, however the U.S.’s share of the world’s GDP is about 21 percent.
- The Arms Trade is Big Business: In recent years, annual sales of arms reached 50-60 billion dollars
In this post we present a defense contractor report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, the Pentagon’s think tank on future warfare, which describes in detail China’s “Three Warfares” as psychological, media, and legal operations. According to the report, they represent an asymmetric “military technology” that is a surrogate for conflict involving nuclear and conventional weapons.
The report is a perfect example of how warmongers try to scare/brainwash people so they would possibly consider a “preemptive war” (and the way out of debt?). It is a classic example of military hypocrisy* in action…
*Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
Note: added commentary in blue (is not part of the original article quoted)
Warfare Three Ways
China waging ‘Three Warfares’ against United States in Asia, Pentagon says
by Bill Gertz
March 26, 2014
China is waging political warfare against the United States as part of a strategy to drive the U.S. military out of Asia and control seas near its coasts, according to a Pentagon-sponsored study.
Considering Asia is not part of US territory, U.S. has no reason to control this area (read what Ron Paul says about it).
A defense contractor report produced for the Office of Net Assessment, the Pentagon’s think tank on future warfare, describes in detail China’s “Three Warfares” as psychological, media, and legal operations. They represent an asymmetric “military technology” that is a surrogate for conflict involving nuclear and conventional weapons.
The unclassified 566-page report warns that the U.S. government and the military lack effective tools for countering the non-kinetic warfare methods, and notes that U.S. military academies do not teach future military leaders about the Chinese use of unconventional warfare. It urges greater efforts to understand the threat and adopt steps to counter it.
The report highlights China’s use of the Three Warfares in various disputes, including dangerous encounters between U.S. and Chinese warships; the crisis over the 2001 mid-air collision between a U.S. EP-3E surveillance plane and a Chinese jet; and China’s growing aggressiveness in various maritime disputes in the South China and East China Seas.
“The Three Warfares is a dynamic three dimensional war-fighting process that constitutes war by other means,” said Cambridge University professor Stefan Halper, who directed the study. “It is China’s weapon of choice in the South China Sea.”
Seven other China specialists, including former Reagan Pentagon policymaker Michael Pillsbury, contributed to the study. A copy of the assessment was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Disclosure of the report is unusual as most studies produced for the Office of Net Assessment are withheld from public release.
The May 2013 report was written before the dangerous near collision in the South China Sea last December between the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens and a Chinese naval vessel. Senior defense officials said the incident could have led to a larger military “miscalculation” between the two nations.
Chinese state media falsely blamed the United States for the incident and falsely asserted that it had declared a no-sail zone prior to the Dec. 5 encounter. The zone was imposed after that date.
How can we be sure the blame was false (read who really started the Vietnam war; On 4 August 1964, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson erroneously claimed that North Vietnamese forces had twice attacked American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. This ultimately lead towar between the United States and North Vietnam).
According to the final Pentagon report, China’s use of Three Warfares is based on the notion that the modern information age has rendered nuclear weapons unusable and conventional conflict too problematic for achieving political goals. China’s goals are to acquire resources, influence, and territory and to project national will.
The U.S. military has been doing this very aggressively since the WWII (read about reasoning for sending its military forces to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, with push to control Syria and Iran).
Check out this post: WW III – Who wrote that script…?
“China’s Three Warfares [are] designed to counter U.S. power projection,” the report says. “The United States is one of four key audiences targeted by the campaign, as part of China’s broader military strategy of ‘anti-access/area denial’ in the South China Sea.”
The Pentagon regards China’s high-technology arms, such as anti-satellite missiles and cyber warfare capabilities, as arms designed to prevent the U.S. military from entering the region or operating freely there.
Perhaps all countries should have sufficient defenses to prevent other military from “entering the region and operating freely” on their own territory?
The study concludes that in the decade ahead China will employ unconventional warfare techniques on issues ranging from the Senkaku Islands dispute in northeast Asia to the disputed Paracels in the South China Sea.
For the United States, the Three Warfares seek to curtail U.S. power projection in Asia that is needed to support allies, such as Japan and South Korea, and to assure freedom of navigation by attempting to set terms for allowing U.S. access to the region.
The use of psychological, media, and legal attacks by China is part of an effort to raise “doubts about the legitimacy of the U.S. presence.”
Is U.S. presence in countries and regions other than their own really legitimate? If so, who made it legal?
