China objects to more nuclear sub talks among UK, U.S, Australia
BEIJING, Feb 3 (Reuters) – China “firmly objects” to further cooperation between Britain, U.S. and Australia on nuclear submarines, its foreign ministry said in a regular briefing on Friday.
Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said, “China is gravely concerned about this and firmly objects to it,” in response to a question that cited a media report saying British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s visit to the United States in March may yield announcements on more nuclear submarine cooperation…………. Reporting by Yew Lun Tian and Joe Cash ; Writing by Liz Lee; Editing by Christian Schmollinger https://www.reuters.com/world/china-objects-more-nuclear-sub-talks-among-uk-us-australia-2023-02-03/
Can Talks with China about Nuclear Weapons Be Constructive?
January 26, 2023 Gregory Kulacki https://blog.ucsusa.org/gregory-kulacki/can-talks-with-china-about-nuclear-weapons-be-constructive/
Politico reported US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is “under pressure” to “raise administration concerns” about the size of China’s nuclear arsenal when he travels to Beijing in early February.
Constructive conversations on nuclear weapons policy are urgently needed. Both governments are upgrading their nuclear capabilities. Chinese military planners worry about US preparations to use nuclear weapons first to forestall defeat in a conventional war, as well as US efforts to undermine China’s ability to retaliate. US military planners are concerned about the construction of new Chinese missile silos, which will significantly increase the probability and magnitude of Chinese nuclear retaliation if the United States uses nuclear weapons first.
The nuclear aspect of what some US observers describe as a new Cold War with China is different than the US nuclear contest with the Soviet Union. It’s not about numbers. Chinese leaders don’t express interest in numerical parity. President Biden’s remarks on China’s nuclear weapons policy suggest he thinks they do. That’s unfortunate. If a desired outcome of Blinken’s visit is to start a dialogue on nuclear weapons, he will need to focus less on the numbers and more on why Chinese leaders built the silos.
What Chinese leaders want – what they have wanted since they decided to develop nuclear weapons in 1955 – is to be able to use conventional military force without undue concern the United States will use nuclear weapons to stop them. Being able to credibly threaten to use nuclear weapons to prevent or defeat Chinese conventional military initiatives has been a cornerstone of US defense policy in East Asia since the Korean War.
Chinese efforts to negate US first use threats are an important part of Chinese nuclear strategy. Chinese leaders believe if they can convince US decision-makers they will retaliate, then they can safely ignore US threats to use nuclear weapons first.
Chinese military planners have always been concerned their comparatively small nuclear force could tempt US decision makers to try to wipe it out at the beginning of a war. Continued US investment in ballistic missile defense creates additional doubt about US respect for China’s ability to retaliate.
The bulk of China’s current nuclear force consists of missiles launched from trucks. Recent technological advances increase the possibility the United States could destroy or disable those missiles with conventional munitions. Switching to silos makes that far less likely.
Current US projections of a large increase in the size of China’s nuclear force assume the new silos are an addition, not a replacement. They also assume everyone of those silos will contain a new missile and every one of those missiles will carry multiple warheads. But China does not need that many warheads to achieve its strategic objective. Even if the silos sit empty, US military planners must assume they’re not, and US decision-makers must assume China can retaliate if the United States uses nuclear weapons first.
If Secretary Blinken’s only objective is to talk about numbers, his Chinese interlocutor can tell China’s leaders their decision to build the silos was a strategic success. It is hard to see how that makes the United States or its Asian allies safer.
It would be wiser if Blinken said the United States no longer needs to threaten to use nuclear weapons first to keep the peace. Instead of handing Chinese leaders a strategic victory, he would convey a surprising US confidence in its conventional forces. That’s more likely to restrain Chinese leaders than what they continue to see as empty US threats to start a nuclear war; threats revolutionary leader Mao Zedong famously described as a “paper tiger.”
