Maybe not, he was allegedly caught trying to lure Chinese females (maybe even under 18). Some of the other independent pro-china twitter people (not paid by a organize group) has keep away from him since.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Maybe not, he was allegedly caught trying to lure Chinese females (maybe even under 18). Some of the other independent pro-china twitter people (not paid by a organize group) has keep away from him since.
Yes in addition to possible being a creep, he also has questionable history with right wing group in Britain.
LACK OF POLITICAL SENSITIVY IS LITERALLY KILLING THEIR CAREERS AND LIVES -- THERE IS NO PLACE AND NO EXCUSE FOR SUCH NAIVETY IN TODAY'S WORLD!!!
The Chinese-version of the Global Times' article on VERITE & BCI Xinjiang Cotton -- but this political insensitivity part seems to be absent from the English article.
An investigation by the state security agency found that this is how the report on "Forced labor in Xinjiang" was fabricated in the West
According to the Global Times, Liu Min and Zhang Wen, the drafters of the report, have been greatly troubled in their work and life. "I'm very patriotic, but I didn't expect to be involved in an incident like this that would endanger national security. It's a big personal blow." Mr Zhang said.
"In the past ten years of work and life, I never thought that I might be suspected of violating national security laws and regulations. In recent months, I have been under great psychological pressure and my work has stalled."
Liu Min said that she was not sure why Yao Wenjuan chose to arrange her and Zhang Wen to participate in the project. "Maybe it was because she thought we lacked political sensitivity and saw that we didn't know how to refuse. In the early stage of writing the report, we all had normal email exchanges and meetings, but after the report was submitted, she told us to delete relevant materials and emails. This practice is not normal, which shows that Yao Wenjuan knows the sensitivity of this matter. Under her arrangement, we were involved in this matter and our personal rights and interests were damaged. I must retain relevant legal rights."
国家安全机关调查发现，西方是这样炮制“新疆强迫劳动”报告的
2021/08/04
《环球时报》记者通过采访了解到，报告起草人刘敏和张文的工作和生活已受到很大困扰。“我很爱国，但没想到会卷入这样一桩危害国家安全的事件，这对我个人而言是一个很大的打击。”张文说。
“在过去十多年的工作和生活中，我从来没想过自己可能涉嫌触犯国家安全法律法规。这几个月，我的心理压力很大，工作陷入停滞状态。”刘敏说，她不确定姚文娟为何选择安排她和张文参与该项目，“也许是因为，她认为我们缺乏政治敏感，同时看出来我们不太懂得拒绝。撰写报告前期，我们都是进行正常的邮件往来、开会，但报告提交后，她才告诉我们要把相关资料和邮件删除，这种做法就不正常，说明姚文娟知道这件事的敏感性。在她的安排下，我们卷入了这件事，个人权益遭损害，我肯定要保留相关法律权利。”
bajingan
Senior Member
anglos experiencing five stages of grief in responding to China unstoppable rise
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance
Looks like China rapid nuclear build up serves to accelerate that grief process to the last stage which is acceptance lmao
Speaking of the five stages, here's another great one that made me laugh heartily today:
I didn't realise how important it was for Anglos to feel like they were supreme hegemon of the world until the australian prime minister ScoMo decide to raise an international incident because of WuHeqiLin's artwork. Now that's anglo white fragility right there.
It's one thing to be criticised by China, another thing to feel patronised and forced to acknowledge the material and spiritual superiority of China, to which these anglos can only react violently.
US ‘large-scale’ military exercises cannot scare China, Russia: GLOBAL TIMES EDITORIAL (05 AUGUST 2021)
The US has begun two "large-scale" military exercises. The first is a joint Indo-Pacific military exercise led by the US Indo-Pacific Command with the participation of Japan, Australia and the UK. The other is the "Large-Scale Exercise 2021" held by US Navy around the world and is reportedly the largest naval exercise since 1981. A US military scholar told media that it is intended to demonstrate to China and Russia that US naval forces can simultaneously meet challenges in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, South China Sea and East China Sea.