The use of the techniques threatens to limit U.S. power projection in the region through influence operations that “diminish or rupture U.S. ties with the South China Sea littoral states and deter governments from providing forward basing facilities or other support,” the report says.
Another goal of the Chinese is to limit U.S. surveillance operations through harassment of aircraft and ships and to try and restrict routine U.S. Navy deployments.
And who likes to be subjected to spying (read about Snowden’s disclosure about NSA illegal spying program).
China is also using the Three Warfares to facilitate its military expansion and global reach, and to secure sea-lanes needed to transport vitally needed oil from the Middle East.
The Pentagon study urged the development of effective countermeasures to Beijing’s psychological, legal, and media warfare efforts.
They include forceful legal action to challenge China’s so-called “lawfare” initiatives, high profile statements of U.S. security support for states in the region, and expanded support for regional political forums.
Militarily, the United States should continue reconnaissance missions by U.S. ships and aircraft and protect them with force protection weapons to deter harassment or attack. Clear rules of engagement should be developed to prevent a recurrence of the 2001 EP-3E incident.
Increased naval exercises and more “freedom of navigation” exercises also should be held within China’s exclusive economic zones in the region to counter Beijing’s claims in disputed waters.
The report also calls for bolstering “public diplomacy” campaigns in Asia, using targeted investment and development in the region, and expanding military talks and exchanges.
It has been done many times to the developing countries of the world – read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”; Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.
Another book worth reading: “A Game as Old as Empire: the Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption”. The book includes first hand reports, third-party accounts, and analysis of practices said to be used by multinational corporations, governments, quasi-governmental agencies, and financial institutions.
The Pentagon defines psychological warfare as efforts to influence or disrupt an enemy’s decision-making capabilities, to create doubts, foment anti-leadership sentiments, and deceive opponents. Psychological warfare includes diplomatic pressure, rumors, false narratives, and harassment to “express displeasure, assert hegemony, and convey threats,” the report said.
It seems US has mastered psychological warfare long time ago…
For example, China’s economy has been used to threaten the United States with the sale of its large U.S. debt holdings, and state-controlled Chinese businesses have pressured U.S. businesses in China. Boycotts, restrictions on critical exports, such as rare earth minerals, and threats to use predatory trade practices are other Chinese soft warfare means.
China Now Owns a Record $1.317T of U.S. Government Debt [ source>> ] . This is what US owes China as the result of their own actions!
We can only wonder if this debt will ever be paid back. Of course US can print money without limits – but this may not be good enough if the US economy falls apart…
After the passing in early January 2013 of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 to avert the projected fiscal cliff, political attention shifted to the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling had technically been reached on December 31, 2012, when the Treasury Department commenced “extraordinary measures” to enable the continued financing of the government.
“The debt limit does not control or limit the ability of the federal government to run deficits or incur obligations. Rather, it is a limit on the ability to pay obligations already incurred.” It does not prohibit Congress from creating further obligations upon the United States. The ceiling was raised to $16.4 trillion in 2011 and increased again in 2013.
On December 12, 2013, debt held by the public was approximately $12.312 trillion or about 73% of Q3 2013 GDP Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.9 trillion (29%), giving a combined total public debt of $17.226 trillion or over 100% GDP. As of January 2013, $5 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the People’s Republic of China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.
For media warfare, also known as public opinion warfare, the Chinese use constant activities to influence perceptions and attitudes.
“It leverages all instruments that inform and influence public opinion including films, television programs, books, the internet, and the global media network (particularly Xinhua and CCTV) and is undertaken nationally by the [People’s Liberation Army], locally by the People’s Armed Police, and is directed against domestic populations in target countries,” the report said.
Hollywood has also been influenced by threats from the Chinese government, which threatens to block market access in an effort to pressure movie studios to avoid themes Beijing opposes.
Also, China’s state-controlled television network CCTV maintains a full time White House reporter who regularly joins the rotating media pool, a position that could permit influencing U.S. media on China through pool reports.
The goal of media warfare is to weaken an enemy’s will to fight, alter its awareness, and assist psychological and legal warfare goals.
As far as media warfare is concerned, Chinese are learning from the masters of media warfare (U.S.)
Legal warfare exploits laws to achieve political or commercial objectives.
China has used lawfare to bolster its territorial claims. An example was the designation of the South China Sea village of Sansha, on the disputed Paracel Islands, as part of Hainan Prefecture. The legal measure sought to extend China’s control far into the South China Sea. Vietnam, Philippines, and other states have claimed the islands.