As paradoxical as it may seem to a US strategic culture obsessed with size, forgoing the option to use nuclear weapons first may be the best way to get Chinese leaders to respect the ability of the United States to defend its allies, and to begin a constructive conversation about nuclear weapons.
China deploys ships and jets near Taiwan — Taipei
The move comes hours after US warships sailed past the self-governed island
https://www.rt.com/news/561681-taiwan-china-strait-tensions/ 28 Aug22,
A sizable group of Chinese military vessels and aircraft has been detected around Taiwan amid heightened tensions in the region, the self-governed island’s Defense Ministry claimed on Sunday.
According to the ministry, eight Chinese Navy vessels and 23 aircraft were detected in Taiwan’s vicinity. Ten planes, it stated, “had flown on the east part of the median line of the Taiwan Strait,” which in practice serves as an unofficial barrier between mainland China and the island.
The Taiwanese military added that local combat air patrol has been given relevant instructions, and that Beijing’s activities are being closely monitored.
The apparent Chinese deployment comes a day after the US sent two warships to the Taiwan Strait, in what the Navy called a “routine” transit mission, meant to “demonstrate the United States’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
Beijing responded by putting its military on high alert and signaling its readiness “to stop any provocations in a timely manner.” Earlier, China also castigated the US, branding it “the destroyer of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”
Tensions in the region have been running high since the controversial visit by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taipei in early August, which sent relations between Washington and Beijing into a tailspin and triggered a flurry of Chinese military activity in the area. At the time, Chinese Defense Ministry said it had conducted drills simulating a “blockade” of the island, as well as amphibious assaults and the striking of ground targets.
Beijing considers the self-governing island its own territory, and views visits by high-ranking US officials as attacks on its sovereignty and a violation of the ‘One China’ principle. The Taiwan Strait, which separates the self-governed island from mainland China, has been a source of military tension since 1949, when Chinese nationalists fled to the island after losing the Civil War to the Communists.
The Chinese non-threat
China relies on something called soft power discovered by the Chinese long before the rest of us.
https://johnmenadue.com/the-chinese-non-threat/ Pearls and Irritations, By Gregory Clark, Aug 23, 2022
Our resident non-Chinese speaking, non-Chinese informed but bitterly ‘China is expansionist-aggressive’ commentators in the mainstream media in Australia don’t have,or even want to have, any idea about China.
China is accused of aggressive expansionism, over Taiwan and towards its neighbours in general.
It is a curious charge. Almost all of the 178 nations recognising China have formally recognised that legally Taiwan belongs to China. In the recently proclaimed ‘rules based international order’ such formal recognition by so many nations would seem to have some weight.
Yet Beijing has still done little to claim this promised recognition. On the contrary, it still accepts Taiwan’s control over a number of islands in the South China Sea, including some occupied by the Taiwan military a stone’s throw from China’s coast.
Nor is it only Taiwan that enjoys Beijing’s territorial tolerance.
It has done nothing to follow up on China’s strong historical clam to much of Russia’s Far East. Even at the height of China’s strong tensions with Moscow in the 1960’s and ’70’s it barely moved despite constant invitations to do so by Western hawks.
(Taiwan too had criticised Beijing’s inaction).
Amazingly Beijing has done nothing to try to dominate, let alone attack, the vast areas of a Mongolia with rich resources needed by China and with only 3 million people to defend its 4,600 kilometre with China (Taiwan insists Mongolia is China’s territory and strongly criticises Beijing’s inaction.)
The same is true for Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan, central Asian nations which border China and have at times harboured militants that have attacked into China.(Taiwan again criticises Beijing’s inaction.)
Moving down to Pakistan and India, we find Beijing has tolerated borders (the MacMahon Line and in much of Ladakh) imposed by aggressive19th century UK colonial advances far into China’s then nominally controlled, Tibetan-populated Himalayan territories.