The US wants to awe China and Russia by flexing its muscles in a miscalculated move. China will hold military exercises from Friday to Tuesday in a vast area in the South China Sea between Hainan and Xisha Islands, as a response to the joint Indo-Pacific military exercise. Neither China nor Russia has the intention to compete for the command of the seas with the US, but both have the ability and determination to despise US coercion in areas that concern their core interests.
With current modern technologies, major powers have enough capability to destroy all targets within certain distances. The US Navy has built a global capability that helps sustain the loyalty of its allies. But if the US engages in a real war with China and Russia, its naval strength will not be able to survive. For big powers, navies are more of a showcase of strength and resolve. A gamble-like test is needed to see their real effect in modern wars. We hope such a test would never come.
(…)
The US has begun two "large-scale" military exercises. The first is a joint Indo-Pacific military exercise led by the US Indo-Pacific Command with the participation of Japan, Australia and the UK. The other is the "Large-Scale Exercise 2021" held by US Navy around the world and is reportedly the largest naval exercise since 1981. A US military scholar told media that it is intended to demonstrate to China and Russia that US naval forces can simultaneously meet challenges in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, South China Sea and East China Sea.
The US wants to awe China and Russia by flexing its muscles in a miscalculated move. China will hold military exercises from Friday to Tuesday in a vast area in the South China Sea between Hainan and Xisha Islands, as a response to the joint Indo-Pacific military exercise. Neither China nor Russia has the intention to compete for the command of the seas with the US, but both have the ability and determination to despise US coercion in areas that concern their core interests.
With current modern technologies, major powers have enough capability to destroy all targets within certain distances. The US Navy has built a global capability that helps sustain the loyalty of its allies. But if the US engages in a real war with China and Russia, its naval strength will not be able to survive. For big powers, navies are more of a showcase of strength and resolve. A gamble-like test is needed to see their real effect in modern wars. We hope such a test would never come.
(…)
A US-Sino nuclear arms race is already underway – and we know who the winner will be
By SCOTT RITTER, RT - 02 August 2021
The author is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, he served as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty in the Soviet Union, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector
...
Beginning in the 1970’s, China began developing solid-fuel rockets for use as mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The first of these, the DF-31, was deployed in 2006, as a road-mobile system. By 2013, the Chinese produced and fielded an improved version, the DF-31A. The DF-31 is armed with a single nuclear warhead. In 2016, China completed testing for a more modern solid-fuel ICBM, the DF-41, which has begun to enter service as a mobile missile. The DF-41 carries 10 independently targeted nuclear warheads.
Between the DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 missile systems, China was assessed, as of 2019, of possessing around 218 nuclear warheads (It has an additional 68 nuclear warheads carried on submarines and manned bombers.) But even with this mix of silo-based DF-5s and mobile DF-31/41 missiles, China believed its forces remained vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike by American nuclear and, increasingly, conventional forces. This concern appeared to be magnified in the aftermath of the American withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019, and the emerging threat of intermediate-range missiles appearing on the periphery of China’s borders.
The first sign that China was adapting to this new reality came in the form of significant improvements and additions to its massive Jilantai training area, located near the city of Jilantai in China’s Inner Mongolia province. Constructed in 2013, the Jilantai training area was the premier training grounds for the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force, with specialized training constructed for both silo- and mobile-missile operations. Around 2016, however, China began constructing new silos that appeared to be too small to hold the massive DF-5, leading Western analysts to assess that the Chinese were preparing to house their solid-fuel ICBMs, either the DF-31, DF-41 or both, in a silo configuration.
The importance of this distinction is that, while mobility provides for an element of survivability in a classic nuclear exchange scenario, the mobile missiles are vulnerable to loiter weapons, such as armed drones, or precision stand-off weapons, such as the kind of ground-launched cruise missiles being developed by the US in the post-INF treaty era. By placing some of its solid fuel ICBMs in silos, China virtually eliminates the threat from drones and cruise missiles, and because these missiles don’t have to be fueled, reduces the vulnerability to US strategic nuclear weapons such as the Trident D5.
The scope and scale of the silo construction led some analysts to conclude that perhaps the Jilantai training area was going to assume a limited operational posture, based upon the number of silos under construction. This assessment was made moot, however, by the discovery of what many analysts believe is a massive missile base, containing 120 silos, under construction near Yumen in Gansu province, and another, containing a potential 110 additional silos, near the city of Hami in Eastern Xinjiang province.
