[Muzi News (http://dailynews.muzi.com): 2000-02-29] MOSCOW - Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan arrived in Moscow on Monday for the second set of high-level talks in three months.

``In the course of the talks, a wide range of issues concerning Russian-Chinese relations will be raised, including a schedule of visits at the highest level,44 Itar-Tass news agency quoted Tang as saying on his arrival.

Tang was due to meet his Russian counterpart, Igor Ivanov, on Tuesday. He was also expected to hold talks with Acting President Vladimir Putin.

Russia has sought support beyond the West since it opposed NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia last year. Relations with the West chilled further over Moscow's operation to eradicate separatist rebels in Chechnya. China has backed Russia's stance on Chechnya and also sees eye-to-eye with Moscow in opposing a proposed U.S. weapons system which would breach the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.

The United States is considering building a National Missile Defence system which could knock incoming warheads out of the sky. It has said the system is necessary to combat the threat that ``rogue states44 such as Iran and North Korea might build nuclear missiles.

-- Trish (adler2@webtv.net), March 01, 2000

Answers

a National Missile Defence system

haven't you already got one

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 01, 2000.

See the following: US Dept of Defense Briefing for an idea of what might be discussed.

Snip from the 2/28 DoD briefing:

Cohen admits the U.S. is "working on a theater missile defense system that will protect their allies in the gulf and U.S. troops in Korea, rather than a "national" missile defense system."

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), March 01, 2000.

Bill, 'Twould be a simple matter of linking a number of 'theatre missile ddefense systems' together to get a national one....

CHuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 01, 2000.

Bill, I wouldn't get too concerned.

First of all on the missile defense in the Gulf, I think I have to break down the answer into two parts. We, the United States, are working to build theater missile defense systems that can protect our troops and our allies in specific areas, such as -- an area in the Gulf or our troops in Korea, from threats that would come from nearby countries, rather than a National Missile Defense System, which is to protect us from long-range strategic threats.

Lets read that as it was intended. We are working to build theater missile defense systems (to protect our allies). This is not a National Missile Defense System, which is to protect us from long-range strategic threats.

And our work on theater missile defense is continuing. We have taken the basic Patriot system, which we had deployed in the Gulf during the Gulf War, and modernized that. We are in the process of beginning to deploy the new version called the Patriot 3. But then we are looking at a series of longer-range, more capable systems as well. And we have some more work to do on those, frankly. We are testing them and developing them.

In the course of developing our own system, we have had discussions with a number of allies in the Gulf and also in Asia, including Japan, about a theater missile defense, and those discussions continue. Secretary Cohen will be going back to the Gulf in the next two months, and he'll talk to all of the countries in the Gulf.

The problems of a National defense system and a theater defense system are totally different. Any theater defense system must be capable of being deployed -- moved around -- and put in place to protect one set of assets today. Those assets may be a harbor, they may be an entire nation such as our abortive attempt to protect Israel during the Gulf War, or they may be our own troops.

This is an entirely different problem than protecting a known and fixed location -- the boundaries of the United States. It requires a different system. The threat is also different: range, velocity, and countermeasures capability are totally different.

We are attempting to develop both systems. The speaker, Mr. Bacon, didnt make this clear. He was attempting to differentiate between the two systems rather than to say that we are not developing a National system.

rocky, who has done some work on these dudes

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), March 01, 2000.

Chuck, the theater system won't handle the parameters of an ICMB (intercontinental ballistic missile). It is geared for the TMB (theater ballistic missile) which includes Scuds plus some faster stuff, but doesn't have the range to hit LA from inside China. Range and velocity are nearly identical parameters -- if you have the velocity you can vary the range up to some maximum, but the maximum is set by the missile velocity.

Yeah, I know, there's fuzzy, gray area, but theater won't work for a national environment. Besides, a national system requires a single site location according to treaty. We'd like to use Alaska now, but are sort of stuck with North Dakota by treaty (which the Russians don't want us to change)

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), March 01, 2000.

Rocky,

My (perhaps dated) information is that Moscow was their 'sole site' for their NMD installation. I have read that their deployments have went far, far beyond that single installation.

