You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
China "Secret" Military Buildup, Part 1
- Thread starter coolieno99
- Start date
Bill Gertz, Washington Times and Korean Cult
Probably there still not too many people know what is behind Bill Gertz, Washington Times and Korean Unification Church. It is very interesting and hard to believe. But it is of great entertainment value, too.
Washington Times is a small newspaper and the Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon is its founder and owner. Reverend Moon is the leader of "Unification Church", a cult originated from South Korea.
Reverend Moon has crowned himself as "Messiah" on Capital Hill to save the world. In order to save the world, the main task of this Unification Church is to extinguish all other evil religions, plus the Communism, from the face of the earth.
Bill Gertz, a person with just high school diploma, was hired by Moon at Washington Times as the "sword of darkness" to save the world.
In a sermon at Unification Church on December 10, 2000, Washington Times founder and owner, Sun Myung Moon, described Bill Gertz as playing a special role in working towards a time when "the world will follow me (i.e. "Messiah Moon")". During the sermon Reverend Moon said:
"America is the most powerful country in the world. But its powerful leaders listen to the Washington Times. A statement from the Times can affect them dramatically. The government of other nations also listen to the Washington Times. Who at the Washington Times is having the biggest impact? Bill Gertz. How old is he? He is young. He only graduated from high school, joined the Washington Times and became famous."
If Pentagon wants to "leak" out some information that is so ridiculous and no newspaper wants to take it, then it is the tme to talk to Bill Gertz. Bill will put any garbage out, plus the extra spin, on Washington Times.
Journalist John Gorenfeld has tracked the activities of Sun Myung Moon. In 2004, John Gorenfeld was featured on ABC News Tonight With Peter Jennings and made the front of the Washington Post after exposing a secret crowning ceremony for a cult leader Moon held on Capitol Hill. He's been on a bunch of radio shows, including NPR's "All Things Considered" and "On the Media," "The Al Franken Show," the CBC's "As It Happens," and many others.
Anyway, be alert if you see "Bill Gertz" and/or "Washington Time".
Probably there still not too many people know what is behind Bill Gertz, Washington Times and Korean Unification Church. It is very interesting and hard to believe. But it is of great entertainment value, too.
Washington Times is a small newspaper and the Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon is its founder and owner. Reverend Moon is the leader of "Unification Church", a cult originated from South Korea.
Reverend Moon has crowned himself as "Messiah" on Capital Hill to save the world. In order to save the world, the main task of this Unification Church is to extinguish all other evil religions, plus the Communism, from the face of the earth.
Bill Gertz, a person with just high school diploma, was hired by Moon at Washington Times as the "sword of darkness" to save the world.
In a sermon at Unification Church on December 10, 2000, Washington Times founder and owner, Sun Myung Moon, described Bill Gertz as playing a special role in working towards a time when "the world will follow me (i.e. "Messiah Moon")". During the sermon Reverend Moon said:
"America is the most powerful country in the world. But its powerful leaders listen to the Washington Times. A statement from the Times can affect them dramatically. The government of other nations also listen to the Washington Times. Who at the Washington Times is having the biggest impact? Bill Gertz. How old is he? He is young. He only graduated from high school, joined the Washington Times and became famous."
If Pentagon wants to "leak" out some information that is so ridiculous and no newspaper wants to take it, then it is the tme to talk to Bill Gertz. Bill will put any garbage out, plus the extra spin, on Washington Times.
Journalist John Gorenfeld has tracked the activities of Sun Myung Moon. In 2004, John Gorenfeld was featured on ABC News Tonight With Peter Jennings and made the front of the Washington Post after exposing a secret crowning ceremony for a cult leader Moon held on Capitol Hill. He's been on a bunch of radio shows, including NPR's "All Things Considered" and "On the Media," "The Al Franken Show," the CBC's "As It Happens," and many others.
Anyway, be alert if you see "Bill Gertz" and/or "Washington Time".
Last edited:
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
Re: Bill Gertz, Washington Times and Korean Cult
Errm I remember this joke from a while back about american newspapers and who reads them..anyway the wall street journal is read by the elite in america...the NYT is read by wannabe elites..
Typhoon said:"America is the most powerful country in the world. But its powerful leaders listen to the Washington Times. A statement from the Times can affect them dramatically. The government of other nations also listen to the Washington Times. Who at the Washington Times is having the biggest impact? Bill Gertz. How old is he? He is young. He only graduated from high school, joined the Washington Times and became famous."
Errm I remember this joke from a while back about american newspapers and who reads them..anyway the wall street journal is read by the elite in america...the NYT is read by wannabe elites..
ordinary dude
New Member
Ok, so if some civilian company take some satellite photos of the US coast, then the world would freak that the US is "secretly" building up forces. This is just some lame newspaper trying to get more circulation and score some brownie points with the hawks in DC.
As for my part, I think it's likely that China is heavily reinforcing certain areas of its military complex, notably its nuclear forces.
The international situation has deteriorated considerably since the end of the Cold War. To a large extent, US foreign policy is aimed at containing rising China. The Chinese leadership is aware of this and must react in some way.
Does sticking to merely 200+ something nuclear weapons and 30 nuclear missiles targeted against the US make sense? Does it make sense to modernise your general military infrastructure, meticulously upgrade your ships and aircraft over decades if in an emergency, the US could relatively easily put large sections of this infrastructure/forces out of action by using (low-yield) nukes? I don't think so. That's why I am pretty convinced that China is rapidly seeking nuclear parity with the US.
