The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Alfred McCoy Archive
World War III with China
How It Might Actually Be Fought
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

[This piece has been adapted and expanded from Alfred W. McCoy’s new book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power.]

For the past 50 years, American leaders have been supremely confident that they could suffer military setbacks in places like Cuba or Vietnam without having their system of global hegemony, backed by the world’s wealthiest economy and finest military, affected. The country was, after all, the planet’s “indispensible nation,” as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed in 1998 (and other presidents and politicians have insisted ever since). The U.S. enjoyed a greater “disparity of power” over its would-be rivals than any empire ever, Yale historian Paul Kennedy announced in 2002. Certainly, it would remain “the sole superpower for decades to come,” Foreign Affairs magazine assured us just last year. During the 2016 campaign, candidate Donald Trump promised his supporters that “we’re gonna win with military… we are gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning.” In August, while announcing his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, Trump reassured the nation: “In every generation, we have faced down evil, and we have always prevailed.” In this fast-changing world, only one thing was certain: when it really counted, the United States could never lose.

No longer.

The Trump White House may still be basking in the glow of America’s global supremacy but, just across the Potomac, the Pentagon has formed a more realistic view of its fading military superiority. In June, the Defense Department issued a major report titled on Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy World, finding that the U.S. military “no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors,” and “it no longer can… automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range.” This sober assessment led the Pentagon’s top strategists to “the jarring realization that ‘we can lose.’” Increasingly, Pentagon planners find, the “self-image of a matchless global leader” provides a “flawed foun­dation for forward-looking defense strategy… under post-primacy conditions.” This Pentagon report also warned that, like Russia, China is “engaged in a deliberate program to demonstrate the limits of U.S. authority”; hence, Beijing’s bid for “Pacific primacy” and its “campaign to expand its control over the South China Sea.”

China’s Challenge

Indeed, military tensions between the two countries have been rising in the western Pacific since the summer of 2010. Just as Washington once used its wartime alliance with Great Britain to appropriate much of that fading empire’s global power after World War II, so Beijing began using profits from its export trade with the U.S. to fund a military challenge to its dominion over the waterways of Asia and the Pacific.

Some telltale numbers suggest the nature of the future great power competition between Washington and Beijing that could determine the course of the twenty-first century. In April 2015, for instance, the Department of Agriculture reported that the U.S. economy would grow by nearly 50% over the next 15 years, while China’s would expand by 300%, equaling or surpassing America’s around 2030.

Similarly, in the critical race for worldwide patents, American leadership in technological innovation is clearly on the wane. In 2008, the United States still held the number two spot behind Japan in patent applications with 232,000. China was, however, closing in fast at 195,000, thanks to a blistering 400% increase since 2000. By 2014, China actually took the lead in this critical category with 801,000 patents, nearly half the world’s total, compared to just 285,000 for the Americans.

With supercomputing now critical for everything from code breaking to consumer products, China’s Defense Ministry outpaced the Pentagon for the first time in 2010, launching the world’s fastest supercomputer, the Tianhe-1A. For the next six years, Beijing produced the fastest machine and last year finally won in a way that couldn’t be more crucial: with a supercomputer that had microprocessor chips made in China. By then, it also had the most supercomputers with 167 compared to 165 for the United States and only 29 for Japan.

Over the longer term, the American education system, that critical source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors. In 2012, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tested half a million 15-year-olds worldwide. Those in Shanghai came in first in math and science, while those in Massachusetts, “a strong-performing U.S. state,” placed 20th in science and 27th in math. By 2015, America’s standing had declined to 25th in science and 39th in math.

But why, you might ask, should anybody care about a bunch of 15-year-olds with backpacks, braces, and attitude? Because by 2030, they will be the mid-career scientists and engineers determining whose computers survive a cyber attack, whose satellites evade a missile strike, and whose economy has the next best thing.

Rival Superpower Strategies

With its growing resources, Beijing has been laying claim to an arc of islands and waters from Korea to Indonesia long dominated by the U.S. Navy. In August 2010, after Washington expressed a “national interest” in the South China Sea and conducted naval exercises there to reinforce the claim, Beijing’s Global Times responded angrily that “the U.S.-China wrestling match over the South China Sea issue has raised the stakes in deciding who the real future ruler of the planet will be.”

Four years later, Beijing escalated its territorial claims to these waters, building a nuclear submarine facility on Hainan Island and accelerating its dredging of seven artificial atolls for military bases in the Spratly Islands. When the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled, in 2016, that these atolls gave China no territorial claim to the surrounding seas, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry dismissed the decision out of hand.

To meet China’s challenge on the high seas, the Pentagon began sending a succession of carrier groups on “freedom of navigation” cruises into the South China Sea. It also started shifting spare air and sea assets to a string of bases from Japan to Australia in a bid to strengthen its strategic position along the Asian littoral. Since the end of World War II, Washington has attempted to control the strategic Eurasian landmass from a network of NATO military bases in Europe and a chain of island bastions in the Pacific. Between the “axial ends” of this vast continent, Washington has, over the past 70 years, built successive layers of military power — air and naval bases during the Cold War and more recently a string of 60 drone bases stretching from Sicily to Guam.

Simultaneously, however, China has conducted what the Pentagon in 2010 called “a comprehensive transformation of its military” meant to prepare the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) “for extended-range power projection.” With the world’s “most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program,” Beijing can target “its nuclear forces throughout… most of the world, including the continental United States.” Meanwhile, accurate missiles now provide the PLA with the ability “to attack ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean.” In emerging military domains, China has begun to contest U.S. dominion over cyberspace and space, with plans to dominate “the information spectrum in all dimensions of the modern battlespace.”

China’s army has by now developed a sophisticated cyberwarfare capacity through its Unit 61398 and allied contractors that “increasingly focus… on companies involved in the critical infrastructure of the United States — its electrical power grid, gas lines, and waterworks.” After identifying that unit as responsible for a series of intellectual property thefts, Washington took the unprecedented step, in 2013, of filing criminal charges against five active-duty Chinese cyber officers.

China has already made major technological advances that could prove decisive in any future war with Washington. Instead of competing across the board, Beijing, like many late adopters of technology, has strategically chosen key areas to pursue, particularly orbital satellites, which are a fulcrum for the effective weaponization of space. As early as 2012, China had already launched 14 satellites into “three kinds of orbits” with “more satellites in high orbits and… better anti-shielding capabilities than other systems.” Four years later, Beijing announced that it was on track to “cover the whole globe with a constellation of 35 satellites by 2020,” becoming second only to the United States when it comes to operational satellite systems.

Playing catch-up, China has recently achieved a bold breakthrough in secure communications. In August 2016, three years after the Pentagon abandoned its own attempt at full-scale satellite security, Beijing launched the world’s first quantum satellite that transmits photons, believed to be “invulnerable to hacking,” rather than relying on more easily compromised radio waves. According to one scientific report, this new technology will “create a super-secure communications network, potentially linking people anywhere.” China was reportedly planning to launch 20 of the satellites should the technology prove fully successful.

To check China, Washington has been building a new digital defense network of advanced cyberwarfare capabilities and air-space robotics. Between 2010 and 2012, the Pentagon extended drone operations into the exosphere, creating an arena for future warfare unlike anything that has gone before. As early as 2020, if all goes according to plan, the Pentagon will loft a triple-tier shield of unmanned drones reaching from the stratosphere to the exosphere, armed with agile missiles, linked by an expanded satellite system, and operated through robotic controls.

Weighing this balance of forces, the RAND Corporation recently released a study, War with China, predicting that by 2025 “China will likely have more, better, and longer-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles; advanced air defenses; latest generation aircraft; quieter submarines; more and better sensors; and the digital communications, processing power, and C2 [cyber security] necessary to operate an integrated kill chain.”

In the event of all-out war, RAND suggested, the United States might suffer heavy losses to its carriers, submarines, missiles, and aircraft from Chinese strategic forces, while its computer systems and satellites would be degraded thanks to “improved Chinese cyberwar and ASAT [anti-satellite] capabilities.” Even though American forces would counterattack, their “growing vulnerability” means Washington’s victory would not be assured. In such a conflict, the think tank concluded, there might well be no “clear winner.”

