The 2017 edition of Science of Military Strategy (战略学), a textbook published by the PLA’s National Defense University that is considered to be relatively authoritative, debuted a section about biology as a domain of military struggle, similarly mentioning the potential for new kinds of biological warfare to include “specific ethnic genetic attacks.”
An online essay (Thomas, 1999) might have been the first piece of writing connecting contrails to chemical spraying, even if it did not use the term “chemtrails”. Thomas (1999) references a 1996 Air Force paper on proposals to engage in weather modification (House et al., 1996). Together with the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), House et al. (1996) helped fuel speculation of military links among conspiracy theorists (Newitz and Steiner, 2014; Streep, 2008), leading to online commentary under titles like: “Military Industrial Complex Takes Charge, Blasts Skies With Chemtrails”.
Taiwan did not, and neither did Vietnam. Both countries had virtually zero cases until new variants arrived.
In the case of China, reports from Wuhan said that 5 million people had already left the area for the New Year holidays, shortly before the lockdowns. They travelled on crowded trains and buses all over the nation, yet there were only minor outbreaks.
The assumption in the US has been that China has been lying about its COVID cases and deaths. My observation is that the reported cases and deaths in Vietnam and Taiwan were consistent with the low numbers reported from China. In that context, it is likely that China’s numbers are not grossly out of whack.
A reasonable explanation for the lack of massive epidemics in China, Taiwan, and Vietnam is that the populations already had herd immunity to the early versions of the virus. That immunity became less effective only after new variants appeared.
To bring the outbreak under control, Vietnam turned to the same strategies that had been successful in ending earlier outbreaks: targeted lockdowns, travel bans, business closures, mass quarantines, and widespread testing. As of September 10, 61,968 people were being monitored, 998 were quarantined in health care facilities, 15,619 were quarantined in centralized facilities, and 45,351 were self-quarantined at home.
New Zealand had far greater lockdowns, yet Vietnam had far fewer cases than an island country thousands of miles from the original Wuhan outbreak.
Vietnam had virtually zero cases until the middle of 2021, which is when delta arrived. They then had an even bigger spike when omicron appeared. Did they suddenly stop knowing how to lockdown and wear masks?
Kissinger: “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to.”
Curiously Kissinger’s remarks have received little mention in the US media. Here is a commentary from Australia that includes quotes from the interview:
My observation is that relations between Russia and China are arguably closer than at any point since the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s. Kissinger worked to further the split by opening up relations with China during the Nixon administration and has long recognized that it is not in the US interests to drive China and Russia into a closer alliance.
The US and Russia are fighting a proxy war in Ukraine. The war has come after the US ignored known red lines about NATO membership. China is tacitly supporting Russia in the war.
Now the US appears to be moving away from a one-China policy that has existed since the end of World War II. Instead it is moving towards supporting independence for Taiwan, a known red line for Beijing.
Is the US trying to provoke a world war between NATO and China/Russia?
If so, what makes us think we would win?
A war like this could easily escalate to nuclear weapons. Would anyone win a global nuclear war?
The US has accepted that Taiwan is part of China since Japan returned the island to Chinese control after WWII. Until the 1970s, the US recognized the Nationalist government in Taipei as the legitimate of all of China. US recognition of the Communist government in Beijing did not change the one-China policy:
When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.
The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-us-one-china-policy-and-why-does-it-matter
The US military was itching to use nuclear weapons against China in the 1950s when the US had a massive nuclear advantage. Eisenhower rejected a proposal to nuke China if Beijing attacked two Taiwan-controlled islands near the mainland.
Recent attempts to reopen the status of Taiwan are only likely to provide China with justification to invade. China is far stronger now that it was in the 1950s, and the nuclear stockpile of Russia is far larger. If it did not make sense to provoke a war in 1958, it makes even less sense now.
Yes, the official statements from Pelosi and the White House continue to support the one-China policy.
On the other hand, Pelosi went to Taiwan to express support for President Tsai, who says that Taiwan is “already independent”. This is sort of like flipping the bird and at the same time saying you mean nothing by it.
Exactly.
The entire Pelosi trip needs to be seen as “China changed the rules” not “America crossed a red line.”
Arguments can be made that
“We should have seen it coming, we should obey any new rule China places on us” or
“We have bigger fish to fry, we should obey any new rule China places on us;”
But the fact remains that the US just walked down the same street it walked down every day for 70 years and China put up a “no pedestrians” sign.
The discussion here has merit, but the thread title (and premise) is a load of crap.
