« December 2006 | Main | April 2007 »

January 20, 2007

China Shows Assertiveness in Weapons Test

Source: New York Times

By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: January 20, 2007

BEIJING, Jan. 19 — China’s apparent success in destroying one of its own orbiting satellites with a ballistic missile signals that its rising military intends to contest American supremacy in space, a realm many here consider increasingly crucial to national security.

The test of an antisatellite weapon last week, which Beijing declined to confirm or deny Friday despite widespread news coverage and diplomatic inquiries, was perceived by East Asia experts as China’s most provocative military action since it testfired missiles off the coast of Taiwan more than a decade ago.

Unlike in the Taiwan exercise, the message this time was directed mainly at the United States, the sole superpower in space.

With lengthy white papers, energetic diplomacy and generous aid policies, Chinese officials have taken pains in recent years to present their country as a new kind of global power that, unlike the United States, has only good will toward other nations.

But some analysts say the test shows that the reality is more complex. China has surging national wealth, legitimate security concerns and an opaque military bureaucracy that may belie the government’s promise of a “peaceful rise.”

“This is the other face of China, the hard power side that they usually keep well hidden,” said Chong-Pin Lin, an expert on China’s military in Taiwan. “They talk more about peace and diplomacy, but the push to develop lethal, high-tech capabilities has not slowed down at all.”

Japan, South Korea and Australia are among the countries in the region that pressed China to explain the test, which if real would make it the third power, after the United States and the Soviet Union, to shoot down an object in space.

China’s Foreign and Defense Ministries declined to comment on reports of the test, which were based on United States intelligence data. Liu Jianchao, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, would say only that China opposed using weapons in space. “China will not participate in any kind of arms race in outer space,” he told Reuters.

China’s silence on the test underscores how much its rapidly modernizing military — perhaps especially the Second Artillery forces, in charge of its ballistic missile program — remains isolated and secretive, answering only to President Hu Jintao, who heads the military as well as the ruling Communist Party.

Having a weapon that can disable or destroy satellites is considered a component of China’s unofficial doctrine of asymmetrical warfare. China’s army strategists have written that the military intends to use relatively inexpensive but highly disruptive technologies to impede the better-equipped and better-trained American forces in the event of an armed conflict — over Taiwan, for example.

The Pentagon makes extensive use of satellites for military communications, intelligence and missile guidance, and some Chinese experts have argued that damaging its space-based satellite infrastructure could hobble American forces.

Yet while China’s research and development of such weapons has been well known, the apparent decision to test-fire an antisatellite weapon came as a surprise to many analysts.

“If this is fully corroborated, it is a very significant event that is likely to recast relations between the United States and China,” said Allan Behm, a former official in Australia’s Defense Ministry. “This was a very sophisticated thing to do, and the willingness to do it means that we’re seeing a different level of threat.”

China’s military expenditures have been growing at nearly a double-digit pace, even after adjusting for inflation, for 15 years. China has begun to deploy sophisticated submarines, aircraft and antiship missiles that the Pentagon says could have offensive uses.

Yet with a few notable exceptions, Beijing has avoided sharp provocations that could prompt the United States or Japan to focus more on what some officials in each country regard as a potential threat.

Chinese leaders emphasize that they are preoccupied with domestic challenges and intend to focus their energy and resources on economic development, a policy they say depends heavily on cross-border investment, open trade and friendly foreign relations.

The country has denied that it intends to develop space weapons and sharply criticized the United States for experimenting with a space-based missile defense system. It forged a coalition of Asian countries to jointly develop peaceful space-based technologies.

Last month it published and heavily promoted a white paper on military strategy that emphasized its view that space must remain weapon-free. “China is unflinching in taking the road of peaceful development and always maintains that outer space is the common wealth of mankind,” the paper said.

Some of such talk amounts to little more than propaganda. But Jonathan Pollack, a China specialist at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., says the Chinese military does in fact act cautiously when it comes to improving its strategic capabilities, like long-range missiles and nuclear weapons, to avoid causing alarm in the United States.

“They have talked about antisatellite weapons,” he said. “But we have always thought that the threat was ambiguous and that China probably wanted it that way. So what was the calculation to go ahead with an actual test?”

Some analysts suggested that one possible motivation was to prod the Bush administration to negotiate a treaty to ban space weapons. Russia and China have advocated such a treaty, but President Bush rejected those calls when he authorized a policy that seeks to preserve “freedom of action” in space.

Chinese officials have warned that an arms race could ensue if Washington did not change course.

At a United Nations conference in Vienna last June on uses of space, a Chinese Foreign Ministry official, Tang Guoqiang, called the policies of “certain nations” disconcerting.

“Outer space is the common heritage of mankind, and weaponization of outer space is bound to trigger off an arms race, thus rendering outer space a new arena for military confrontation,” he said, according to an official transcript of his remarks.

Even so, Mr. Pollack, of the Naval War College, said that if China hoped that demonstrating a new weapon of this kind would prompt a positive response in Washington, they most likely miscalculated.

“Very frankly, many people in Washington will find that this validates the view of a China threat,” Mr. Pollack said. “It could well end up backfiring and forcing the U.S. to take new steps to counter China.”

Other analysts said the test might have more to do with proving a technology under development for many years than a cold-war-style negotiating tactic.

China maintains a minimal nuclear arsenal that could inflict enough damage on an enemy to guard against any pre-emptive strike, these analysts said. But the increasing sophistication of American missile interceptors, which are linked to satellite surveillance, threatens the viability of China’s limited nuclear arsenal, some in Beijing have argued.

That may have prompted the Second Artillery to show that it had the means to protect fixed missile sites and ensure China’s retaliatory capacity by showing that it could take out American satellites.

At the annual military fair in Zhuhai, held in November, the Guangdong-based newspaper Information Times and several other state-run media outlets carried a short interview with an unidentified military official boasting that China had “already completely ensured that it has second-strike capability.” The analyst said China could protect its retaliatory forces because it could destroy satellites in space.

American officials have also noted the development. This month, Lt. Gen. Michael Mapes of the Army testified before Congress that China and Russia were working on systems to hit American satellites with lasers or missiles. And over the summer, the director of the National Reconnaissance Office, Donald M. Kerr, told reporters that the Chinese had used a ground-based laser to “paint,” or illuminate, an American satellite, a possible first step to using lasers to destroy satellites.

“China is becoming more assertive in just about every military field,” said Mr. Behm, the Australian expert. “It is not going to concede that the U.S. can be the hegemon in space forever.”

January 18, 2007

Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'

Source: BBC News

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

The offers came in a letter, seen by Newsnight, which was unsigned but which the US state department apparently believed to have been approved by the highest authorities.

In return for its concessions, Tehran asked Washington to end its hostility, to end sanctions, and to disband the Iranian rebel group the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and repatriate its members.

Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had allowed the rebel group to base itself in Iraq, putting it under US power after the invasion.

One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan - but was over-ruled.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment to do that," Lawrence Wilkerson told Newsnight.

"But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself."

Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.

Since that time, Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah inflicted significant military losses on the major US ally in the region, Israel, in the 2006 conflict and is now claiming increased political power in Lebanon.

Palestinian militant group Hamas won power in parliamentary elections a year ago, opening a new chapter of conflict in Gaza and the West Bank.

The UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Iran following its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

Iran denies US accusations that its nuclear programme is designed to produce weapons.

Does High-Fructose Corn Syrup Have to Be in Everything?

Source: Lew Rockwell.com

January 17, 2007
by Wilton D. Alston

In her recent article on cholesterol, Karen De Coster provided information that should be beneficial to anyone interested in staying healthy. In this piece I want to address a similar issue. The title says it all. Why, in the name of health, do so many foods marketed to the U.S. public include high fructose corn syrup? Even the most cursory search of the many health sites on the Internet yield a veritable cornucopia of negative information about this stuff.

The Usual Suspect – Again

Of course the culprit for the presence of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in all sweetened foods in the U.S. is the state. The mechanism is the incredibly high tariff on sugar produced in other countries. The U.S. government would rather force manufacturers to use inferior and hazardous high fructose corn syrup, which can be created from corn – a crop grown in the U.S. – than allow them to use more natural sugar from places that seem rather obvious. I don’t know about you, but when I think of sugar, I think of sugar cane in South America, but when the USDA thinks of sugar, apparently they think of cornfields in Nebraska!

But Really, Who Cares?

What if corn sweetener is just as good as sugar from cane in South America? Wouldn’t it make sense to support our "local" producers? Well, no, not with legislation. If corn sweetener were really better than cane sugar, legislation artificially inflating our price for cane sugar would not be needed. Read that sentence again, because that is about the size of it. Whenever the state gets involved to force the market to take a particular path it is only because the path chosen by the state would not otherwise be taken by anyone intelligent enough to decide on his own. Period.

On the other hand, what if corn sweetener is not just as good as sugar from cane? Well, Houston, then we have a problem! According to experts such as Mehmet Oz and Michael Roisen, high-fructose corn syrup is a horrible sweetener. In their landmark book, "You: The Owner’s Manual…," they state:

"One of the biggest evil influences on our diet is the presence of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a sugar substitute that itself is a sugar found in soft drinks and many other sweet, processed foods. The problem is that HCFS inhibits leptin secretion, so you never get the message that you’re full. And it never shuts off gherin, so, even though you have food in your stomach, you constantly get the message that you’re hungry." (See page 192.)

With apologies to the Church Lady, "Well, isn’t that special?" So the state forces us to consume a sweetener that’s obviously not as good for us, just so their constituents can sell more, make more money, and vote en bloc for the legislator who visits this evil on the rest of us. Sounds like yet another example of misplaced incentives.

Other Sweeteners – Same Problem

Those of us who are "into" health know all about stevia. This is a very powerful natural sweetener, extracted from South American plants much as sugar is extracted from cane. One can find stevia in health food stores, but it is not allowed as an ingredient in processed foods. Why not? The typical statist would say "because it is not shown to be proven safe and effective" which is FDA-speak for "because we didn’t say you could use it." Call me a conspiracy realist, but I doubt that "safe and effective" had much to do with the FDA deciding to ban stevia. Nothing drives this point home better than this little tidbit: the FDA initially labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" after an anonymous complaint. (Yes, an anonymous complaint!) You simply cannot make this stuff up.

But stevia has been used by other cultures for thousands of years with no ill effects. Yes, thousands of years. If it’s so dangerous, why are we in the U.S. alone on Earth in recognizing the danger? In Japan the government will not allow artificial sweeteners in soft drinks, so they use stevia instead. In fact, it accounts for 40% of the Japanese sweetener market. In the U.S. the government won’t allow stevia, but we get a heaping helping of Aspartame, Sucralose, and all manner of other chemical junk. Where is the logic? (Maybe I should just follow the money.) Interestingly, many of the sweetening chemicals we're allowed to have as additives come with warning labels, by the way, so the government considers it established that there are health problems with those.

Conclusion

The decisions we each make about what we eat are some of the most basic ones we'll ever encounter. But in the case of HFCS – just as one example – we in the U.S. aren’t given that choice. The FDA claims to "protect" us from snake-oil salesmen of every stripe, yet when it comes to being able to choose an item of food that is among the most basic and prevalent in any diet, economic considerations trump safety. From my standpoint, while this about par for the course, it is still darned unsettling.

What will it take to reverse the tide?

Wilt Alston [send him mail] lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three children. When he’s not training for a marathon or furthering his part-time study of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal research scientist in transportation safety, focusing primarily on the safety of subway and freight train control systems.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

January 14, 2007

Why Iran Is Next

Source: Free-Market News Network

By Noel Gibeson
Thursday, January 11, 2007

In the petrodollar wars, stage one was Iraq and stage two is Iran. Both dared to propose to use the euro instead of the U.S. dollar (USD) to buy Middle East oil. That was a big mistake because it jeopardized the solvency of the USD, a fiat currency; and, therefore, the very heart of the U.S. economy itself. Big business will not stand for that.

What is a fiat currency? A fiat currency in the case of the USD is a currency that is NOT based on gold, silver, or anything else of tangible value; but rather it is "a promise to pay." Essentially, it is an IOU ("I owe you") note that is based on the good faith and credit of the issuer that it will be redeemed at the face value of the note, a USD in this case. This is its weakness for holders of the note, but its strength for the issuer of the currency, in this case the U.S. government who simply continues to print as much money as it wants to in hopes that it will never have to redeem these dollars at their face value all at one time. It is much like an international Ponzi scheme. In reality, it is play money or monopoly money.