Make no mistake about the weight of those words. For the first time, a top strategic think-tank, closely aligned with the U.S. military and long famous for its influential strategic analyses, was seriously contemplating a major war with China that the United States would not win.

World War III: Scenario 2030

The technology of space and cyberwarfare is so new, so untested, that even the most outlandish scenarios currently concocted by strategic planners may soon be superseded by a reality still hard to conceive. In a 2015 nuclear war exercise, the Air Force Wargaming Institute used sophisticated computer modeling to imagine “a 2030 scenario where the Air Force’s fleet of B-52s… upgraded with… improved standoff weapons” patrol the skies ready to strike. Simultaneously, “shiny new intercontinental ballistic missiles” stand by for launch. Then, in a bold tactical gambit, B-1 bombers with “full Integrated Battle Station (IBS) upgrade” slip through enemy defenses for a devastating nuclear strike.

That scenario was no doubt useful for Air Force planners, but said little about the actual future of U.S. global power. Similarly, the RAND War with China study only compared military capacities, without assessing the particular strategies either side might use to its advantage.

I might not have access to the Wargaming Institute’s computer modeling or RAND’s renowned analytical resources, but I can at least carry their work one step further by imagining a future conflict with an unfavorable outcome for the United States. As the globe’s still-dominant power, Washington must spread its defenses across all military domains, making its strength, paradoxically, a source of potential weakness. As the challenger, China has the asymmetric advantage of identifying and exploiting a few strategic flaws in Washington’s otherwise overwhelming military superiority.

For years, prominent Chinese defense intellectuals like Shen Dingli of Fudan University have rejected the idea of countering the U.S. with a big naval build-up and argued instead for “cyberattacks, space weapons, lasers, pulses, and other directed-energy beams.” Instead of rushing to launch aircraft carriers that “will be burned” by lasers fired from space, China should, Shen argued, develop advanced weapons “to make other command systems fail to work.” Although decades away from matching the full might of Washington’s global military, China could, through a combination of cyberwar, space warfare, and supercomputing, find ways to cripple U.S. military communications and thus blind its strategic forces. With that in mind, here’s one possible scenario for World War III:

It’s 11:59 p.m. on Thanksgiving Thursday in 2030. For months, tensions have been mounting between Chinese and U.S. Navy patrols in the South China Sea. Washington’s attempts to use diplomacy to restrain China have proven an embarrassing failure among long-time allies — with NATO crippled by years of diffident American support, Britain now a third-tier power, Japan functionally neutral, and other international leaders cool to Washington’s concerns after suffering its cyber-surveillance for so long. With the American economy diminished, Washington plays the last card in an increasingly weak hand, deploying six of its remaining eight carrier groups to the Western Pacific.

Instead of intimidating China’s leaders, the move makes them more bellicose. Flying from air bases in the Spratly Islands, their jet fighters soon begin buzzing U.S. Navy ships in the South China Sea, while Chinese frigates play chicken with two of the aircraft carriers on patrol, crossing ever closer to their bows.

Then tragedy strikes. At 4:00 a.m. on a foggy October night, the massive carrier USS Gerald Ford slices through aging Frigate-536 Xuchang, sinking the Chinese ship with its entire crew of 165. Beijing demands an apology and reparations. When Washington refuses, China’s fury comes fast.

At the stroke of midnight on Black Friday, as cyber-shoppers storm the portals of Best Buy for deep discounts on the latest consumer electronics from Bangladesh, Navy personnel staffing the Space Surveillance Telescope at Exmouth, Western Australia, choke on their coffees as their panoramic screens of the southern sky suddenly blip to black. Thousands of miles away at the U.S. CyberCommand’s operations center in Texas, Air Force technicians detect malicious binaries that, though hacked anonymously into American weapons systems worldwide, show the distinctive digital fingerprints of China’s People’s Liberation Army.

In what historians will later call the “Battle of Binaries,” CyberCom’s supercomputers launch their killer counter-codes. While a few of China’s provincial servers do lose routine administrative data, Beijing’s quantum satellite system, equipped with super-secure photon transmission, proves impervious to hacking. Meanwhile, an armada of bigger, faster supercomputers slaved to Shanghai’s cyberwarfare Unit 61398 blasts back with impenetrable logarithms of unprecedented subtlety and sophistication, slipping into the U.S. satellite system through its antiquated microwave signals.

The first overt strike is one nobody at the Pentagon predicted. Flying at 60,000 feet above the South China Sea, several U.S. carrier-based MQ-25 Stingray drones, infected by Chinese “malware,” suddenly fire all the pods beneath their enormous delta wingspans, sending dozens of lethal missiles plunging harmlessly into the ocean, effectively disarming those formidable weapons.

Determined to fight fire with fire, the White House authorizes a retaliatory strike. Confident their satellite system is impenetrable, Air Force commanders in California transmit robotic codes to a flotilla of X-37B space drones, orbiting 250 miles above the Earth, to launch their Triple Terminator missiles at several of China’s communication satellites. There is zero response.

In near panic, the Navy orders its Zumwalt-class destroyers to fire their RIM-174 killer missiles at seven Chinese satellites in nearby geostationary orbits. The launch codes suddenly prove inoperative.

As Beijing’s viruses spread uncontrollably through the U.S. satellite architecture, the country’s second-rate supercomputers fail to crack the Chinese malware’s devilishly complex code. With stunning speed, GPS signals crucial to the navigation of American ships and aircraft worldwide are compromised.

Across the Pacific, Navy deck officers scramble for their sextants, struggling to recall long-ago navigation classes at Annapolis. Steering by sun and stars, carrier squadrons abandon their stations off the China coast and steam for the safety of Hawaii.

An angry American president orders a retaliatory strike on a secondary Chinese target, Longpo Naval Base on Hainan Island. Within minutes, the commander of Andersen Air Base on Guam launches a battery of super-secret X-51 “Waverider” hypersonic missiles that soar to 70,000 feet and then streak across the Pacific at 4,000 miles per hour — far faster than any Chinese fighter or air-to-air missile. Inside the White House situation room the silence is stifling as everyone counts down the 30 short minutes before the tactical nuclear warheads are to slam into Longpo’s hardened submarine pens, shutting down Chinese naval operations in the South China Sea. Midflight, the missiles suddenly nose-dive into the Pacific.

In a bunker buried deep beneath Tiananmen Square, President Xi Jinping’s handpicked successor, Li Keqiang, even more nationalistic than his mentor, is outraged that Washington would attempt a tactical nuclear strike on Chinese soil. When China’s State Council wavers at the thought of open war, the president quotes the ancient strategist Sun Tzu: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” Amid applause and laughter, the vote is unanimous. War it is!

Almost immediately, Beijing escalates from secret cyberattacks to overt acts. Dozens of China’s next-generation SC-19 missiles lift off for strikes on key American communications satellites, scoring a high ratio of kinetic kills on these hulking units. Suddenly, Washington loses secure communications with hundreds of military bases. U.S. fighter squadrons worldwide are grounded. Dozens of F-35 pilots already airborne are blinded as their helmet-mounted avionic displays go black, forcing them down to 10,000 feet for a clear view of the countryside. Without any electronic navigation, they must follow highways and landmarks back to base like bus drivers in the sky.

Midflight on regular patrols around the Eurasian landmass, two-dozen RQ-180 surveillance drones suddenly become unresponsive to satellite-transmitted commands. They fly aimlessly toward the horizon, crashing when their fuel is exhausted. With surprising speed, the United States loses control of what its Air Force has long called the “ultimate high ground.”

With intelligence flooding the Kremlin about crippled American capacity, Moscow, still a close Chinese ally, sends a dozen Severodvinsk-class nuclear submarines beyond the Arctic Circle bound for permanent, provocative patrols between New York and Newport News. Simultaneously, a half-dozen Grigorovich-class missile frigates from Russia’s Black Sea fleet, escorted by an undisclosed number of attack submarines, steam for the western Mediterranean to shadow the U.S. Sixth fleet.

Within a matter of hours, Washington’s strategic grip on the axial ends of Eurasia — the keystone to its global dominion for the past 85 years — is broken. In quick succession, the building blocks in the fragile architecture of U.S. global power start to fall.