True, there have since been disputes with India which took over from the British the large Tibetan populated areas in northern Assam and Ladakh, and wants more. Only when the Indians under Nehru’s forward policy went too far and moved into Tibet across even the UK arbitrarily imposed MacMahon Line did Beijing finally take action.
Even then, and having taught the Indians a lesson, it retreated to the MacMahon Line (a retreat which Taiwan protested, of course).
(As China desk officer in Canberra at the time I know for a fact that the first dispute in 1962 was due to India trying illegally to seize territory north of the MacMahon Line.The Chinese gave us the maps to prove it. The Indians gave nothing.)
Moving further east we find that Beijing, unlike Taiwan, accepts a border with Myanmar that allows Kokang, a large Mandarin Chinese speaking community, to remain in eastern Myanmar. (Taiwan objects to Beijing’s generosity, of course.)
Beijing did nothing to support the many pro-Beijing, Chinese speakers in Sarawak, fighting a losing battle with British and Australian troops while seeking to prevent their 1960’s forcible incorporation into the artificial construct of Malaysia.
Beijing did nothing to maintain the now disappeared 2,000 year colony of Chinese in western Borneo – the Laifang Republic. And as we know tragically it did nothing to protect the one million Chinese and leftwing Indonesian massacred in 1958. Nor did it try to protect resident Chinese from subsequent brutal Indonesian pogroms there .
And finally we come to the alleged Chinese claims against sone minuscule Japanese claimed islands -the Senkaku Islands – in the east China sea. The claims were in fact made by Taiwan, not China; they are supported by China. The islands have no Japanese name; they were discovered and named by Chinese and British explorers. Geographically they are part of Taiwan and lie on the Chinese continental shelf.
Even the US does not recognise Japanese sovereignty.
One wonders whether our resident non-Chinese speaking, non-Chinese informed but bitterly ‘China is expansionist-aggressive’ commentators in the mainstream media have, or even want to have, any idea of any of these details.
By comparison, while China has been doing little in recent decades, the US was quickly trying to take over by force large territories of France, Mexico, Spain (including the Philippines) and even Canada plus a host of islands belonging to other people in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
In shameful collusion with the UK the US expelled the population of the Diego Garcia island and used it for the bombing of much of the Middle East.
China’s long acceptance of British and Portuguese colonies on its border (India was far less tolerant), its delay in taking over Taiwan (a right granted by every nation recognising Beijing, including the US and Australia), its toleration of Taiwan still occupying militarily the Offshore Islands etc suggests almost a dislike of military action.
Instead it relies on something called soft power discovered by the Chinese long before the rest of us. Convinced of the attractiveness of its culture it long believed with it can automatically draw people to its side without force of arms.
That was before it came up against us militaristic Westerners, happy to invade China and vandalistically destroy the symbols of that culture.
GREGORY CLARK
Gregory Clark began his career in Australia’s Department of External Affairs, with postings to Hong Kong and Moscow. Resigning in 1964 to protest at Australia’s participation in the Vietnam War he moved to Japan, becoming emeritus president of Tama University in Tokyo and vice-president of the pioneering Akita International University. He continues to live in Japan and has established himself as a commentator/academic. Between 1969-74 he was correspondent for The Australian in Tokyo.
More on http://www.gregoryclark.net
China’s record-breaking heatwave, threatening water resources
The southwestern Chinese regions of Chonqging and Sichuan were battling
fires on Tuesday as they awaited a long-anticipated drop in temperatures
over the next week, but the country’s important autumn harvest remained
under serious threat. Officials warned this month that temperatures were
rising faster in China than in the rest of the world and a record-breaking
heatwave has raised concern about its ability to adapt to rapid climate
change and conserve already scarce water resources.
Reuters 23rd Aug 2022
The only thing keeping US and China from war is running dangerously thin
Washington’s ambiguous Taiwan policies are edging towards conflict, but Beijing wants to exhaust peaceful options first.