Tools used in lawfare include domestic laws, international legislation, judicial law, legal pronouncements, and law enforcement. They are often used in combination.
The report warns that the three types of unconventional warfare addressed individually are “manageable” problems, but taken together they challenge traditional U.S. concepts of war.
“Our war colleges and military research traditions emphasize kinetic exchange, the positioning and destruction of assets, and metrics that measure success by kill ratios and infrastructure destruction,” the report said. “By adopting the Three Warfares as an offensive weapon, the Chinese have side-stepped the coda of American military science.”
It seems that “brute force” methods to control populations and countries are becoming obsolete in our modern times. But why bother classifying non-military actions (legal, media, psychology) as military? People are not stupid and if world governments become transparent and accountable, people will most likely choose peace over war. Stop aggressive actions, lying and spying so balance and harmony can return to the world.
The use of these warfare techniques allows China to achieve strategic objectives using a new military technology that has not been considered in the past by the West.
To solve the problem, the report recommends setting up a White House office to coordinate countermeasures to the Three Warfares.
“If the Three Warfares is not a ‘game changer,’ it certainly has the capacity to modify the game in substantial ways,” the report said.
- – -
Article source: The Washington Free Beacon
Also posted by FoxNews >>
So, who do we blame for that?
PS U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending
April 24, 2013
In 2012, the most recent year for which complete data is available, the U.S. approved $645.7 billion in defense budget authority (fiscal year 2013 dollars). This figure includes funding for the Pentagon base budget, Department of Energy-administered nuclear weapons activities, and the war in Afghanistan.
This number is six times more than China, 11 times more than Russia, 27 times more than Iran and 33 times more than Israel. Though China is often cited as the country’s next great military adversary, U.S. military spending currently doubles that of all of the countries in Asia combined. In 2012, the U.S. consumed 41 percent of total global military spending. The U.S. also remained in the top 10 highest spending countries as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), one widespread measure of military spending, trailing behind countries such as Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, all of which have a significantly lower total military expenditure as well as a lower total GDP. ( U.S. figure includes funding for the Pentagon base budget, Department of Energy-administered nuclear weapons activities, and the war in Afghanistan. Data from Congressional Research Service, Office of Management and Budget, and International Institute for Strategic Studies.)
(budget authority in billions of current U.S. dollars)
|Country or Region||2012 Spending|
|United States (including war and nuclear)||645.7|
|Middle East and North Africa||166.4|
|Russia and Eurasia||69.3|
|Latin America and The Caribbean||68.8|
New Obama Budget Slashes Nonproliferation
March 6, 2014
“We know there is nearly 2,000 metric tons of this [nuclear] material spread across hundreds of sites in 25 countries, and we know much of it is not effectively secured. We know that terrorists would only need enough highly enriched uranium to fit into a 5-pound bag of sugar or an amount of plutonium the size of a grapefruit.” — Former Senator Sam Nunn, Jan. 8, 2014
In its Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Obama administration made it resoundingly clear that it is in a full-on retreat from accelerating the security of nuclear and radiological materials around the globe.
This decision is difficult to fathom, given that as recently as this week the President stated that the number one thing that keeps him up at night is “loose nukes.” Likewise the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review identified nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger.”
For the third year in a row the NNSA budget submission continues a disturbing trend of funding nuclear weapons and other programs at the expense of core nuclear and radiological material security programs. This year, the tradeoff is starker than it has ever been.
Read More: New Obama Budget Slashes Nonproliferation
Worldwide race (towards mutually assured self-destruction)
The U.S. is leading the development race for the hypersonic glide vehicle HGV. The U.S. is now developing a system called “Prompt Global Strike” that can bomb anywhere in the world within an hour. HGV is one of the key technologies for building this system. Washington has reportedly already conducted a successful test flight of a hypersonic vehicle.
Russia and India are also said to be trying to develop HGVs. In Japan, the government-affiliated space agency, known as JAXA, is developing a turbojet engine for hypersonic aircraft, albeit for civilian use.
But China’s successful January (2014) test of a new ultra-high speed missile vehicle means that the country now takes second place in this global development race, behind the U.S. There is no doubt that China has significantly enhanced its weapon development capabilities. Beijing shows no sign of letting up its rapid military build-up, with defense spending set to surge ahead at a double-digit pace again this year.