Every weapon begets its own nemesis. Just as musketeers upended mounted knights, tanks smashed trench works, and dive bombers sank battleships, so China’s superior cybercapability had blinded America’s communication satellites that were the sinews of its once-formidable military apparatus, giving Beijing a stunning victory in this war of robotic militaries. Without a single combat casualty on either side, the superpower that had dominated the planet for nearly a century is defeated in World War III.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the now-classic book The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the just-published In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books) from which this piece is adapted.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China 
Hide 125 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Your ending could use a little tarting-up to make it better doom porn:

    In a final fit of pique at the failure of it’s premiere weapons systems to counter the treaherous Chinese cyber attacks, President Chelsea Clinton orders the firing of the tried and true Minuteman III missiles dedicated to the SIOP. It’s the only system not succeptible to Chinese cyber attacks. In the end, Washington is a smoking, radiating ruin, but so are Beijing and Moscow, so we can call it a draw.

  2. JVC says:

    read a novel recently–”Twilight’s Last Gleaming” much the same scenario but moved up to 2025.
    The end of the novel, if in reality, could be the best thing to happen for the world.

  3. Issac says:

    America is no longer made up, in the majority, of Americans so one could scarcely be surprised that it is falling behind China, which is still very much Chinese. How does one produce a superlative scientist, engineer, or military tactician when presented with a cadre of diversity activists dedicated to keeping loyal patriotic legacy Americans from those roles? How does one cultivate a competent geopolitical strategy when their one and only hard-commitment is not to the security of their own nation, but to the security of another state on the other side of the Atlantic?

    I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I assume that by 2030 or 2040 there won’t be enough people calling themselves “American,” to care. Either that or the Americans will win their internal struggle and this will become a non-issue. The suppressed American is still a very fine specimen of humanity. The cruel oligarchs masquerading as “American,” elites, are not.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Joe Wong
  4. Iain W says:

    The sad reality is that the US ‘leaders’ have little understanding of how China ‘competes’. Without this understanding it is not possible to come up with effective strategies. The DOD report is just waffle and does not address the fundamental issues. Once a nation loses its ‘competitiveness’ and ability to develop technologically its military will go into decline.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  5. If the war happened today, China would be annihilated. They better not jump in when we hit North Korea.

    Putin better not invade the Baltics either, or NATO will put a beating on Russia he’ll never forget.

  6. Bliss says:

    Beijing’s Global Times responded angrily that “the U.S.-China wrestling match over the South China Sea issue has raised the stakes in deciding who the real future ruler of the planet will be.”

    So China is not hiding what it sees as the end game: King of the World.

    “One Mountain cannot contain two Tigers” (ancient chinese saying)

    “One Planet cannot contain two Super Powers” (21st century version of the above)

  7. Remember that by 2030, we may have lost Australia and New Zealand – or will that be the causus belli?

    Really all China has to do is sit, control its borders, and wait for diversity to run its course.

    The US economic decline vis a vis the East is also a topic that Eamonn Fingleton has literally written the book on.


    “Two bets are on the table. One has been placed by the Washington establishment, the other by the Chinese Communist Party.

    Analyzing China’s prospects in terms of fashionable globalist ideology, Washington is betting that a rich China will be a free one. The theory is that the only way China can continue to grow is by embracing Western democracy and capitalism. Moreover, the very process of China’s enrichment is supposedly undermining the Beijing government’s authoritarianism. More wealth means more freedom means more wealth.

    Here is how President George W Bush put it: “As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it cannot be closed. As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well.”

    Similar optimism pours forth from the American press. The Wall Street Journal commented, “Sooner or later China’s economic progress will create the internal conditions for a more democratic regime that will be more stable, and less of a potential global rival.”

    Abroad too the Washington view is increasingly prevalent. After visiting Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair cited the rise of a Chinese middle class and the spread of the Internet as factors that had produced “an unstoppable momentum … towards greater political freedom [and] progress on human rights.”

    The Washington view has become so widely accepted that almost no one has noticed that there is second bet on the table–that of the Chinese leadership. It has been placed on a disturbingly different outcome: that a future China can be both rich and authoritarian.

    If Washington is right, the future is unclouded, and a fast-rising China can readily be accommodated within the existing Western-defined world order. But what if China’s leaders turn out to understand the Chinese character better than anyone in Washington? What if in 2025 or 2030 the United States finds itself facing off against a China so rich that it has surpassed all other nations in military technology yet remains resolutely opposed to Western values? The implications are hard to exaggerate.”

    • Replies: @Joe Wong
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The appropriate thing to do is to stop the cancer while we can. The Chinese armory is still weak, and the Russians are exhausted in Syria. A quick campaign simultaneously to liberate Tibet and Crimea will allow us to motivate their people cast off their shackles and show them how weak their oppressors are, creating a future where liberal democracy can thrive and denying their agents a way to steal elections as they did in 2016.

  9. “creating a future where liberal democracy can thrive”

    Liberal democracy’s not thriving in the US or UK, why should it thrive in Crimea? Anyway, Crimea belongs to Russia and has done for 300 years-plus, with a short interregnum in the nineties/noughties.

    “I ain’t got nuthin’ against them Russians. No Russian ever called me deplorable.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Bliss
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Crimea belongs to Ukraine, which was moving to join the EU and a stable international order. Russia’s rampant militarism and oppression are the only reason why they claimed the area, in defiance of all international laws and customs. That it was not immediately responded to with the full force of the West is a sign of weakness that autocracies such as Putin will take advantage of, and which he has helped subert in electing a fellow fascist in the American White House. This a time of decision, and there is still a chance for liberal democracy to strike against the increasing power of autocracies in the world.

  11. c matt says:

    I can see why you post anonymously.

  12. @Anonymous

    Crimea was handed to Ukraine by Krushchev at a time when the USSR was pretty monolithic and Ukrainian independence inconceivable. It had the Russian Black Sea Fleet since Peter the Great’s day. And the reversion to Russian control was peaceful.

    “The West” bombed hell out of a sovereign nation in order to detach a part of its territory, but that wasn’t rampant militarism, was it?

    “Liberal democracy” ain’t liberal any more, nor is it very democratic.

  13. @Iain W

    “Once a nation loses its ‘competitiveness’ and ability to develop technologically its military will go into decline.”

    Yup. America is selling China the rope which they’ll be hung with, then its closing its rope factories and sending them the machinery.

    The USA is no longer the USA of 1941, a fact that the NYT and WaPo never fail to delight in pointing out. The axis of media evil celebrates turning a 150-million nation of 100-IQ people into a 300-million nation of 90-IQ people – while China is 900 million 105-IQ people.

    Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs.

  14. Bliss says:

    Crimea belongs to Russia and has done for 300 years

    Before that the Crimean peninsula belonged to Turkic muslims for almost 350 years:

    The Crimean Khanate, a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, succeeded the Golden Horde and lasted from 1449 to 1783[29] In 1571, the Crimean Tatars attacked and sacked Moscow, burning everything but the Kremlin.[30] Until the late 18th century, Crimean Tatars maintained a massive slave trade with the Ottoman Empire, exporting about 2 million slaves from Russia and Ukraine over the period 1500–1700.[31]

    In sheer numbers there were more white europeans enslaved by muslims (arabs, turks, berbers etc) than black africans brought to the Americas as slaves. The very word “slave” is derived from slav.

    • Replies: @ProfessorChops
  15. People who think that all US technical capability is publicly known are not talking to the same people I talk to (NO, I don’t know any secrets). The RAND paper was a warning for public consumption, not a prediction.

    The history professor may also need to check into some economics. There are going to be plenty of changes on both sides of the Pacific before too long that will do some pretty serious shuffling of the deck.

    It’s a slim reed to grasp in the flood, but I think it is not unreasonable to hope that the destructiveness of nukes will keep us from each other’s throats. The wild card in the deck is biotech that will soon be available to non-state actors.

    After the debt bomb goes off there are going to be more than a few “leaders” in the world who might not mind being relieved of the burdensome non-productive portion of their populations.