These silos appear to be similar to the new ones seen at the Jilantai training area, leading analysts to assess that the Chinese intend to load them with either the DF-31, DF-41 or both. Many analysts believe that China may opt only to load a few of these silos with missiles, creating the potential for a “shell game” defense that would complicate nuclear targeting by the US. But even if only 80 of these silos were loaded with DF-41 ICBMs, China’s warhead total would expand considerably, adding up to 800 new warheads to their arsenal.
While China has not publicly released a new nuclear posture statement that supersedes the 2006 White Paper, the construction of new missile silos configured to hold solid-fuel ICBMs possessing multiple warheads changes the nuclear posture options for China. The most likely change is to transition from a pure retaliatory strike capability (“counterattack in self-defense”) to a launch-on-warning posture, which means the Chinese missiles would leave their silos when an attack was detected instead of waiting for a nuclear attack to actually occur. Given China’s declared nuclear policy, a launch-on-warning posture allows China to retain its no-first-use policy while simultaneously ensuring the survivability of its nuclear forces.
However, if one is an American strategic nuclear planner, one cannot ignore the reality that China is edging close to having a legitimate first-strike capability, especially if it places missiles in every one of the silos under construction. Faced with a potential first-strike capability from both Russia and China, and in light of the growing cooperation between Russia and China on defense issues regarding what both nations view as the growing threat from the United States, the US may be compelled to look at increasing its nuclear arsenal, or dramatically altering its own nuclear force posture and composition, in order to match this emerging threat. This, however, would be a prohibitively expensive proposition.
The bottom line, however, is that China appears to have breached its commitment “never to engage in a nuclear arms race of any kind.” The facts show that China entered this new phase of nuclear weapons development and deployment as a reaction to developments by potential adversaries (i.e., the US), but let there be no doubt –- this is an arms race. The placement of the Chinese silo bases appears, by intent, to be outside the range of anticipated US intermediate-range weapons, such as cruise missiles, meaning that there will be increased pressure placed on the States to field a new generation of silo-based ICBMs to replace the aging Minuteman III missiles, as well as a new generation of submarine-launched missiles and missile-carrying submarines, and a new generation of manned bomber -– all in numbers greater than current forecasts call for.
The US cannot afford to enter this kind of arms race with China. Simply put, China has out Ronald Reagan-ed the US, flipping the Cold War theory that the US outspent the Soviet Union, bankrupting it, and accelerating its collapse on its head, so that it’s the US that’s being outspent, bankrupting itself, and pushing itself closer to collapse. Hopefully, the US leadership is wiser than their Soviet counterparts before them. But, if history has shown us anything, the US is addicted to the power it believes it accrues by possessing a large nuclear weapons arsenal, and like any addict, liberating oneself from its drug of choice is difficult, if not impossible.
(...)
By SCOTT RITTER, RT - 02 August 2021
The author is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, he served as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty in the Soviet Union, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector
...
Beginning in the 1970’s, China began developing solid-fuel rockets for use as mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The first of these, the DF-31, was deployed in 2006, as a road-mobile system. By 2013, the Chinese produced and fielded an improved version, the DF-31A. The DF-31 is armed with a single nuclear warhead. In 2016, China completed testing for a more modern solid-fuel ICBM, the DF-41, which has begun to enter service as a mobile missile. The DF-41 carries 10 independently targeted nuclear warheads.
Between the DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 missile systems, China was assessed, as of 2019, of possessing around 218 nuclear warheads (It has an additional 68 nuclear warheads carried on submarines and manned bombers.) But even with this mix of silo-based DF-5s and mobile DF-31/41 missiles, China believed its forces remained vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike by American nuclear and, increasingly, conventional forces. This concern appeared to be magnified in the aftermath of the American withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 2019, and the emerging threat of intermediate-range missiles appearing on the periphery of China’s borders.
