Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 146

Thread: Sino US Military Exchanges

  1. #46
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,107
    greg,

    it's hard to have a productive debate when your "ideas" run towards conspiracy theory.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  2. #47
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    14,107
    xinhui, OoE,

    the PRC hurt themselves a good deal more than they hurt the US by stopping the military exchanges. OSD is laughing out of the side of their mouths.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  3. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    21 Dec 08
    Posts
    51
    What ideas did I propose that you believe are conspiracy theories? I suspect, one you have in mind is my proposal that Chinese already knew about nuke-tech transfer to NK. Its a possibility that cannot be ignored.

    In the business of nuclear weapons proliferation, the entire enterprise is shrouded in mystery and incontrovertible facts are hard to come by. There are only preferred theories - and very little conclusive evidence that slams the nail in the coffin.

    OOE has information that contradicted my suspicion - I was happy to consider that seriously despite the fact no conclusive evidence can be posted to support it.

    So no conspiracy theory being peddled by me - just exchanging information with an open mind. It also occured to me that we (you and I) havent had any debates - where did you encounter the difficulty in debating me that you complain about?

  4. #49
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    OOE has information that contradicted my suspicion - I was happy to consider that seriously despite the fact no conclusive evidence can be posted to support it.
    You want evidence?

    Statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the North Korea Nuclear Test Confirms that it was a dud.

    North Korean Fuel Identified as Plutonium confirms that this was a Pu and not a U device.

    Pakistan nuclear weapons shows that all Pak devices are uranium based, not Pu.

    Can North Korea Mate a "Simple" Fission Weapon to the Taepo Dong 2? indicates the desire for minuaturization needed to fit onto a TD rocket.

    So, like, why didn't it work? describes the actual intent of the device and obviously prove that it is not a Chinese device since Chinese devices worked.

  5. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    21 Dec 08
    Posts
    51
    OOE,

    With due respect, do you really consider what you posted as "conclusive evidence" to support your claims. You have a blog, a NYT article and FAS writeup up there. I suspect you were also convinced that Saddam was poised to acquire nukes - after all you could have backed that up with reports from the Whitehouse and Colin Powell's brilliant presentation at the UN. Gimme a break!!

    Just to backup a bit, what you argued was that North Korea got its NW design from Pakistan (not China) and that it was without Chinese complicity. Thats a reasonable take on the issue - but where is the conclusive evidence to back that up?

    What I wrote was that this business is shrouded in mystery. The info in the public domain has to be taken with a pinch of salt and exercising a modicum of skepticism aint a bad thing. For instance, what is the source of yields in case of Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests? Is there complete agreement between all the sources? Do we have access to the raw data from analysis of overhead air samples? How was the analysis conducted? What was the sensitivity of the instrumentation used to acquire the seismographs? You get my drift.... and this can go to your extreme dissatisfaction.

    You have made your case and I havent claimed that you are wrong and I am right - but I am skeptical and open to other possibilities as well. Its ok for you to cite other people's estimates to support your claims but please understand that estimates in this business can be wildly off and often compltely wrong. Is that fair?

  6. #51
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    *** sigh ***

    The conclusive evidence is the North Korean device itself. It is plutonium based, not uranium based. The technology AQ Khan et all sold were all uranium based. The device failed spectacularily at only 200 tons.

    If the Chinese were involved, then

    a) they allowed the wrong technology to be transferred (uranium instead of plutonium)
    b) they did not confirmed the North Korean design which was driven by a very specific need, to fit onto the TD-2 rocket.

    Now, you want me to prove a negative that contrary to this evidence that at least suggests that the Chinese screwed up North Korea's nuclear weapons program big time that they were not involved in it.

  7. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    21 Dec 08
    Posts
    51
    Now you are making me laugh. I challenged you on the nature of your evidence and you just came back with the assumptions and assertions masquerading as "conclusive evidence".

    Its like saying the evidence for creationist theories is the Bible - completely missing the point that Bible is not a peer-reviewed scientific document and hence cannot be scientifically conclusive.

    Why are you so convinced that the info you have acquired on nuclear proliferation is the absolute truth? I already conceded that the info you gave was worth strong consideration - just cant be considered conclusive because primary and verifiable data is simply not available for the most part!!