A US policy at war with itself
What emerges from this amalgam of policy statements and positions is a US policy that is inherently at war with itself, unable to fully commit either to the finality of a “one China” policy or walk away from the sale of weapons to Taiwan. The US disguises this inherent inconsistency by referring to it as “strategic ambiguity.” The problem is this policy stew is neither strategic in vision, nor ambiguous.
radical departure from stated US policy by the Biden administration helped launch a Congressional trifecta of hubris-laced ignorance, which saw the dispatch of three consecutive delegations that threaten to propel China down the path toward a war with Taiwan it doesn’t want to wage, and which the world (including the US) is not prepared to suffer the consequences of.
Despite the clear evidence of a marked departure [by USA] from past policy regarding Taiwan and weapons sales, China continues to believe that there is a non-violent solution to the one China problem.
https://www.rt.com/news/561182-china-taiwan-us-war/ Scott Ritter, 22 Aug 22,
American relations with China in regards to Taiwan have been dictated by years of ambiguous statements and commitments. Now this rhetoric is breaking down and armed conflict seems closer than ever – but is Washington ready to fight over Taiwan, or capable of winning?
Assurances and commitments
Officially, US policy toward Taiwan is guided by three US-China Joint Communiques issued between 1972 and 1982, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and the so-called “Six Assurances” issued in 1982. In the Shanghai Communique of 1972, China asserted that “the Taiwan question is the crucial question obstructing the normalization of relations between China and the United States,” declaring that “the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China,” that Taiwan is a province of China, and that “the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere.”
The US responded by acknowledging that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China,” something the US government did not challenge. The US also reaffirmed its interest “in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”
Before that, on January 1, 1979, the US and China had issued a “Joint Communique of the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations” in which the US undertook to recognize “the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China,” noting that, within the context of that commitment, “the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.”
President Jimmy Carter, in announcing the communique, went out of his way to ensure the people of Taiwan “that normalization of relations between our country and the People’s Republic will not jeopardize the well-being of the people of Taiwan,” adding that “the people of our country will maintain our current commercial, cultural, trade, and other relations with Taiwan through nongovernmental means.”
Carter’s move to establish diplomatic relations with China did not sit well with many members of Congress, who responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, in which it was declared that it is US policy “to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland,” and “to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.”
In this regard, the Taiwan Relations Act underscored that the US would “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States,” and “to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character.” Finally, the Act declared that the US would maintain the capacity “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.”
The emphasis on arms sales contained in the Taiwan Relations Act led to the third joint communiqué between the US and China, released on August 17, 1982, which sought to settle differences between the two nations regarding US arms sales to Taiwan. The communique was basically a quid-pro-quo agreement where China underscored that it maintained “a fundamental policy of striving for a peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, over which it claimed sovereignty. For its part, the US declared that it “understands and appreciates the Chinese policy of striving for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question,” and, with that in mind, the US declared that it did not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan, and that it would gradually reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan while working for a final resolution to reunification.
To mollify Taiwanese concerns about the third communique, the US agreed to what have become known as “the Six Assurances” between the US and Taiwan. These are 1) the US has not set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan, 2) the US has not agreed to prior consultations with China about arms sales to Taiwan, 3) the US has not agreed to any mediation role between China and Taiwan, 4) the US has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act, 5) the US has not taken a position regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan, and 6) that the US would never put pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with China.
There was an unwritten corollary to the third communique—an internal memorandum signed by President Ronald Reagan in which he declared that “the US willingness to reduce its arms sales to Taiwan is conditioned absolutely upon the continued commitment of China to the peaceful solution of the Taiwan-PRC [People’s Republic of China] differences,” adding that “it is essential that the quantity and quality of the arms provided Taiwan be conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the PRC.”
A US policy at war with itself
What emerges from this amalgam of policy statements and positions is a US policy that is inherently at war with itself, unable to fully commit either to the finality of a “one China” policy or walk away from the sale of weapons to Taiwan. The US disguises this inherent inconsistency by referring to it as “strategic ambiguity.” The problem is this policy stew is neither strategic in vision, nor ambiguous.