New York Post columnist Ralph Peters in "Eyeing Iran" (NYP, January 8, 2007) described the new U.S. military Middle East leadership lineup with General Patreus going to Iraq and Admiral Fallon going to CENTCOM as a sign for the future. Appointing a naval officer to command CENTCOM for the first time is seen as a harbinger of things to come with regard to Iraq, Somalia, and in particular, Iran. The Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean are key geographical areas in this region. Any attempts by Iran (or anyone else for that matter) to block key strategic geographic features, such as the Strait of Hormuz, or otherwise impede the transport of oil or strategic materials could be met with an instantaneous naval military response. The presence of increased naval forces in the area could also be a sign of potential military action.

What has become more even important than national boundaries, according to Anthony Wile in High Alert (High Alert Publishing, 2007), is the control and domination exercised by global elites over the economies of nations and the destinies of people. Few people are aware of this relationship and this excellent book goes into detail describing how this works. These are the forces that are currently in play worldwide that affect the U.S., Iraq, and Iran, among many other nations.

So when Iraq President Saddam Hussein said in 2000 that Iraq would begin selling Iraqi oil using the euro instead of the USD he instantly became a marked man. Why; because it is vital to the solvency of U.S. fiat currency that there are many foreign holders of the USD in order to keep it afloat; to keep it solvent. This is particularly important in the oil markets where trade must be conducted using the USD that the United States set as the standard long ago for oil purchases. This was done on purpose (Krassimir Petrov, "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse," Energy Bulletin, January 26, 2006).

Iran's plan to compete with dollar-dominated and American-owned New York's NYMEX and London's IPE, met with frosty reception from the beginning and things never got better. Because of the United States' high debt levels and stated neo-conservative quest for world domination, the euro inroads to establish a foothold in the dollar-dominated world oil market and posed a direct threat both to the U.S. dollar and to the U.S. economy (William Clark, "The Real Reasons Why Iran is the next Target," Energy Bulletin, October 26, 2004).

The chief obstacle to establishment of a euro-denominated marker has been the three dollar-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil markers as they are referred to in the industry. They are the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Bent crude, and the Dubai crude. Since 2003 Iran has been selling their oil exports to Europe and Asia/ACU in euros. However, in 2004 when Iran announced that it intended to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse that was euro-based, that sent shockwaves through the U.S.-dominated international oil industry because it would compete with the U.S. owned NYMEX and IPE. That set Iran on a path of confrontation with the United States (William Clark, Oil, Iraq, and the Future of the Dollar, New Society Publishers, 2005).

While the United States has no bone with the people of Iran who are generally viewed with great favor in the U.S., it does have a major problem with the Ahmadinejad government of Iran for two reasons; first, their desire to establish an Iranian Oil Bourse, and second, their continued development of a nuclear weapons along with their vow to destroy Israel. Israel would never allow this to happen, nor would the United States.

But perhaps a sin even greater than continued nuclear weapons development has been their quest to establish the Iranian Oil Bourse.

For contrast, North Korea has an even more developed nuclear weapons program and is guilty of proliferating missile technology to Pakistan, Indian and Iran, yet the U.S. does not seem interested in invading them, at least so far. What is the difference? North is not an oil producer, whereas, Iran not only is a major oil producer but intends to setup a non-dollar denominated oil bourse as well. That is why Iran is the next U.S. target.

January 01, 2007

Pi

The number pi is the ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. It's approximately equal to 3.14159265, although the digits go on forever.

Some mathematicians are obsessed with computing pi to more and more digits. In the year 1610, a German mathematician computed pi to 35 digits. In 1789, a Slovene mathematician computed pi to 140 digits. This was all done by hand, in poorly heated houses.

An English amateur mathematician spent 20 years calculating pi to 707 digits, finishing in 1873. 71 years later, it was discovered that he had made a mistake at the 528th digit, and all the digits following it were wrong.

In 2002, frantic Japanese mathematicians used a supercomputer to accurately compute pi to 1,241,100,000,000 digits.

Based on all this effort, you might assume that it'd be useful to know a trillion digits of pi. However, if you had a circle the size of the observable universe, and you wanted to compute its circumference with an accuracy equal to the size of a proton, the number of digits of pi that you'd need is only 50.

Either mathematicians are totally crazy, or they're planning ahead for a time when the survival of humanity will depend on the ability to construct extremely large, accurate circles.