China possesses the ability to build long range missiles, it is able to produce the nuclear fissile material for the warheads and is has the workforce to build the mobile launchers and dig the tunnels. Its proficiency in this very delimited area is comparatively much higher than in the construction of submarines or fighter aircraft. It would be foolish if China didn't take advantage of this in the general political climate.
The international situation has deteriorated considerably since the end of the Cold War. To a large extent, US foreign policy is aimed at containing rising China. The Chinese leadership is aware of this and must react in some way.
Does sticking to merely 200+ something nuclear weapons and 30 nuclear missiles targeted against the US make sense? Does it make sense to modernise your general military infrastructure, meticulously upgrade your ships and aircraft over decades if in an emergency, the US could relatively easily put large sections of this infrastructure/forces out of action by using (low-yield) nukes? I don't think so. That's why I am pretty convinced that China is rapidly seeking nuclear parity with the US.
China possesses the ability to build long range missiles, it is able to produce the nuclear fissile material for the warheads and is has the workforce to build the mobile launchers and dig the tunnels. Its proficiency in this very delimited area is comparatively much higher than in the construction of submarines or fighter aircraft. It would be foolish if China didn't take advantage of this in the general political climate.
Andrew said:As for my part, I think it's likely that China is heavily reinforcing certain areas of its military complex, notably its nuclear forces.
The international situation has deteriorated considerably since the end of the Cold War. To a large extent, US foreign policy is aimed at containing rising China. The Chinese leadership is aware of this and must react in some way.
Does sticking to merely 200+ something nuclear weapons and 30 nuclear missiles targeted against the US make sense? Does it make sense to modernise your general military infrastructure, meticulously upgrade your ships and aircraft over decades if in an emergency, the US could relatively easily put large sections of this infrastructure/forces out of action by using (low-yield) nukes? I don't think so. That's why I am pretty convinced that China is rapidly seeking nuclear parity with the US.
China possesses the ability to build long range missiles, it is able to produce the nuclear fissile material for the warheads and is has the workforce to build the mobile launchers and dig the tunnels. Its proficiency in this very delimited area is comparatively much higher than in the construction of submarines or fighter aircraft. It would be foolish if China didn't take advantage of this in the general political climate.
Andrew, i agree with you. PLA's missile forces are very small. I hope PLA Second Artillery has 500 ICBMs, each with MIRVs capable of striking all of USA by 2015!:china:
Su-34 said:Andrew, i agree with you. PLA's missile forces are very small. I hope PLA Second Artillery has 500 ICBMs, each with MIRVs capable of striking all of USA by 2015!:china:
By establishing a comprehensive umbrella of nuclear and conventionally armed long range ICBMs, China's posture of deterrence would be much more menacing. The reverse side of the medal is China's increased ability to offer other (regional) powers and allies a certain degree of protection.
I think that with regards to Taiwan such a strategy is perhaps already under way. The density of (cruise-)missiles in the area is steadily being increased and the cost of intervention rises. Building more long range ICBMs would mean that, albeit to a lesser extent, this idea could be implemented on a global scale. To a certain degree, conventionally armed ICBMs targeted against bases might be able provide flexibility, I don't know.
This is especially important as building large carrier groups, a fleet of bombers, strike and air-to-air refuelling aircraft, expanding the Chinese "Marine Corps" is an extremely complicated process which will take perhaps 30-40 years' time until parity is reached with the USA. To be sure, these tools offer a vastly greater field of application and flexibility but, besides taking a long time to develop them, they are very costly to maintain.
By that time, global oil reserves will have been severely depleted. The US economy will have surely gone through many a turbulence and the nerve of its government will be stretched to the breaking point. If China does not have a more credible nuclear deterrent by that time, I see the real possibility of the US quickly resorting to nukes in case of an emergency. Making Chinese military dependent on Russia's nuclear backing would seem dangerous to me in the long run.
With kind regards
Andrew
Andrew said:As for my part, I think it's likely that China is heavily reinforcing certain areas of its military complex, notably its nuclear forces.
The international situation has deteriorated considerably since the end of the Cold War. To a large extent, US foreign policy is aimed at containing rising China. The Chinese leadership is aware of this and must react in some way.
Does sticking to merely 200+ something nuclear weapons and 30 nuclear missiles targeted against the US make sense? Does it make sense to modernise your general military infrastructure, meticulously upgrade your ships and aircraft over decades if in an emergency, the US could relatively easily put large sections of this infrastructure/forces out of action by using (low-yield) nukes? I don't think so. That's why I am pretty convinced that China is rapidly seeking nuclear parity with the US.
China possesses the ability to build long range missiles, it is able to produce the nuclear fissile material for the warheads and is has the workforce to build the mobile launchers and dig the tunnels. Its proficiency in this very delimited area is comparatively much higher than in the construction of submarines or fighter aircraft. It would be foolish if China didn't take advantage of this in the general political climate.
It makes fair bit of sense on a few conditions:
1) ALL of countervalue force, must survive to second strike positions.
2) China does not itself initiate nuclear attacks
1 is unknown, frankly. America has good satellites and many precision weapons, but China is large and have many mountains. 2 is quite easy since China has no first use policy, and it is manifestly not in their interest to use first, so very likely not.
Why? Because then any American nuclear attack on China (and for to destroy large portions of Chinese industry, you need hundred of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not nearly as powerful as people think - a 'complete destruction' radius of three kilometres would be nice for the relatively low yield American warheads) would have to be pre-emptive and against population centres, and then China would be justified to retaliate in kind. Perhaps ten, perhaps fifteen, American cities will be have their hearts ripped out, with millions of casualties (we are assuming that China's counter forces survive remember), and all of this for an unprovoked massive attack on civilian populations. Just doesn't make political sense.