    • Replies: @Sean
  16. @Anonymous

    Paul? Wolfowitz? Is this you? Wasn’t it you who stated that the Iraq War would be paid for with Iraqi oil and that US troops would be welcomed as liberators? I think it was you.

  17. @Bliss

    the word slave is not rooted in the ethnic identification of Slavs. Geez… a one minute google search can clarify that for you. Do some research, please!

    • Replies: @Bliss
  18. Jason Liu says:

    Not to worry, anon.

    Diversity will be the bullet that puts liberal democracy down. For good.

  19. @whyamihere

    China and North Korea are bound by a mutual military defense treaty signed in 1961 renewed every 20 years by agreement of both parties. They will aid each other in the event of attack. The US- propping up the vast petro-dollar military empire- cannot afford to be bloodied nor appear vulnerable. That is why it does not openly attack industrialized foes as North Korea and Iran. The US cannot collapse the world economy by fighting China and hope to maintain petro-dollar idominance. China exports too much of what the world buys, and countries would rather engage in mutually beneficial commerce than collapse fighting for the American Empire.

  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bizarro World Observer

    This advantage may not last forever. Time to strike while the opportunity is still there to stop the rising totalitarian powers of the world and give their people a chance for actual freedom in a rule-based world.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  21. @Anonymous

    There is not even a Ukrainian cemetery in Crimea. There never has been.

  22. the whole premise of the article can be summed up with “buy the book”

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  23. Joe Wong says:

    “If Washington is right, the future is unclouded, and a fast-rising China can readily be accommodated within the existing Western-defined world order.”

    This is a totally erroneous statement due to the ignorance of the nature of western culture which is a racist one. As Japanese has proven that despite Japanese is considered as an honorary White by the Western world, but Japanese only qualifies as an unnormal one, as long as the Japanese remains servile to the Western-defined world order and plays the role of appendage, then the Japanese will be accommodated within the existing Western-defined world order. Japanese paid heavily in the Plaza Accord in order to be accommodated within the Western-defined world order, otherwise bombing back to stone age with carpet fire bombing and atomic bombs is the entertainment like in the WWII.

    Japan is never considered a serious challenger by the West to the Western-defined world order due to its inherent limitations, while China has the capacity to replace the Western world order with its own due to its vast resources, deep civilization and rich culture. The West will not dig its own grave by accommodating China within their unilaterally defined racist/caste world order no matter what.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @Thirdeye
  24. Joe Wong says:

    Tibet and Crimea? These two places hardly matters in the showdown between the USA vs Russia and China while give Russia and China all the space and time to wipe out the USA. Your stupidity is glaring.

  25. @Joe Wong

    Joe – so in other words you agree with Eamonn Fingleton that the Western globalists are riding for a fall (unfortunately they are taking us with them).

    • Replies: @AIkeyboard
    , @Joe Wong
  26. Bliss says:

    the word slave is not rooted in the ethnic identification of Slavs. Geez… a one minute google search can clarify that for you. Do some research, please!

    I did my research. Why didn’t you?

    Google “etymology of slave” and educate yourself. Remember, we are looking for the origin of the word “slave” not of “slav”.

    • Agree: Hu Mi Yu
  27. China’s biggest advantage is that US military leaders are lazy and incompetent. They have made zero changes in basing our forces in the Pacific. We have big bases near China that will easily be demolished if war breaks out, leaving some 40,000 military dependents stranded and starving. I wrote detailed articles about this a few years ago; they had no affect:

    Vacate Sasebo –

    Downsize Kadena –

  28. nsa says:

    Zero chance of a US war with China. Nothing in it for the jooies so it won’t happen. And the Izzies are well aware of the REVERSE SAMSON OPTION……both China and Russia have targeted Tel Aviv in ANY potential nuclear dust-up with the US. It is our business here in Ft. Meade to know these things……..

  29. jojo says:

    Has China historically engaged in aggression? The real issue is China’s move on Africa’s resources.

  30. Parfois says:

    All villages have one and our “village” at UNZ is endowed with a liberal smattering of them often peddling the snake oil of “democracy”, “liberalism”, “Western civilization” as the rallying cry for a 21st century version of a crusade against a world that wants to live in peace and prosperity instead of war and degeneracy.

    The present one is camouflaged as “Anonymous” and as NoseytheDuke suggests, he sounds like Paul Wolf-something and C-mat explains why he wants to be faceless. No wonder with statements such as this gem,

    [the West should strike now] “to give the people a chance for actual freedom in a rule-based world.”

    It is amazing how a sentient being could come up with such bizarre ideas, let alone an intelligent one. If we ever need proof of recessive genes afflicting homo sapiens, this is it. Except there is a glaring paradox here, like seeing a troglodyte fingering a computer. But paradoxes are joined to oxymoronic urges inciting the “West” to strike to bring ‘freedom in a rule-based world” obviously under the thumb of an outlaw West. Makes you puke and cry.

  31. polskijoe says:

    My guess is that today China and Russia combined can match the US in most ways. But then you have EU, Japan, etc.

    My estimate is that China will be around US military power by 2030-2050.

    “Liberal Democracy” is the problem. Because its Liberal and not a Democracy. Even Poland which is one of the most pro NATO nations, doesnt like Liberal Democracy.

  32. Wally says:

    Apparently your voting for Hillary still stings.

    Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?

    + review of other Democrat frauds

    Reactions to Trump Victory, hilarious !!


    • Replies: @El Dato
  33. kemerd says:

    oh, the actual scenario plotted is so boring, and not really belong to unz review

  34. map says:

    I find the cyberwarfare stuff very fanciful.

    How would a photonic network be able to break into and read a radio or microwave network? It can’t. The photonic network would have to connect via some translator, the way you need hardware to connect a copper network to a fiber optic network. A photonic network could not beam viruses to satellites or to military computers because those machines could not read the incoming photonic data to begin with. Once translated to a piece of hardware, however, the photonic network becomes vulnerable to attack. The hardware needed to translate photonics into regular signals obeying the Internet Protocol over conventional radio and digital wire and fiber optics makes their network vulnerable to attack.

    IOW, a photonic network is a non-standardized, proprietary protocol that simply would not be able to transmit anything over standard protocols.

    Furthermore, there is a simple solution to this problem of cyberwarfare. First, you use a series of honeypots and tripwires to measure and monitor the level of attack. Once the attack is serious enough or appears unusually large, you can have the BIND servers block the entire Chinese IP space, rendering Chinese access to American digital infrastructure moot. The military then takes over the worldwide Global Positioning System, which then degrades Chinese capabilities even further.

    Cyberwarfare assumes that digital infrastructure is like some natural, easily passable barrier, like an ocean. Rather, it is a man-made object, like bridge, all of which can be detonated. It will be taken off-line and repurposed by the military in the event of war.

  35. El Dato says:

    Chairforce deployment now because MUH BALTIX! MUH UNFINISHED KORREA BUSNESS!1!

    Th author worries a lot about hacks and electronic subversion. In the end, it will probably prove to be less a problem than utter failure of complex systems to adequately work in an actual hot scenario.

    We are on the case and getting better (like here: Also good to read:

    I have also heard about actually undetecable modifications on the transistor level to subvert circuitry, but that’s hard to exploit effectively unless you know your are “tuning” a precise element, like a random number generator for example. We are no in the “crazy prepared” scenario: in particular:

    In A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge, Pham Nuwen is crazy prepared. He’s been preparing for hundreds if not thousands of years, collecting the most advanced technology from all over the galaxy and disguising it as innocuous materiel. He’s learned and created countless secret programs and backdoors on the computers. All of Pham Nuwen’s toys are standard equipment on Queng Ho ships, yet nobody else knows about them. Everybody is, although not to the same extent. In A Fire Upon the Deep, a children’s toy computer, explained as being outdated but hung onto for sentimental purposes (it was shaped like a stuffed rabbit) includes as a standard feature ‘uplift protocols’ to allow any tech level short of flint and bone knapping stone age to raise the technology to build a subspare radio capable of reaching civilization to call for rescue.

    Still, maybe do your chips at home instead of outsourcing to TSMC and stop buying “recycled” gear from lowest bidders.