From the moment President Reagan issued the “Six Assurances,” US-China policy was strained over the issue of weapons sales, with China making the case that the US was not serious about either the peaceful reunification of Taiwan with China, or the elimination of arms sales to Taiwan. Arms sales increased exponentially from the Reagan administration to that of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, with the US providing Taipei F-16 fighters, Patriot surface-to-air missiles, and other advanced weapons. In 1997, House Speaker Newt Gingrich visited Taiwan as part of a Pacific tour that included China. Gingrich claims he told his Chinese hosts that, if China were to attack Taiwan, the US “will defend Taiwan. Period.”
In 2005, in response to US backsliding when it came to arms sales and Taiwan, China adopted legislation known as the “Anti-Secession Law” which stated firmly that Taiwan “is part of China.”
Continue readingChina Reaffirms Support for ASEAN’s Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone
https://jakartaglobe.id/news/china-reaffirms-support-for-aseans-nuclear-weaponfree-zone BY :JAYANTY NADA SHOFA. JULY 11, 2022
Jakarta. China recently pledged to take its ties with ASEAN to greater heights, among others, by backing the Southeast Asian bloc’s nuclear-weapon-free treaty.
China reaffirmed its readiness to ink the protocol to the treaty when its senior diplomat Wang Yi visited the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta on Monday.
“We will continue to support ASEAN’s efforts in building a nuclear-weapon-free zone and reaffirm that China is ready to sign the protocol to the Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone at any time,” Wang Yi said at the ASEAN Secretariat.
According to Wang Yi, over the past years, China has made several historic milestones in its ties with ASEAN, among others, in regard to the country’s support to help keep the Southeast Asian region free of nuclear arms.
“[China was] the first to publicly express its willingness to sign the protocol to the Southeast Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said.
In 1995, the ten ASEAN member states, including Indonesia, agreed to a nuclear weapons moratorium treaty known as the Bangkok Treaty.
The protocol for this treaty is open for signature by the five nuclear-weapon states recognized by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, namely China, France, the UK, the US, and Russia.
The protocol obliges its signatories not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons within the zone or against any state party to the treaty. To date, none of the nuclear-weapon states has penned the protocol.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has pledged to sign the protocol as early as possible. Xi Jinping made this commitment at last year’s China-ASEAN Special Summit, which marked the 30th anniversary of dialogue relations between the two sides.
Amid Iran nuclear impasse, China calls out US for AUKUS ‘double standards’
AUKUS pact’s negative impact on political, diplomatic settlement of Iran nuclear issue cannot be undone, says Chinese envoy
AA Riyaz ul Khaliq |01.07.2022 ISTANBUL
Calling for an “early and positive outcome” in ongoing talks on the Iran nuclear deal, China has urged the US to “abandon double standards” on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Referring to the AUKUS pact between the US, UK and Australia, China’s UN envoy Zhang Jun told a Security Council session: “(It) is the first time since the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) was concluded that a nuclear weapon state has openly transferred nuclear weapon materials to a non-nuclear weapon state.”
Under the AUKUS deal signed last year, Australia will build nuclear-powered submarines with the US and UK.
“Regardless of how the three countries may choose to name their nuclear submarine cooperation, the very essence of their nuclear proliferation behavior cannot be concealed,” Zhang said during a UNSC session on the Iran nuclear deal on Thursday.
“Its negative impact on the political and diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue cannot be undone, the risk it poses to regional peace and stability is a reality that cannot be changed.”…………….
Welcoming the indirect talks between Washington and Tehran held in Qatar’s capital Doha this week, Zhang said: “The future of the Iranian nuclear issue is critical to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, regional stability, and international peace and security.”
The meeting in Doha, however, concluded without any concrete progress.
Zhang said adhering to “the overarching goal of a political solution” will keep the “resumed Iranian nuclear talks on the right track with a view to an early and positive outcome.”
The Chinese ambassador also called for “eliminating interference in the negotiation process.”……………….. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/amid-iran-nuclear-impasse-china-calls-out-us-for-aukus-double-standards/2628064
China Says It Does Not Want To See Another North Korean Nuclear Test
NDTV
China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun has urged Washington to ease unilateral sanctions on North Korea and end joint military exercises with South Korea in a bid to revive talks with Pyongyang.
WorldReuters: June 10, 2022 United Nations:
China’s U.N. envoy said on Thursday that Beijing does not want to see North Korea carry out a new nuclear test, which is partly why China vetoed a U.S.-led bid to impose new U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang over renewed ballistic missiles launches.
But Ambassador Zhang Jun warned against making presumptions on how Beijing might react at the United Nations if North Korea goes ahead with its first nuclear test since 2017. Washington has warned such a test could happen at “any time” and it would again push for more U.N. sanctions.
Let’s see what will happen, but I think we should not prejudge what will happen with a nuclear test,” Zhang told Reuters, two weeks after China and Russia vetoed imposing more U.N. Security Council sanctions on North Korea.
“The denuclearization is one of the key goals of China,” Zhang said. “We do not want to see another test.”
The double veto publicly split the 15-member Security Council for the first time since it started punishing Pyongyang in 2006. The body has steadily – and unanimously – ratcheted up sanctions over the years in a bid to cut off funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.
However, in recent years China and Russia have been pushing for an easing of sanctions on humanitarian grounds – and in the hope that North Korea can be convinced to return to negotiations with the United States on giving up its nuclear weapons………………….. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/china-says-it-does-not-want-to-see-another-north-korean-nuclear-test-3054324
Nuclear War Threat Drives Greater Divide Between U.S., China
NewsWeek, BY JON JACKSON ON 5/6/22 THE ALREADY TENUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA RISKS FURTHER DETERIORATION FOLLOWING RECENT COMMENTS FROM EACH COUNTRY REGARDING THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR THE OTHER PRESENTS.
Admiral Charles Richard spoke Wednesday during a hearing assembled by the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee about the escalated nuclear threat posed by China since its ally Russia began its invasion of Ukraine.
“We are facing a crisis deterrence dynamic right now that we have only seen a few times in our nation’s history,” Richard, who is head of the U.S. Strategic Command, said. “The war in Ukraine and China’s nuclear trajectory—their strategic breakout—demonstrates that we have a deterrence and assurance gap based on the threat of limited nuclear employment.”
During a Friday press conference, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian was asked about Richard’s remarks.
| China follows a self-defensive nuclear strategy and keeps its nuclear forces at the minimum level required to safeguard national security. We stay committed to no first use of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances, and undertake unequivocally and unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones,” Zhao said. “This policy remains clear and consistent. China opposes any form of ‘China nuclear threat’ theory.”He further charged that U.S. officials were trying to shift “the blame to others.””Some individuals in the U.S. have been hyping up various versions of the so-called ‘China nuclear threat,'” Zhao said. “As is known to all, the U.S. is the biggest source of nuclear threat in the world”…………………………………….. . https://www.newsweek.com/nuclear-war-threat-drives-greater-divide-between-us-china-1704340 |
China Is Accelerating Its Nuclear Buildup Over Rising Fears of U.S. Conflict
China Is Accelerating Its Nuclear Buildup Over Rising Fears of U.S. Conflict
Beijing believes U.S. could turn to nuclear weapons in a war; Ukraine invasion underscores the value of a robust arsenal
By Alastair Gale, April 9, 2022 China has accelerated an expansion of its nuclear arsenal because of a change in its assessment of the threat posed by the U.S., people with knowledge of the Chinese leadership’s thinking say, shedding new light on a buildup that is raising tension between the two countries.
The Chinese nuclear effort long predates Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the U.S.’s wariness about getting directly involved in the war there has likely reinforced Beijing’s decision to put greater emphasis on developing nuclear weapons as a deterrent,…(subscribers only) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/china-is-accelerating-its-nuclear-buildup-over-rising-fears-of-u-s-conflict-11649509201
Nuclear bunkers are not what they used to be, with earth-penetrating weapons on the rise
Chinese tests show nuclear bunkers are not what they used to be, with earth-penetrating weapons on the rise, Stephen Chen in Beijing, SCMP , 8 Apr 22,
Current engineering standards ‘severely underestimated the actual impact’ of a nuclear blast targeting underground defence facilities, according to paperMajor nuclear powers have a growing interest in small-yield bunker busters because they produce little or no radioactive fallout to pollute the landscape.
.……. In the past, shelters buried several hundred metres deep were rated nuclear-proof but the Chinese test facility shows that a tunnel more than 2km (1.24 miles) under the surface could be destroyed, according to the researchers.In one test, the simulated tunnel almost crumbled after taking hits the effective equivalent of five consecutive strikes by earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, an outcome that would have once been considered impossible………………. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3173478/chinese-tests-show-nuclear-bunkers-are-not-what-they-used-be?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article&campaign=3173478
China call USA the ”Leading Instigator” of the Russia/Ukraine conflict.
 | |||
China Calls U.S. ‘Leading Instigator’ of Russia, Ukraine Conflict, Newsweek BY MATTHEW IMPELLI 4/1/22 China called the U.S. the “leading instigator” of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine on Friday.
During a daily press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “As the culprit and the leading instigator of the Ukraine crisis, the US has led NATO in pursuing five rounds of eastward expansions in the next two decades or so since 1999.”
“NATO’s membership has increased from 16 to 30 countries and the organization moved over 1000 kilometers eastward to somewhere near Russia’s borders, pushing the latter to the wall,” Zhao added…………
While the U.S. and NATO members have condemned Russia and President Vladimir Putin, China has yet to take a concrete side on the issues, calling for peace between the two nations. https://www.newsweek.com/china-calls-us-leading-instigator-russia-ukraine-conflict-1694354
China continues to resist U.S. demand to join “global web to strangle Russia”
Global TimesMarch 15, 2022 US cannot expect China to cooperate under its suppression: Global Times editorial Edited On Monday, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi met with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Rome, Italy. They […]
China continues to resist U.S. demand to join “global web to strangle Russia” — Anti-bellum Global Times editorial https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/113283937/posts/3888946559
Edited
On Monday, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi met with US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in Rome, Italy. They conducted candid, deep and constructive communication on China-US relations and international and regional issues of common concern. Yang said the implementation of the consensus between the two heads of state is the most important task for China-US relations. He stressed that the Taiwan question concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and expounded on China’s solemn position on issues related to Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, pointing out that these issues concern China’s core interests and are China’s internal affairs that allow no foreign interference. In addition, Yang also expounded on China’s position on the Ukraine issue. Readouts of the White House before and after the talks both mentioned Ukraine issue and maintaining open lines of communication between the US and China.
Some analysts believe that it is more likely that the US has proposed the meeting, because judging from the posture, it is the US that needs to ask China for help in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
…Washington has taken some petty actions a day before the meeting, all related to Ukraine issue. For example, US media quoted “anonymous senior US officials” as saying that Russia had asked China for “military aid,” including drones, after the Russia-Ukraine conflict escalated. Moreover, Sullivan on the same day claimed that there will “absolutely be consequences for large-scale sanctions evasion efforts or support to Russia to backfill them.” Washington’s intention to threaten Beijing is obvious. It is an old US diplomatic tactic to use disinformation and intimidation to secure a favorable position in negotiations. But China never buys it.