Can you point to somewhere I can update myself on their deployed situation?

Thanks.

-- redeye in ohio (not@work.com), March 01, 2000.

Russia, China say West should not meddle WIRE:03/01/2000 12:07:00 ET Link MOSCOW(Reuters) - Russia and China said Wednesday they would maintain their strategic partnership and joined in rejecting Western criticism of their domestic affairs. The countries made the statement as Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan ended a visit to Moscow, where he met Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Acting President Vladimir Putin. "They (Tang and Putin) discussed how the two states could create material bases for a strategic partnership by building up political, military and military-technical cooperation," said Sergei Prikhodko, the head of Putin's administration. Putin told Tang that Russian-Chinese ties were closer than with any country other than those in the Commonwealth of Independent States, a grouping of 12 former Soviet nations. Russia and China have been nurturing relations in recent years, seeking to balance what they see as the global domination of world affairs by the United States. Both countries have also been criticized by the West -- Russia for its offensive in rebel Chechnya and China over its human rights record. Russia's Foreign Ministry released a joint statement with China, saying it was unacceptable for other states to undermine the territorial integrity of independent nations. "The (foreign) ministers spoke against meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign states on the pretext of so-called humanitarian intervention and defense of human rights," it said. Russia reaffirmed its position on Taiwan as being an integral part of China. China expressed its support of Russia's military operation in separatist Chechnya, the statement said. Copyright )2000 ABC News Internet Ventures

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

Let's add in consideration of Cap Weinberger's very recent perspective, courtesy of an article in Insight Magazine "Weinberg er":

Weinberger Says U.S. May Have to Go to War With China

2/29/00 - By Scott Stanley Jr.

Taking note of yesterdays announcement by Liberation Army Daily, the official newspaper of Red Chinas armed forces, former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger told a meeting on Capitol Hill Tuesday that, It might not be wise for America to go to war with China, but it might be necessary. The threat by the Peoples Liberation Army to engage in long-range missile attacks on the U.S. mainland needs an unequivocal, immediate, unambiguous, firm response, Weinberger said.

The former defense secretary also cited an 11,000-word white paper released by Beijing as a high-level negotiating team led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Strobe Talbott left China to return to the United States. Weinberger noted that although Clintons ambassador to China, Joseph Prueher, claimed the document contained only a sentence or two that was threatening, it was in fact so warlike as to contain no nuances, Weinbeger said, adding: Clinton should have picked a stronger U.S. ambassador.

Weinberger also noted Chinas forward deployment of missiles directed at Taiwan even as a carrier task force led by the USS Kittyhawk and two U.S. missile cruisers maneuvered off Japan. Thanks to U.S. technology sold to and stolen by the Red Chinese, Beijing is thought by defense experts to have at least 24 long-range missiles capable of hitting most of the United States with warheads the equivalent of 5 million tons of TNT.

Weinberger told the hushed audience at the Monday Club, hosted by former Indianapolis News editor M. Stanton Evans, that this would be a very good time to have a missile-defense shield in place as proposed under President Reagan. Because of the Clinton administration, Weinbeerger said, I dont think we are militarily ready for conflict with China.

-- redeye in ohio (not@work.com), March 01, 2000.

Thanks for the article Redeye.
I've been out of the office a couple of days, missed out on some of the posts that have scrolled off(have to hunt in the archives...).
Sure will be glad when the "Post new messages" comes back.(sigh)

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

Russia to send warships for Mediterranean exercises WIRE:03/01/2000 11:48:00 ET Link MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Russian Navy said Wednesday that warships, including an aircraft carrier and atomic submarines, would be sent to the Mediterranean Sea in November for exercises, Interfax news agency reported. Adm. Viktor Kravchenko, head of the naval general staff, told Interfax the exercises would last three months. The Navy's presence in the Mediterranean would be periodic but the sea would be constantly patrolled by intelligence ships from Russia's Black Sea Fleet. "The days of the Cold War are over, so there is no need now for a permanent presence of our navy in the area for political reasons," Interfax quoted Kravchenko as saying. Russia sent an intelligence ship, the Kildin, to the Mediterranean and the Gulf on Feb. 16 to monitor the situation there. The Kildin and another reconnaissance vessel, the Liman, were sent to the Mediterranean region last year during NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. Moscow strongly opposed the airstrikes against its Slavic, Orthodox Christian brethren in Serbia. Relations with the West have been strained since by Russia's military operation in rebel Chechnya. Copyright )2000 ABC News Internet Ventures

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

Sometimes its hard to figure out just whats going in. Thanks to each of you for insight in explain the China/Russia/US relationship.