    Right now, I’m more worried about Intel’s Management Engine (generally active on server-class motherboards), which is buggy, dark, closed, proprietary and uninspectable, has more power than the Operating System and is apparently exploitable from the Internet. You can’t make it up.

  36. Renoman says:

    Lotta big flag wavers today, poor Rickless Fucks.

  37. alexander says:

    Dear Mr. Mccoy,

    This was a good read. Thank you.

    I especially enjoyed all the sorted “thrusts and parry’s” within the cyber arena.

    Good stuff.

    Lots of drama.

    The larger conclusion one can draw from it is that we all living in the age of the imbecile.

    We are governed and ruled by war making imbeciles.

    Can anyone imagine where we would be today, if the tens of trillions we have used up fashioning quickly obsolete war devices, were used on joint missions to mars, or super sensitive orbital satellite telescopes ?

    How many space stations on the moon could we have by now ?

    How many “earth like” planets could we have found …..ten ?….a hundred ?

    Is there any doubt we would have found “Life as we know it”, by now, if even a tenth of the money we have spent bombing people who never attacked us,was sequestered toward that cause ?

    May there be no doubt about it, we live in the age of the “war making imbecile”.

    • Replies: @Wally
  38. @The Alarmist

    …doom porn

    I love it. Describes this article perfectly. As for believing what the Pentagon says, I wouldn’t. Doom porn is their bread, butter, and expendable loot, too.

  39. @Anonymous

    The appropriate thing to do is to stop the cancer while we can.

    Yer joking, right?

    You certainly don’t do satire well, and if yer serious, yer way behind. The cancer is within and it’s too late to be curable. In fact, the anti-federalists predicted most of this over two centuries ago, and I’m not joking.

  40. @whyamihere

    The point I’ve made here a few time is that even though the US’ major rivals, the US would itself suffer in a major way. The difference is that the Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, etc. people already live much closer to the dirt and while they would suffer, they would probably recover better and faster. The people of the US are in many cases a very resilient, self-help bunch, but there are proportionately many more who would be immobilised due to the loss of power and their iToys and other distractions and a lack of ability of self-help who would plunge the urban areas into chaos beyond that already experienced in peacetime.

    In other words, the US loses hugely in any fight, even if it wins.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
  41. @map

    As long as the kill/block switches (the BIND servers) don’t have Chinese chips. The more interesting battle will be between all the Chinese Trojan bots embedded in all the devices in the US versus the NSA back-door bots embedded in their firmware.

    • Replies: @map
  42. @map

    “BEIJING, Sept. 29 (Xinhua) — A 2,000-km quantum communication line opened on Friday between Beijing and Shanghai.

    The line is the world’s first trunk line of secure quantum telecommunications. The Jing-Hu (Beijing-Shanghai) Trunk Line connects Beijing, Jinan, Hefei, and Shanghai.

    The line is connected with the world’s first quantum satellite, which was launched by China in August last year, through a station in Beijing. The satellite is nicknamed “Micius,” after a fifth century B.C. Chinese philosopher and scientist who has been credited as the first one in human history conducting optical experiments.”

    This cannot be breached or hacked.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @map
  43. Looked at through the eyes of military planners, the obvious solution would seem to be a sort of “Schlieffen Plan”: knock out the weaker enemy (Russia) first and then turn to the stronger emeny (China). Indeed, China could be bought off in the initial phase by raising no objection to their taking control of Russia’s Siberian empire, which they are slowly doing, de facto, anyway.

  44. A war with China will be a war with China and Russia as Russia will side with China, there will be no winners as all will be destroyed , the U.S. and China and Russia and quite possibly the world.

    These fantasy dreams of destroying China and Russia a figment of the Zionist warlords who run American foreign policy and are proof of their insane blood lust for war and death and destruction.

  45. @Michael Kenny

    There is not a single word in this comment that contains the slightest grain of truth.

  46. We will win
    For we have got
    Diversity and they
    Have not!

  47. El Dato says:

    Is Skepticism Permissible Yet?

    Is the evidence of planned, destructive mental conditioning by (((Media Interests))) strong enough yet?

  48. El Dato says:
    @Robert Magill

    Completely irrelevant.

    Totally standard downloadable-for-free-from-the-Internet RSA-based cryptograpy cannot be “breached or hacked” either, and it is even practically safe from quickly-factorizing quantum computers (if these eventually turn out to be possible, which is as yet an uncertain proposition) if you choose a large enough key.

    It cannot be used for much of high-bandwidth communication either.

    In other words: a good demo, China, please do go on.

    It’s not a “quantum satellite” either, it’s just a standard satellite that bounces light around that has been passed through a beam splitter.

    Now, actually correct implementations of crypto and good OpSec are something else entirely.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  49. El Dato says:

    you can have the BIND servers block the entire Chinese IP space, rendering Chinese access to American digital infrastructure moot.

    Dude, “BIND servers” (more like, DNS servers running the Bind daemon, is that old piece of code still in use?) are not “blocking an IP space”, the best they can do is give no answer to a DNS lookup.

    So you couldn’t resolve “” to

    But you could still feel around directly.

    Unless there is a firewall.

    I wouldn’t even worry about anything “public Internet”, anyone who puts his gear on it accessible to all comers, as opposed to firewalling it off an maybe even using totally invisble private networks clearly grades convenience over security, thus trouble is in the package.

    • Replies: @map
  50. Avery says:
    @Michael Kenny

    {…. knock out the weaker enemy (Russia)}

    Nuke warheads:

    Russia 7,000
    US 6,800
    China 270

    [Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
    The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons. Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.](2016) *

    [As U.S. nuclear arsenal ages, other nations have modernized](2014)**

    Russia is definitely the weaker ‘enemy’***.


    Russia is NO ‘enemy’ of the people of United States.
    The foreign infestation that has infiltrated and corrupted various US departments and agencies is the real enemy of the American people.

  51. Mark Presco says: • Website

    I am no expert, but as far as I know, the Chinese economy is still utterly dependant upon manufacturing for Western consumerism. Despite trying to shift to local consumption, their economy is so precarious that it would suffer greatly without massive exporting.

    What would happen if we raised tariffs dramatically? Would this not be a windfall to the US government by essentially taxing Western consumers? How would the Chinese economy fair?

    I really don’t think the Chinese want to mess with their cash cow.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  52. the last half of this article reads like one of those retarded tom clancy novels. but a chinese version.

    especially the part about the chinese response to an attempted nuke of a chinese strategic base. the proper response would be china nuking all american bases around it’s periphery. that means nuclear war. this is also why I think all the countries that allows an american military base on their soil is retarded beyond help.

    china has learned it’s lesson very well. being rich without protection = a “fat pig about to be slaughter.” they have learned. hell, even the NK fat boy kim learned this lesson. you think china is more stupid than him?

    • Replies: @Jesse James
  53. America has become a continent sized ghetto filled with drug abuse, collapsing infrastructure, pernicious daily gun violence, the highest rates of unwanted teenage pregnancies, illiteracy and abortions in the developed world, (source: the U.N) a vice ridden pornography addicted poisoned with genetically modified food, morbidly obese population, exploited by predatory police forces and ripped off through an assortment of rackets from Pharma, Real Estate, Banking and Military,

    Our great nation has never been more divided along socio economic lines especially where ‘Government for the people’ is concerned, our internal and external policies breed nothing but divisiveness and death, while the rest of the world grows to have a pathological hatred of us.

    We’ll be feasting on the flesh of our children long before we have to worry about war with China.

    • Agree: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  54. neprof says:

    “At the stroke of midnight on Black Friday, as cyber-shoppers storm the portals of Best Buy for deep discounts on the latest consumer electronics from Bangladesh,..”

    Hard to take future predictions seriously from someone who thinks Best Buy will still be around in 2030

  55. @Anonymous

    As soon as you done a uniform and ready to fight, we will.

  56. @The Alarmist

    Our dear black people would suffer? How terrible!

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  57. El Dato says:
    @Michael Kenny

    I thought the Schlieffen plan was about getting to Paris in a sweeping movement through Belgium, keeping the flanks strong and doing a large-scale encirclement. Context: armies are not mechanized and are transported by train. What does that have to do with anything.