These actions from the US also show that Washington is quite anxious about the Ukraine issue. It wants China to dance to its tune. What the US hopes for is to weave a global web to strangle Russia, making all countries part of this web without any “loophole.” The US is the instigator of the Ukraine crisis; yet, it wants to exploit the whole world to expand its own strategic interests. This makes people wonder: Where does the US get its confidence from? Has it been dominating the world for so long that it thinks it even controls the lever of the Earth’s rotation? If Washington wants to forcibly tie China-US relations to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, it is on the wrong track and will definitely be disappointed.
The Russia-Ukraine crisis is worthy of talks, but not in this way. A Chinese saying goes, “Let he who tied the bell on the tiger’s neck take it off.” The problem that was created by the US cannot and should not be solved by China. Besides, China and the US should handle their relations well before they can better coordinate stances as the third parties. In other words, Washington should make practical moves to make China feel the US is a reliable major power.
Last year, US leaders and senior officials have stated that the US has no intention to seek a new Cold War or change China’s system, that the revitalization of US alliances is not anti-China, that the US does not support “Taiwan independence”, and that it is not looking for conflict or confrontation with China. But all these are still no more than empty words. The US Congress recently passed an act that is politically manipulating the map of the island of Taiwan, creating “two Chinas” and “one China, one Taiwan.” This was not only a blatant provocation of China’s territorial integrity but also another proof that Washington betrays its promises. There are many other examples. In this circumstance, why does the US think that China should “help” it out?
On the Ukraine issue, China has been independently making judgement in the spirit of objectivity and fairness and based on the merits of the matter itself. It has been playing a constructive role in facilitating peace talks. China has repeatedly called international community to jointly support Russia-Ukraine peace talks, achieve substantive results as soon as possible, and promote de-escalation of the situation. Such a responsible attitude will not budge, even slightly, under US pressure….
In terms of diplomacy, the US appears to be rather inconsistent now. The profound reason is Washington’s shortsightedness. This has led the US into a quagmire when dealing with foreign relations. It can only solve the problems superficially, and it arrogantly believes the world should be at its service. As a result, it always fails to handle relations with other major powers and leaves a mess in regional issues. If the policy elites in Washington cannot change their minds, it will never find the keys to solve these problems.
Should the Taishan nuclear plant shutdown worry UK regulators?
Should the Taishan nuclear plant shutdown worry UK regulators? China is
not well known for its commitment to an open government. So the information
now published, as to why one of its new nuclear plants at Taishan has been
shut down for over six months, is potentially very worrying for the UK.
The closure is owing to cracked fuel rods that emerged after only one operating
cycle. Why is it worrying? Taishan is the only completed example in the
world of the prototype EPR being constructed at Hinkley Point in Somerset,
and scheduled for Sizewell in Suffolk. And the implications for the
viability of both of these £20bn+ ‘investments’ are potentially very
serious.
The Business Department is taking no responsibility for analysing
these implications. Instead, a spokesman told the Daily Telegraph that,
“If the British Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) considered that any
nuclear site was not safe or secure, it would not be allowed to operate.”
So, is the ONR keeping a beady eye upon the Taishan problems? Er, no. In
response to a Freedom of Information request from Sussex University this
January, the ONR admitted it ‘holds no information relating to design
flaws regarding Taishan, or indeed any information that suggests this
claimed design flaw has or may impact either Hinkley Point C or Sizewell
C’.
But this must mean the ONR cannot have made any inquiries as to these
possible design flaws, because if so they would by definition hold some
information. Given the amount of worldwide media attention the issue has
had, most people would rightly think the ONR is simply not discharging its
duty.
Electrical Review 16th Feb 2022
1.This Month
EVENTS.
February 9 Canada Update 2023: Nuclear Waste & the NWMO
February 18th Call for protests against the NATO ‘Security Conference’ in Munich – Negotiating Instead of Shooting – Arms Reduction Instead of an Arms Race. Demonstration on Saturday, 18 February 2023
-
Archives
- February 2023 (52)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (336)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
- April 2022 (378)
- March 2022 (405)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 