    ****sigh****

  8. #53
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    What part of uranium versus plutonium don't you understand?

  9. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    21 Dec 08
    Posts
    51
    I understand the difference between uranium and plutonium but do you understand what "conclusive evidence" means? Or do you just peddle the term ad nauseum while pitching NYT reports and blogs?

    You pasted FAS report as conclusive evidence that Pakistani nukes are all Uranium based. If you read that report, you will find that Los Alamos detected plutonium in the overhead air samples collected soon after the test. This data was challenged by other DOE labs but the raw data is not available - is it? All we can safely say is that the data was disputed but the prevailing working model is that all Pakistani weapons are Uranium based. BUT a scientist will not say that there is conclusive evidence to that effect. There remains a possibility that Pakistanis did test a plutomium based weapon. Yields are a completely different matter.

    The Pakistani yields shown by FAS are likely to be totally bogus. Fact is that there is no independent seismic verification of any of these yields. Even the data on Indian nuclear tests are technically disputable....and atleast in this case, the independent seismic data are available.

  10. #55
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    If you read that report, you will find that Los Alamos detected plutonium in the overhead air samples collected soon after the test. This data was challenged by other DOE labs but the raw data is not available - is it?
    Oh Please. That little mystery has been long solved. The Pu came from India's own nuclear tests.

  11. #56
    Defense Moderator
    Defense Professional
    Lei Feng Protege
    xinhui's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 May 06
    Posts
    7,980
    China, U.S. Making One More Try for Deal on Advanced Technology
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...a4&refer=home3


    By Mark Drajem

    Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and China, trying to save a trade program for advanced technology, are making a last attempt to get an agreement before the Bush administration departs, according to a U.S. trade group.

    Commerce Department officials are working to complete a deal before President George W. Bush leaves office next week that would let the U.S. inspect Chinese factories, said Edmund Rice, president of the Coalition for Employment Through Exports, a group representing companies such as Boeing Co.,Oracle Corp. and Motorola Inc.

    Saving the program would help Boeing, the world’s No. 2 commercial-plane maker, and Applied Materials Inc., the largest maker of chip-production machinery. Both companies had partners in China cleared to buy advanced technology for civilian use, such as aircraft parts and computer hardware, which could also be exploited for military purposes. The Commerce Department has threatened to suspend the program unless an agreement is reached on surprise inspections of factories.

    Commerce officials are “expressing some optimism that this will get done,” Rice said in a telephone interview. “There’s a lot riding on this. This is really an issue involving the level of confidence the U.S. has in Chinese technology purchasers.”

    The factory inspections would be part of the so-called Validated End User program to determine that civilian products aren’t being diverted to military uses. Eugene Cottilli, a Commerce spokesman, declined to comment.

    Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who is a member of the Energy and Commerce and Homeland Security committees, has criticized the program, warning that clearing these companies could allow export of sensitive “dual-use” products that would also aid the Chinese military, “undermining the national security of our country.”

    Aircraft, Underwater Cameras

    Last June, the U.S. added 31 items -- from aircraft to underwater cameras -- to its list of advanced products requiring government approval before sales to Chinese companies. At the same time, in a bid to help exporters, the government pledged to compile a list of companies that have established their independence from the Chinese military, and would be allowed to receive dual-use items without a license from the government.

    In order for a company to prove it’s not passing on the parts to the military, the U.S. wants its officials to be allowed to conduct unannounced inspections. Working out how those inspections would take place has been the sticking point.

    The Commerce Department cleared only five companies under the program so far, and industry lawyers and anti-nuclear proliferation watchdogs say the program hasn’t lived up to its promise.

    ‘Major Disappointment’

    “The consensus is that if it’s not a disaster, it’s a major disappointment,” said Judith Lee, a lawyer at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Washington, in a telephone interview. She and other lawyers are urging Obama transition officials to rework the entire program.

    China has long complained about all forms of export controls, and said those restrictions are a reason for the record trade gap between the two countries.