The first sign that China was adapting to this new reality came in the form of significant improvements and additions to its massive Jilantai training area, located near the city of Jilantai in China’s Inner Mongolia province. Constructed in 2013, the Jilantai training area was the premier training grounds for the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force, with specialized training constructed for both silo- and mobile-missile operations. Around 2016, however, China began constructing new silos that appeared to be too small to hold the massive DF-5, leading Western analysts to assess that the Chinese were preparing to house their solid-fuel ICBMs, either the DF-31, DF-41 or both, in a silo configuration.
The importance of this distinction is that, while mobility provides for an element of survivability in a classic nuclear exchange scenario, the mobile missiles are vulnerable to loiter weapons, such as armed drones, or precision stand-off weapons, such as the kind of ground-launched cruise missiles being developed by the US in the post-INF treaty era. By placing some of its solid fuel ICBMs in silos, China virtually eliminates the threat from drones and cruise missiles, and because these missiles don’t have to be fueled, reduces the vulnerability to US strategic nuclear weapons such as the Trident D5.
The scope and scale of the silo construction led some analysts to conclude that perhaps the Jilantai training area was going to assume a limited operational posture, based upon the number of silos under construction. This assessment was made moot, however, by the discovery of what many analysts believe is a massive missile base, containing 120 silos, under construction near Yumen in Gansu province, and another, containing a potential 110 additional silos, near the city of Hami in Eastern Xinjiang province.
These silos appear to be similar to the new ones seen at the Jilantai training area, leading analysts to assess that the Chinese intend to load them with either the DF-31, DF-41 or both. Many analysts believe that China may opt only to load a few of these silos with missiles, creating the potential for a “shell game” defense that would complicate nuclear targeting by the US. But even if only 80 of these silos were loaded with DF-41 ICBMs, China’s warhead total would expand considerably, adding up to 800 new warheads to their arsenal.
While China has not publicly released a new nuclear posture statement that supersedes the 2006 White Paper, the construction of new missile silos configured to hold solid-fuel ICBMs possessing multiple warheads changes the nuclear posture options for China. The most likely change is to transition from a pure retaliatory strike capability (“counterattack in self-defense”) to a launch-on-warning posture, which means the Chinese missiles would leave their silos when an attack was detected instead of waiting for a nuclear attack to actually occur. Given China’s declared nuclear policy, a launch-on-warning posture allows China to retain its no-first-use policy while simultaneously ensuring the survivability of its nuclear forces.
However, if one is an American strategic nuclear planner, one cannot ignore the reality that China is edging close to having a legitimate first-strike capability, especially if it places missiles in every one of the silos under construction. Faced with a potential first-strike capability from both Russia and China, and in light of the growing cooperation between Russia and China on defense issues regarding what both nations view as the growing threat from the United States, the US may be compelled to look at increasing its nuclear arsenal, or dramatically altering its own nuclear force posture and composition, in order to match this emerging threat. This, however, would be a prohibitively expensive proposition.
The bottom line, however, is that China appears to have breached its commitment “never to engage in a nuclear arms race of any kind.” The facts show that China entered this new phase of nuclear weapons development and deployment as a reaction to developments by potential adversaries (i.e., the US), but let there be no doubt –- this is an arms race. The placement of the Chinese silo bases appears, by intent, to be outside the range of anticipated US intermediate-range weapons, such as cruise missiles, meaning that there will be increased pressure placed on the States to field a new generation of silo-based ICBMs to replace the aging Minuteman III missiles, as well as a new generation of submarine-launched missiles and missile-carrying submarines, and a new generation of manned bomber -– all in numbers greater than current forecasts call for.
The US cannot afford to enter this kind of arms race with China. Simply put, China has out Ronald Reagan-ed the US, flipping the Cold War theory that the US outspent the Soviet Union, bankrupting it, and accelerating its collapse on its head, so that it’s the US that’s being outspent, bankrupting itself, and pushing itself closer to collapse. Hopefully, the US leadership is wiser than their Soviet counterparts before them. But, if history has shown us anything, the US is addicted to the power it believes it accrues by possessing a large nuclear weapons arsenal, and like any addict, liberating oneself from its drug of choice is difficult, if not impossible.
(...)
Wow, that's refreshing to have someone who could see so cle....
>rt.com
Aww, that explains how this got published.