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Thirdeye
  58. @Buba Zanetti

    I agree wholeheartedly and I was going to write something similar. Long before that (extremely gay) war scenario penned by Mr. McCoy plays out, America is going to choke to death on its own financial ruin and cultural rot.

  59. @YetAnotherAnon

    The legacy white stock makes up about 100 million in total whose IQ are probably in the 90,s range, good luck trying to compete against big brained,MIGHTY EDAR gene carriers Chinese, Koreans and Japanese.The ave brain size of the legacy white stock is in the 1350cc range like thier basque island brothers and the meditteraneans and north africans as compared with the asian brain sizes of 1450cc to 1550 cc range , you dont have enough Germans or swedes descendants who have bigger brains than the lagacy stock people to make america great again, also these Germs and swedes have diluted their brain power by mixing with the small brained legacy stock people.

  60. L.K says:


    Jesus, these fucking shills, like ‘Anonymous’, kill me!!!

    Another comedian!

    Keep it coming, shill, you are good for a laugh!

  61. Sean says:
    @another fred

    Trump could threaten to repudiate the debt held by China. He has hinted at this.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @Vidi
  62. map says:
    @Robert Magill

    The Chinese built a proprietary network. Of course it cannot be hacked. Nothing can communicate with it. Likewise, this network cannot communicate with anything using standard hardware and software protocols.

    It’s secure because it is obscure.

    I also don;t understand this photonic element. My guess it is beaming light through the air instead of fiber optics. But does this require line-of-sight? Probably.

    So, the advantage is that it moves at light speed, but it requires line-of-sight.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    , @Vidi
  63. map says:
    @The Alarmist

    It’s not difficult to examine firmware for any malware available.

  64. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato

    Not completely irrelevant. Entangled transmissions, implementation details aside, are just another tool for building a secure network. For example, the knowledge of whether or not the transmission was intercepted is useful in preventing a mitm attack. Your RSA example suffers from this. I’m surprised you disagree with it’s utility.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  65. Sean says:

    True as it may be that the future correlation of forces will have become unfavourable to the US by 2030, it does not seem much of an argument against–at the very least–attempts to slow down China’s economic growth.

  66. map says:
    @El Dato

    The point is, you can filter anything coming from China out at the transport layer.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  67. El Dato says:

    I agree with the utility. But it’s not a game changer.

  68. Meanwhile, an armada of bigger, faster supercomputers slaved to Shanghai’s cyberwarfare Unit 61398 blasts back with impenetrable logarithms of unprecedented subtlety and sophistication …

    Oh, God, no! Not an impenetrable logarithm!

    Okay, that’s it! Them Chink bastards is a-askin’ for it! We’ll have to come back with a rocket-powered hyperbolic cosecant! An impregnable one at that!

    Geeez, where’d this chucklehead come from, anyway?

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  69. El Dato says:

    Actually, the interest lies in creating “entangled particles” (in this case, photons): These behave as a single quantum system in spite of them being separated in space (or even time). Getting a classical bit out of one element of the entangled pair means that any extraction of a classical bit out of the other element of the pair will yield a known outcome. After that, the entanglement is broken, the pair is burnt, so to say. A 0 bit in Beijing will mean a 1 bit in Chengdu and conversely. This gives you a nice stream of correlated random numbers. Added benefit is someone reading the classical bit before you will destroy the entanglement, so Chengdu will read a random 0 or 1 – thus eavesdropping can be detected easily.

    Now encrypt your message using the random but correlated stream of bits and send the encrypted message by usual means (e.g. telephone). Voilà – impossible to crack, eavesdrop-secure, encrypted channel.

    • Replies: @map
  70. El Dato says:

    He should repudiate the debt held by Saudi Arabia….

  71. Wally says:

    Elon Musk statist BS.

    Your idea is to merely move the money from one government entity to another government entity and Eureka! Paradise!

    Yeah boy, NASA is lean machine free of politics.

  72. Wally says:
    @El Dato

    Hillary’s boy, Kenny, has no clue.

    He talks because he has a mouth.

  73. @Father O'Hara

    Misery loves company. You really feel that secure?

  74. @Reactionary Utopian

    I dunno … I always thought logarithms were pretty brute force. It’s how we got to the moon without the HP-29. Going off on another tangent, I doubt it will be hard to find a neocon willing to sine the check for this war at that point, but the American people will likely be on a higher plane after two decades of war and won’t necessarily be willing co-siners.

    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  75. With its growing resources, Beijing has been laying claim to an arc of islands and waters from Korea to Indonesia long dominated by the U.S. Navy. In August 2010, after Washington expressed a “national interest” in the South China Sea and conducted naval exercises there to reinforce the claim, Beijing’s Global Timesresponded angrily that “the U.S.-China wrestling match over the South China Sea issue has raised the stakes in deciding who the real future of the planet will be.”

    This is a red herring since China has learned to harvest frozen methane from the sea bottom in the region. They have also began construction of naval bases in Djibouti and Pakistan to protect the Belt and Road initiative. Combine with Russia’s naval facility in Syria and all bases are covered.

  76. JohnMc says:

    Baltics: Better go look at a map pal. The Kalingrad Oblat is being turned into a southern assault point. It does two things: A) Neutralizes the Poles, if they are smart. B) Provides the southern flank of a very large pincher movement. Support by air? Pfffft. They will be eliminated by the time they clear Swedish airspace.

  77. @whyamihere

    The USSR quit the negative economic growth Baltic states in 1991. The US- through its NATO proxy army alliance- occupies them and now oversees their decline. China and NK have a mutual defense treaty signed in 1961. If the US maniacs attack NK, they will have to fight both countries while the world economy crashes as a result.

  78. @Astuteobservor II

    You are correct. The world saw what happened to Iraq and Libya when both tried to make nice with the US. Both were bombed and ruined by the US and NATO proxies.

  79. Vidi says:

    First of all, China’s exposure to U.S. thievery is only about $1 trillion. China can afford to lose it all.

    Secondly, after this theft, anybody would be totally stupid to buy treasury bonds from such an untrustworthy seller. What will happen to the U.S.’s reserve currency status when nobody wants a dollar?

    • Replies: @Sean
  80. Vidi says:

    So, the advantage is that it moves at light speed, but it requires line-of-sight.

    That’s why the satellites are so important. With only a few of the Chinese quantum satellites in orbit, all the world will be in line of sight of at least one of them.

  81. Vidi says:

    Only if you know it’s coming from China. Some botnets have hundreds of thousands of infected computers all over the world; it would be trivial for the Chinese cyberwarriors to launch their attacks from the slave machines.

    • Replies: @map
  82. Vidi says:

    Time to strike while the opportunity is still there to stop the rising totalitarian powers of the world and give their people a chance for actual freedom in a rule-based world.

    You sound like Kaiser Wilhelm just before World War I: “strike the Russians before they become too strong”. The outcome was that the Kaiser lost the war, his empire, and his life.

    • Replies: @nsa
  83. TG says:

    An interesting post.

    However. “Over the longer term, the American education system, that critical source of future scientists and innovators, has been falling behind its competitors.”

    Excuse me.

    1. The source of future scientists and engineers in the United States will be places like India – not because they have such wonderful educational systems (the literacy rate in India is still about 50%), but because there are so many desperate hungry people there, that even the smartest can be forced to work for cheap. And no, we’re not importing Indians because Americans aren’t doing science – Americans aren’t doing science because they are being crowded out of the field. The American educational system is not relevant any more. Who cares? Certainly not our elites.

    2. Innovation follows industry. When we’ve shipped all our industries to China, where do you think future technological innovations will be made? Where the technology is!

    The core problem is that the American elites just no longer care about the United States. Nations are obsolete. Why bother to build up our own infrastructure and industries and human capital, when I can have it cheaper from overseas now?

    One is reminded of Alexander Hamilton, like most pre-1970 Americans an ardent protectionist, asking who would console themselves with the loss of an arm with the thought that they could buy their shirts for 40% cheaper? Well, our current US elites, that’s who.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  84. Bohica says:
    @The Alarmist

    Except the russkies and China’s have been preparing for years for this Armageddon scenario, they have bomb shelters for great numbers of their population. Do we?