    When then-Vice Premier Wu Yi welcomed Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to Beijing for a summit in December 2007, one of her top demands was that the U.S. end all restrictions on its exporters.

    “I hope the U.S. side will change the outdated mindset and see the new horizon,” Wu said, according to a transcript. “My point is clear: Expand export of civilian-use high-tech products to China, and you can enlarge your market share in China.”

    Unease about restrictions has limited Chinese interest in the Validated End Users idea.

    “The whole idea that these companies are safe implies to the Chinese that others warrant export controls,” said Matt Godsey, an analyst at the Wisconsin Project, a group that opposes nuclear proliferation. “It was clear from the beginning that the Chinese didn’t like it.”

    Audits, ‘Nosiness’

    Godsey said the Chinese reticence has made it difficult for U.S. officials to secure an agreement on how they can audit Chinese companies and tour factories without advance consent.

    “They don’t like the audits and nosiness of the U.S. government,” said Kevin Wolf, an export control lawyer at Bryan Cave LLP in Washington.

    Still, with the Bush administration in its final days, Chinese officials may be more willing to accept the conditions rather than risk a suspension of the export program, Rice said.

    The companies already approved are Applied Materials China, affiliated with Santa Clara, California-based Applied Materials; Hexcel AVIC I, a joint venture with Chicago-based Boeing; an unnamed partner of Santa Clara-based National Semiconductor Corp.; Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., China’s biggest chipmaker, and Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Electronic Co., half owned by Japan’s NEC Corp.

    Together, those companies accounted for 18 percent of all licensed products sold to China last year, according to the Commerce Department.

    A similar program for companies in India has also been proposed.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net
    Last Updated: January 12, 2009 15:44 EST

  12. #57
    Contributor Kommunist's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 08
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    AQ Khan was a sneaky bastard and has spread knowledge to where even Islamabad doesn't want. After all, their modified blueprints were found in Switzerland of all places.
    1. Well, most respectfully, that doesn't absolve the Pakistan govt from its responsibilities, does it? He did all these things being the Head of the Nuclear programme in Pakistan, and not as free radical.
    2. Pakistan Army regulars have been found fighting alongside the Taliban earlier in Afghanistan.
    3. An analogy in the current situation: LeT and specifically, Pakistani citizen who were members of LeT launched the attack, and it originated from Pakistan soil(specifically Karachi). Pakistan govt is denying knowledge of this also.

    How can all these things happen without Pakistan not knowing any of this?
    Everyone has opinions, only some count.

  13. #58
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kommunist View Post
    1. Well, most respectfully, that doesn't absolve the Pakistan govt from its responsibilities, does it? He did all these things being the Head of the Nuclear programme in Pakistan, and not as free radical.
    This is the only comment out of the three that has any bearing on the topic. The others are non-issues when discussing AQ Khan. The point here is that AQ Khan has done things without Islamabad's ok.

  14. #59
    Contributor Kommunist's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 08
    Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    This is the only comment out of the three that has any bearing on the topic. The others are non-issues when discussing AQ Khan. The point here is that AQ Khan has done things without Islamabad's ok.
    Sir, what I meant was that Pakistan govt hardly knows anything that is happening, but the Army and ISI sure do. I believe they(PA and ISI) knew about AQ Khan's activities too.

    I apologise for going off topic, but I meant them as examples of Pak govt staying in the dark regarding practically everything.)

    Regards
    Amit
    Everyone has opinions, only some count.

  15. #60
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kommunist View Post
    Sir, what I meant was that Pakistan govt hardly knows anything that is happening, but the Army and ISI sure do. I believe they(PA and ISI) knew about AQ Khan's activities too.
    I don't think anyone outside of AQ Khan knew that the latest Pakistani warhead blueprints (not Chinese) were stored on a private computer in Switzerland.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog - Part 2
    By Shipwreck in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 219
    Last Post: 12 Dec 17,, 00:10
  2. Sino - South America Military Relations.
    By xinhui in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01 Sep 09,, 23:41
  3. Salute and Disobey?
    By Ray in forum International Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14 Aug 07,, 05:30
  4. Russian Military Doctrine
    By rickusn in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 216
    Last Post: 12 Feb 07,, 23:28

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •