DF-41 – USA Gov Policy

Speaking at a Brookings Institution event earlier this month, Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Indo-Pacific region Randall Schriver sounded an alarm about China, and warned that the U.S. military needed to prepare for the significant challenge.

Schriver noted that “We feel we are in competition because fundamentally we have different visions, different aspirations and different views of what regional security architecture should look like.”

He stressed that while the U.S. seeks respect for national sovereignty, fair and free trade, and a rule-based order, the Beijing government “has a different vision and aspirations and is increasingly developing the tools to pursue its vision and seems willing to accept more friction in pursuit of that vision,” he said. “Globally, China seeks to shape a world consistent with its authoritarian model and national goals. We see that domestic governance in China as a result of CCP rule is increasingly authoritarian and less respectful of human rights and dignity.”

The Assistant Secretary outlined how the giant Communist nation has behaved in a worrisome manner, including launching influence operations to undermine free elections, using economic coercion on neighboring countries and encouraging outright theft of other nations’ intellectual property. “We see them extending their military presence overseas and expanding the ‘One-belt, One-road’ initiative to include military ties with China,” Schriver said. “And we see [Beijing] deploying advanced weapons to militarizing disputed features despite pledges at the senior-most level that they would not do so.”

While many nations develop their military to provide for their own national security, China, which has increased its military spending at a faster percentage than either the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. at the height of the Cold War, has specific, belligerent goals. “The [Defense] department views military developments in China as seeking to erode U.S. military advantages,” Schriver said. “They are working to become the preeminent power in the Indo-Pacific while simultaneously making plans to expand its presence and sustain its capabilities farther from Chinese shores.”

China is seeking to base troops and develop military capabilities in Africa, the Middle East and in the Western Pacific Ocean area. Its armed forces have trampled on the rights of other regional nations, and has There is no pain and no discomforting feeling, while you are undergoing from the treatment of lowest priced cialis you could try here for best effects. cialis is basically considered to be the order generic cialis. In the ancient times this sexual disorder usually tackle trouble viagra genérico 25mg from the personal also professional face. Some of them develop of erectile dysfunction order levitra canada while it is also very effective against the problem of premature ejaculation. Unhappy with best price viagra your life? Feeling depressed? No worries, there are solutions for the same as well. been cited by the World Court for its invasion of the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone. The Obama Administration failed to even lodge a diplomatic protest regarding that event, souring relations between Washington and Manila.

The extraordinary modernization leap of China’s world-class military was clearly on display at the recent Beijing parade marking the 70^th anniversary of Communist rule. According to China’s Defense Ministry, “The parade reflected the military’s new structure, created through reforms starting in late 2015. The reforms were initiated by President Xi Jinping and represent the most thorough overhaul of the nation’s defense systems in the past several decades.”

One of the new weapon systems featured was the Dongfeng-41 nuclear missile, a solid-fuelled road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the US within 30 minutes. While the U.S. is tied to international nuclear arms treaties, China, not a signatory, is free to dramatically expand its offensive nuclear prowess.

Also displayed was the DF-17 hypersonic missile, perhaps the most advanced of its kind on the planet.

The focus was on more than hardware. Major Cai Zhijun, a senior official in the Central Military Commission and a key player in presenting the parade, noted that advanced operational tactics such as joint operations represented the increased sophistication of the nation’s armed forces.

Under the protection of first the British and then the American armed forces, international commerce and navigation increased dramatically as sea lanes were protected, and all nations were free to travel without fear. China’s philosophy is quite different. It’s rise to power would signal the end of global prosperity, as well as presenting a military threat even exceeding that which occurred during the Second World War.

Photo: Dongfeng-41 nuclear missiles (China Defense Ministry)

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]