  85. [Pick a single Handle and stick to it, or use Anonymous/Anon]

    No prob, U.S has the top 5% Super creative IQ bell curve and the Ashkenazim, China has a bunch of high IQ machines, incapable of doing anything but memorize.
    Remember WW2? Japan had a 5 point IQ advantage over America, but White and Jewish creativity killed 200,000 Japanese in 5 seconds.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  86. The problem is the clash between the “Real” owner of the US, the Neocon, whom are as nasty are the new comers.

    Then, if and only if ,the US didn’t harass every single country as is been doing for the last 150 years, eventually, other countries would not dare about the US itself.

    Just get a job!

  87. map says:

    In event of the war, the internet is cutoff from the rest of the world…just like the GPS.

    • Replies: @Vidi
  88. map says:
    @El Dato

    I am admittedly confused by this.

    A computer operates as a binary system, 0 and 1. Each state is represented by two distinct voltages on a CPU. One may be 1.6 volts represents a “0″ and 2.1 volts represents a “1.” By “quantum computing” I am assuming a computer that can maintain the 0/1 binary state simultaneously. So, for a 64 bit operating system, a quantum computer operates in 4^64 bit space as opposed to a conventional computer operating in a 2^64 bit space.

    Am I close?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  89. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @john clark

    But how do you also kill the Russians too at the same time?

  90. @The Alarmist

    I dunno … I always thought logarithms were pretty brute force. It’s how we got to the moon without the HP-29. Going off on another tangent, I doubt it will be hard to find a neocon willing to sine the check for this war at that point, but the American people will likely be on a higher plane after two decades of war and won’t necessarily be willing co-siners.


    Highly functional, too.

  91. nsa says:

    With most of Europe, including a majority of the humiliated Germans, demanding Wilhelm’s head…..the old coot was allowed to escape to the Netherlands where he was protected and lived in relative luxury until his death of natural causes in 1941 at the age of 82.

  92. Vidi says:

    In event of the war, the internet is cutoff from the rest of the world…just like the GPS.

    Well, the whole of the US military should disconnect from the Internet when war starts, but how do you know that some machines in the military’s internal network aren’t already compromised?

  93. @YetAnotherAnon

    Find out what Kissinger has been up to in China recently, before Bannon supposedly brought Kissinger on board… to… LMAO… defeat the globalists and defeat China.

    One hint: Washington needs to acknowledge that “the world’s centre of gravity” is shifting

  94. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Not really. If you don’t have a physics background this does a pretty good job explaining things.

    Reasonably humorous too.

  95. Vidi says:
    @Mark Presco

    What would happen if we raised tariffs dramatically? Would this not be a windfall to the US government by essentially taxing Western consumers? How would the Chinese economy fair [sic]?

    China would suffer, but not too much. Only 18.3 percent of their exports go to the U.S. ( However, the $388 billion going to the U.S. is only the nominal amount; due to something called “transfer pricing”, China actually earns much less than that. A company might buy a pair of shoes for $5 in China and sell it for $100 in the U.S. (it’s an example, so I made up the numbers, though something like this is common). The trade is registered as a $100 surplus in China’s favor, but China only earns $5 from it. Therefore, if they lose this trade they will suffer, but not too much.

    Meanwhile, if the U.S. tariffs stopped all imports from China, the shelves of Walmart (e.g.) would be practically empty — for years. Millions of Americans, who are already on the brink, will be destroyed if the prices of their daily necessities go way up. If the U.S. only experienced riots as a consequence, it would be lucky; a violent revolution would be very possible.

    • Replies: @Vidi
    , @Anonymous
  96. Vidi says:

    The source of future scientists and engineers in the United States will be places like India – not because they have such wonderful educational systems (the literacy rate in India is still about 50%), but because there are so many desperate hungry people there, that even the smartest can be forced to work for cheap. And no, we’re not importing Indians because Americans aren’t doing science – Americans aren’t doing science because they are being crowded out of the field. The American educational system is not relevant any more. Who cares? Certainly not our elites.

    The problem is, what if India turns hostile? Will the U.S. be able to import their best people? If not, what will happen to the U.S.’s technological lead if it’s no longer educating enough engineers?

  97. DAN III says:

    Permanent Normal Trade Relations, May 2000 with the ChiComs courtesy of Commie Clinton and the traitors of the 106th CON-gress, gave us the demise of the USA and the rise of Red China.

    Renounce PNTR. Then put a freakin’ 200% tariff on everything coming from Red China. Make AMERICAN manufacturing great again !


  98. Che Guava says:

    From my experience and reading of Americans (except the stupider of tough-guy milit. and civ. types in places in and near Tokyo that I avoid).

    I even sat next to a giant soldier in plain clothes, or contractor, or CIA, on a flight to Korea, his post-911 dest. was, I would guess, Afghanistan. He sure was not going to join the US colonial forces in RoK. When I saw him in the seat next to mine, I was thinking ‘Oh no’, but we had very pleasant conversation on the short flight, and he was careful to controlling his bulk.

    He was even to showing me his special mobile phone, but of course, vague about its functions, was explaining a little.

    Not an evil person, I would be guessing from speech, from a ‘flyover’ place.

    I would also guessing that his mission was, at best, of dubious or no real worth.

    Nowhere in Afghanistan success (excepting massive opium exports, yay, yay, USA), and only to continuing Project Mayhem in Iraq and Syria.

    I agree that you have a point. However, the erosion of them by the factors you are naming, seems to be ascendant, and not as if I am agreeing with any of USA foreign policy, the big shame that Trump is too vain to do anything about his better promises, and USA left is so screwed up that you seem to have more and more stupidity, I saw a photo of a meeting of a group of US Army, I think, tranny male officers, may have been cross-service, they all looked terrible. Didn’t bother to trying to look like anything but men with stocky legs and bad wigs, but USA taxpayers paid for their surgical mutilation.

    The stupid ‘traning’ where male soldiers are having to wear pregnancy simulators or looking stupid in high-heels that they don’t want to wear, the rate of women who join only to have subsidised pregnancies, the breakdown in discipline with the range extended from male homosexuals and ‘have sex with anything that moves’ types, as earlier, to competition by heterosexual men and homosexual women for the more attractive women, it is making the USA armed forces looking like a joke.

    Am still having a separate reply to the article. It will follow, if I am not sleeping first.

  99. Vidi says:

    the $388 billion going to the U.S. is only the nominal amount

    Oops, I meant to say “the $388 billion of goods going to the U.S. is only the nominal amount”. That is, the manufactured goods that China sent to the U.S. last year was nominally worth $388 billion — but due to transfer pricing, China actually earned much less than that. Therefore, if the U.S. completely cuts off trade with China, China will lose some income, but nowhere near $388 billion a year.

  100. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The simple truth is that China can live without the US but vice versa is not true. Most Americans believe otherwise, but its simply not realistic with how the world is at the moment. The US could probably rebuild its manufacturing capability in 4-7 years but unlike the Japanese, there’s no evidence that Americans would be willing to suffer anything close to that in order to regain self-sufficiency.

    This makes almost everything else just shadowboxing. The West has already lost, more or less, they just can’t come to grips with it and lash out with various manias. But they’re built on, at this point, rotting wood and can’t really escape this construction.

  101. Che Guava says:

    I am thinking that Mr McCoys scenario is of much interest. If we are to excluding

    DDoS attacks,

    information theft,

    exploitation of weak passwords for theft, etc.,

    I can only thinking of two examples of real ‘cyberattacks’.

    The first is the German-Israeli-USA co-production of Stuxnet. It successfully drove centrifuges in Iran to self-destruction.

    It was reliant on a human vector, either a dupe or a traitor in Iran, to place a USB memory device in an offline PC that was controlling the Siemens controllers.

    I would not be at all surprised if the responsible person, whether traitor or dupe, was taken out in the serial Israel-coordinated campaign to murder many Persian physicists.

    The military and bureaucracy of Japan were notoriously bad for ‘net security, commander of a submarine even to installing public-domain file-sharing software on the boat (many more such cases of stupidity).

    Stuxnet was rife in Japan at the time of the 2013 quake, and I am not asserting this, but it *may* have had a connection with the failsafes at Fukushima number 1 all failing. Not an assertion, but the reactors were also controlled by Siemens numerical controllers. Nobody that is knowing can saying a word (least of all, if had a role, the idiot to plugging in a virus-infested USB memory device with an auto-boot file).

    More relevant to Mr. McCoy’s essay, the Iranian military took control of a USA military drone, brought it down without much damage, just by using signals. Pretty brilliant. That is a recent and concrete example of what Mr. McCoy is suggesting, even if he is to confusing EM spectra at times, there (that Iranian action) is proof of concept.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  102. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A major Russian telecommunications company appears to have begun providing an Internet connection to North Korea. The new link supplements one from China and will provide back-up to Pyongyang at a time the US government is reportedly attacking its Internet infrastructure and pressuring China to end all business with North Korea.

    Why aren’t we doing more to deal with Russian attempts to subvert us?

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  103. Sean says:

    If the US does nothing it’ll lose reserve currency status anyway as China will turn into a giant-Hong-Kong and dominate the world like the US never could,

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Che Guava
    , @Vidi
  104. Sean says:

    Threaten to. Trump has done it more than once in his business career, and he got concessions too.

  105. Che Guava says:
    @Che Guava

    Self-reply for correction.

    2011 quake.

    The nightmare!

    Was only saved from death that day by feeling bad on awaking, so not to do what I had planned, riding the local lines on the coast. Some trains and even stations were washed away.

    Enough off-topic, but it was traumatic and deadly for many (tens of thousands), oddly forgotten.

    Like most, used to even fairly strong tremors. panic when they come now,

  106. Che Guava says:

    How do you think the US dollar losing reserve-currency status can be other than a good thing?

  107. Che Guava says:

    That is so stupid.

    How is the Russian Federation doing that (or allowing a company to do that) ‘subverting’ ‘you’, who feels the need to post as ‘Anonymous’ on it, anyway?

  108. Joe Wong says:

    To save the “American” i.e. the WASP-American, the “American” should follow the Catalonian, encircle themselves a piece of land where they are the absoulte majority and declare independence from the USA.

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  109. Joe Wong says:

    Eamonn Fingleton is a China hawk and a China fear-monger. He is causing a lot of anxiety in the Washington, and causes a lot of investments from China into USA to create jobs and infrastructure rejuvenation projects being blocked. Eamonn Fingleton believes beggar-thy-neighbour but Chinese believes win-win, building up the USA is a good business for China.

  110. Vidi says:

    If the US does nothing it’ll lose reserve currency status anyway as China will turn into a giant-Hong-Kong and dominate the world like the US never could,

    Let me see if I understand you. You’re saying that the US may as well steal China’s dollar holdings, even if the consequent revulsion and catastrophic loss of trust worldwide will cause the US to lose its reserve currency status — since the USD will lose its status as the dominant reserve currency anyway. Is that what you’re saying?

    So basically you are saying that you will die eventually anyway, so you may as well commit suicide now. I don’t need to point out the logical holes in that argument, do I?

    • Replies: @Sean
  111. Aby says:

    A third of the human civilisation will become destroyed. and the others will fall back in a stone age time. In the coming conflict there will be only loosers…. there will be almost no food left and people will turn back to canabalism, have to eat each other.. This will reduces the peopulation as never before and this is the short sited view of the elite, because nothing is left for them too.

  112. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Nothing to scare the elites. Looks like Israel is untouched, and their job is done.

  113. Sean says:

    The US keeping its dominant reserve status may suit the Chinese elite. The idea is that China gets threatened with repudiation and getting nothing, so takes a creditor haircut.

    I don’t accept your analogy because suicide become easier when you get close to death but in this case it will get more difficult as the US gets borged into Chinamerica. China will never fight milch cow America. A trade war will slow China down a bit.

    Sooner or later the US is going to try and do something to keep China from overtaking it and the later it is left the more difficult it will be.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  114. Vidi says:

    Sooner or later the US is going to try and do something to keep China from overtaking it…

    Why? An empire doesn’t tolerate competitors, but why does the U.S. need to be an empire? Especially as it’s becoming very obvious that the costs of the imperium are bankrupting the country — as they have bankrupted all the previous empires. If the U.S. became a normal country, it would probably be richer than it is now.

    … to keep China from overtaking it and the later it is left the more difficult it will be.

    What can the U.S. do, realistically?

    Remember that the US could not defeat China 60 years ago in Korea. The US may be stronger than it was then, but China’s military strength is vastly greater than it was then. The U.S. would lose a war against the Chinese.

    Stealing China’s dollars? Remember, China’s exposure is only $1 trillion. Losing it all won’t hurt them much. But such an epic theft would make all the other countries in the world extremely nervous about the safety of their dollar holdings. The USD would lose its status as the dominant reserve currency, and the U.S. would no longer be able to “buy” goods from abroad with printed money. So China would scarcely notice the theft, and the U.S. would lose big time.

    A trade war? Do you realize how many millions of Americans are barely getting by because of the cheap stuff that the U.S. buys from China? If that stuff became more expensive and those millions of people started starving, would America survive?

    So what else is possible?

    • Replies: @Thirdeye
  115. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I think minorities may be holding back American progress.

    In any case, I have little doubt that China loves the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea.
    North Korea is the bad cop while China is the good cop.
    And most people have fallen for this game.

  116. Thirdeye says:
    @The Alarmist

    Did you know that “doom porn” is an anagram of “poon dorm?”

  117. Thirdeye says:
    @Joe Wong

    ….. the nature of western culture which is a racist one.

    The Chinese and Japanese cultures are way more racist than the West. Western racists point to China and Japan as examples of race-centered nationhood that they would like to emulate. Western liberalism provided a basis for saying that racism is a bad thing

    Japan is never considered a serious challenger by the West to the Western-defined world order due to its inherent limitations, while China has the capacity to replace the Western world order with its own due to its vast resources, deep civilization and rich culture.

    Japan thrived by viewing Western culture and selecting, cafeteria style, the aspects of it that they could find useful for them. The Nationalist Revolution in China was led by Western-educated Chinese who saw the imperial traditions of China as something holding them back. One of the symbolic acts of the Nationalists was to cut off the pigtails that symbolized submission to the Emperor. One feature of China’s post-Mao rise is the pragmatic assimilation of Western aspects into their culture, much like the Japanese did over a century before. If the result is something better than both Western and traditional Chinese culture, good for them.

  118. Thirdeye says:

    Remember that the US could not defeat China 60 years ago in Korea.

    Actually, it was the PLA that bled itself dry while trying to defeat the UN forces in Korea. China accepted the standing offer for an armistice when the PLA became so weakened that the UN forces could advance north of the 38th parallel. The US accepted the armistice in spite of their new-found ability to advance because of fear of widening the war. Also, Vietnam defeated the PLA quite soundly in the 1979 war, with frontier and reserve units keeping the PLA from achieving any major objective while inflicting disproportionate casualties. But fortunately for China, a land army with great operational capabilities is not necessary to neutralize US striking power with an anti access – area denial strategy. China may indeed win a cyber/standoff confrontation in a way that could compensate for their shortcomings in land and aerial combat capabilities.

  119. Thirdeye says:

    He might be. The unfortunate thing is, a lot of our ruling elite are high on similar drugs.

  120. Thirdeye says:
    @Joe Wong

    It would be landlocked, just like Kurdistan.

  121. Thirdeye says:
    @El Dato

    The idea was that Russia had the mightier army but would be slower to mobilize. France was weaker but more agile than Russia. Germany relied on superior organization and logistics to beat France to the punch and quickly finish them off before Russia became fully mobilized, then move troops to the eastern front. The plan worked until the Germans got the jitters over the Russian advance towards Tannenberg and weakened their western front to oppose it.

  122. @Sean

    Sooner or later the US is going to try and do something to keep China from overtaking it and the later it is left the more difficult it will be.

    Maybe no one but you, however, subscribes to this severe a doctrine of historical clairvoyance.

    There were those advocating pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union after the second world war, and their rationale was the same. Didn’t work out that way.

    Nobody sane is going to start a world war based on an impressionistic long-term prediction of outcomes.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.