Personally I think the "the games have began." It would be pretty easy for China to take down our country, without ever firing a single round. They can do in our economy by defaulting on loans, manipulating our dollar value, bringing down the internet and halting the NASDAQ and DOW. When the country's interior is weakened, it wouldn't take much then to bring down the US.

We keep watching for "incoming" and I cant help but wonder if the "incoming" havent already landed a few times and we havent noticed.

-- suzy (suzy@nowhere.com), March 01, 2000.

Whatever happened to that Russian oil freighter with Iraqi oil that we confiscated?

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), March 01, 2000.

I certainly agree with statement "the games have begun".

We are being studied as to how we react to Chinese rhetoric and maneuvers.

I consider the Taiwan situation as the classroom for our nation's enemies. As Taiwan elections(March 18) draw near, a simple and cheap method for studying us would be for China to simply put ships in the Strait and increase troop strength near Strait and maybe raise their alert status a notch or so...and then simply watch and wait for our response.

Next, the USS Kitty Hawk cruises into the area (the predictable U.S. response) and then China decides to further study us. They could increase the threats of missle strikes, or move troops within their own country and watch for our response. They'd probably want to see which carrier from where that we would send into the area in response.

Next they might place three phone calls:

1) 1-800-Putin (Russia) and request they raise activity enough to provoke a U.S. response--perhaps send a portion of their fleet down toward the Mediterranean.(Not to do anything except to cause substantial concerns for our military analysts).

2) 1-800-N.Korea and request THEY raise their activities to provoke a U.S. countermeasure. Perhaps this would be movement of troops and/ or increased attempts at sailing in So. Korean waters ( an ongoing cause of contention).

3) 1-800-Iraqicablecompany. Pay Sadam's cable bill for this month so he can watch this on CNN and decide when it is time to start Kuwait Part II.

A 4th phone call could be made to Kashmir, Cuba or wherever....

Then, watch and wait and study us.

Does U.S. seem unable to address all areas of concern? Does U.S. have trouble sending more than 4 carriers out at a time to simply address threats? Does U.S. media carry any coverage of apparent U.S. vulnerabilities? Does U.S. citizenry seem concerned? Is there a substantial strategic benefit to us (China) to steal headlines from Republican primaries results and place Pres. Crinton in the limelight as the "Man of the Hour"?(Commander in Chief) Are we bleeding the U.S. defence budget substantially by causing them to deploy so many ships during these "unfortunate" high oil/gas times (planes and support ships, as most carriers are nuclear)?

I do believe a time of such toying and experimenting with us is fast approaching. It would certainly raise adrenalin levels among our forces and Allies. It would on the one hand serve notice on US that we better beef up our military; this of course takes time... It would on the other hand advertise or sell the idea of a coordinated attack upon US international influence to any third worlders presently hesitant to join such an adventure.

If I can think this up, what can competent planners come up with????

WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO BEING HUMILIATED!without a single shot being fired!

Finally, should there actually be a shooting war with China and they stop shipping everything here except toys and trinkets, exactly WHAT WOULD BE THE RIPPLE EFFECT upon our domestic economy and our attempt to mobilize to a WAR FOOTING???

Taiwan is a MEANS to an end, and not an end in Itself. The true intent is Chinese hegemony in the Asian/Pacific theater. They want us out of there. We are weak enough and vulnerable enough to be "shown the door" (by example given above).

The Chinese missle threat and Taiwan is not simply a "will they?/or won't they?" question. We are being studied and tested and the final exam is fast approaching.

Regards,

-- (He Who) Rolls with Punches (JoeZi@aol.com), March 02, 2000.