China Vastly Growing Nuclear Threat

Several hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) silos are buried at three sites in the sands of China’s western deserts near Yumen, Hami, and Ordos. Beijing touts additional road mobile intercontinental missile launchers it says are capable of carrying advanced weapons of great destructive power and able to reach the continental US. Recently Beijing launched its third aircraft carrier. Add to that list Beijing’s advancements in ground-based, large-phased array radars, and space-based assets capable of detecting ballistic-missile launches, among other modern weapons. Together they represents a concerted effort by China to move to a Launch-on-Warning posture. According to Admiral Charles Richard, Commander of the US Strategic Command, China’s self-defense claims are inconsistent with the qualitative and quantitative programs under way.

This Wednesday marks the ceremonial announcement by China of a new emerging offensive threat to SE Asia. It comes from the sea as the PLAN is breaking ground on new facilities at the northern end of Ream Naval Base in Sihanoukville, Cambodia. It is located on a peninsula southeast of the provincial capital of Krong Preah Sihanouk and will offer China expanded access to the Gulf of Thailand and the southern region of the South China Sea. US naval experts predicted for years that Xi Jinping would establish an overseas naval outpost in the region. Washington is concerned, in part, because of the extraordinary efforts China made to conceal its plans prior to this week’s announcement. Ellen Nakashima and Cate Cadell, writing in the Washington Post, reported that anonymous American officials said it “is part of Beijing’s strategy to build a network of military facilities around the world in support of its aspirations to become a true global power.”

The base will be capable of hosting large China naval bases and is Beijing’s second overseas facility. Its first naval base outside China is located in Djibouti in East Africa. China will have exclusive use of the base which will allow it to increase access to and put pressure on countries in the region. Base visits to the area under construction are restricted. Chinese military working at the site over the last year wore uniforms similar to their Cambodian counterparts or none at all to avoid suspicion.

Last year, according to a Pentagon report, a US offer to pay to renovate part of the base was rejected by Phnom Penh. The Cambodian government followed up by demolishing two US-funded facilities at the port. The DOD report suggests that “Cambodia may have instead accepted assistance from the [People’s Republic of China] to develop the base.” A Vietnamese facility at Ream also was relocated off site as China and Vietnam have a tense relationship.

At the opening session of the National People’s Congress in March, China announced it intends to boost the country’s defense budget by 7.1 percent, to a total of 1.45 trillion yuan ($230 billion) in 2022 in the sixth consecutive year of massive increases in military funding. The government called for enhanced spending and advances in military technology to increase side-by-side with the domestic economy. The PLA will be 100 years old in 2027. China intends by that date to have a completely modernized army and by 2035 to have modernized all its national defense programs. Military analysts suggest that the types of programs and amount spent is not in line with a defensive program but represents an aggressive offensive policy.

In 2019 President Xi Jinping called on the PLA to “thoroughly implement” the “military strategic guideline for the new era.” It appears China is taking the next step forward this week with its ground-breaking ceremony at the Ream Base. In April, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, said to Congress “We are entering a world that is becoming more unstable, and the potential for significant international conflict between great powers is increasing, not decreasing.” China is doing nothing to assuage his statement.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: DF-41 road-mobile missile (Wikipedia)

Quick Analysis

Democrats vs. Free Speech

There is a dangerous belief that all major politicians support freedom of speech. Increasingly, that illusion is being exposed. Many first became aware of the determination to stamp out opposition speech when the Biden Administration sought to establish a “Disinformation Governance Board.” Statements by major figures such as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Climate envoy John Kerry, and New York Senator Charles Schumer have exposed the disdain many leftist Democrats have for the First Amendment. Hillary Clinton actually suggested that Americans should be “criminally charged” for expressing views she opposes. Kerry was quite blunt. He suggested that the “First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it [ideas which the left disagrees with] out of existence.” While Senator Schumer mentions the First Amendment by name, saying the “First Amendment is not absolute,” most progressive leaders use the phrase “disinformation.” They define disinformation, of course, as anything that disagrees with their point of view. A Gatestone review recently quoted vice presidential candidate Tim Walz’s statement that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” The study also noted that “In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration’s Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded that social media stop certain people from publishing their expertise and views.” The New York Post (D-Mass.) calling for companies like Amazon to use “enlightened” algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices. The Future of Free Speech organization Warns that “The global landscape for freedom of expression has faced severe challenges … open democracies have implemented restrictive measures.” Reason, a bipartisan publication, found that Conservatives are attached to the principles of federalism and free speech online even when these principles make it harder to achieve their policy aims, suggest two recent studies. Meanwhile, liberals are more open to giving power to whichever arm of government—federal, state, or local—they think will best achieve their aims. And while they’re generally more open to the suppression of online speech that is inaccurate, they are more likely to shift positions based on whether this speech supports their side. While many Progressive media analysts side with pro-censorship politicians, some are raising alarms. Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Dustin Olson, managing partner of American Pulse Research & Polling and the founder of the political consulting firm Olson Strategies & Advertising, warns that “Once a solid pillar of American society, free speech seems to be cracking. It used to be an American principle that the everyday American citizen could agree on, a universal given. But recent surveys reveal that this fundamental value is increasingly up for debate, and the speed of this change is alarming. In a new RealClear Opinion Research poll, nearly half of Democrats are comfortable openly admitting to a stranger over the phone that they support limiting what people can say. A startling 47 percent said that speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 52 percent of Democrats approved of government censoring social media posts for “national security.” Even more shocking, a third of Democrats believe Americans have “too much freedom.” It is not difficult to understand why progressives, who currently control the Democrat Party, are so opposed to the First Amendment. Their policies, as a whole, have failed decisively. The economy. Particularly regarding inflation, has suffered significantly due to leftist ideas. Displays of weakness abroad have invited aggression. Millions of illegals have been allowed to enter the nation unchecked, bringing in increases in crime, vast deaths from Fentanyl, job losses for U.S. citizens, sex trafficking, and increased competition for affordable houses. Local governments are suffering severe strains in their budgets. And, of course, the national debt has soared. In a fair discussion or debate, these results would be devasting for the left. Recognizing this reality, progressives have resorted to censorship. Illustration: Pixabay