The o'chill Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot com, the listeners like
you Yeah and nowerd and Media. February twenty nine, twenty twenty four,
allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar. Yeah, that's right,
it's a new year, allegedly anyway, you know how that goes.
They add an extra date to February, and this is it, and it's
Thursday as well. Happy to have Mike Swanson with me here on the ocell
Effect here on a Thor's Day. And what are we going to talk about?
Well, I'm already looked over at an article on Wallstreet window dot com.
Go over, be in the know, go check out Wallstreet, Window
dot com. It's not just about Wall Street, but also Mike Swanson,
the author of The War State, Why the Vietnam War. Not today,
we're not talking about Vietnam, but the War State. We might get to.
That's that red book, by the way, that's in the sidebar Atocelli
dot com. You see Ike on the oncover giving his farewell speech about oh
wait, the military industrial complex. I wonder if that's going to come up
in tonight's show anyway. Mike, First off, before we get into what's
on your mind? How are you doing tonight? I'm doing pretty good.
This is gonna be an interesting topic for people. As you mentioned before we
got in the air, people aren't thinking about China that much, not in
this sense of what would happen if there's a conflict with China over Taiwan.
And China's in the news all the time now, I mean today President Biden
made an announcement declaring that Chinese electric vehicles or national security threat. So,
I mean, there's lots of fear about China, and well, some of
it's kind of a good reason, right, because people constantly talk about China.
Why intellectual properties, the fact that technology, logically, there's vulnerabilities here.
The Chinese are extremely advanced in the world. They're clearly an adversarial nation,
et cetera, et cetera. Now, some people very much claim that
Biden is pretty much in China's pocket, and then you see stuff like this
come out where the hyperbole steps up and they talk about the electric vehicles being
a big threat, and one wonders if that's just a move that has to
do with business, or is it really a sphere of influence move. Are
we really in the midst of a true cold war with China. And by
the way, people that are talking about the military conflict and the possibility of
it, Yeah, Taiwan's in the background. Taiwan's in the background, but
it's no longer seemingly on the front burner in everybody's mind where it was maybe
this time last year, you know, previous to the situation in Israel from
after October. Right, Well, I mean at the moment everything is in
the new is being overshadowed when it comes to international conflict with about Israel.
And I'm sure you know on college campuses and elsewhere, that's the issue students
are thinking about, and vice versa. On the right, there's an obsession
with some of worshiping the state of Israel. So I so that's what you
know, The Israel is in a lot of people's imagination. Well, it's
weird because when they had that guy who what was his name, the guy
who was in Trump's cabinet and then kind of turned on him, who was
a Fox News guy and all that, you know, his big thing was
China and China, China, China, Right, everybody was worried about it.
The tariff wars, what happened with all that the exchange is the business.
And then, like I said, Taiwan a big issue, but it
went to the back burner because not only Israel, but let's not forget also
for the past two years now the conflict in Ukraine and Russia, and everybody
wants to talk about Putin. So again the Chinese have fallen to the background
in general. But the thing is, a conflict with China would be the
most dangerous scenario that could happen that I can imagine in the next ten years.
And it's one that's possible. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's
possible. In what I came across was a Rand Institute study that kind of
war gained it what would happen? And then another article that I heard about
from the Scott Horton Show. He had a guest that was discussing an article
in a publication by the Atlantic Council about what would happen if Taiwan and they
were advocating a course of action. So in both of these articles are fairly
alarming when you when you read them for different re It is Atlantic. We'll
get into it in a second, but I want to first lay out that
two things, there's the United States side and the Chinese side, and I
think I don't I'm going to flat out say that when it comes to what
is going on in China and what the Chinese are thinking, I really don't
know, and I'm not going to pretend to know. And over the past
ten fifteen years, I've heard many people make these statements about China that are
kind of predictive. China's going to collapse, China's going to do this and
then do that. And I don't think people really have any clue of you
know, they're just saying things they don't really have any real information. Well,
let's talk about that really quickly, because let's be honest for a minute.
It's a lot of speculation because we're not on the same Internet as China
basically, right, We're not getting fed the same information. Clearly, there's
a propaganda war always in play. There's the language barrier, which is a
lot more severe than we have with a lot of other nation states, et
cetera, et cetera. So when people are talking about China, quite honestly,
they're talking about an isolated society that they're not as openly aware of to
begin with, so speculation runs higher to begin with. And you know,
all those articles that you mentioned, by the way, the Rand Corporation study,
the Atlantic Council article, and also an article from Wall Street Window dot
com will all be available in the show notes, and I've also put it
in the live chatroom Atochelli dot com, so you guys can always roll that
back after the show, even if you're hearing this in podcasts. Anyways,
the thing is that the the articles that you're referencing are there in present fear
guys to click on and follow through with. But look, when people do
this analysis about what's going on in China, there's a lot of guesswork involved.
Uh. And then on the surface we have the issues. Right remember
when even Trump took office, there was a big thing about being congratulated by
you know, the wrong guy because they're supposed to be the one China policy
and all of that going on, and you got to watch what you say
and who you say it to, and it's a touchy situation. And also
the since the fall of the Soviet Union, right, what were we always
told this is our big major thread on the planet. Population wise, they
outpace us technologically they could be outpacing us. Oh and by the way,
don't forget the balloons. Uh, you know what I mean. It's it's
been a weird trip here where there's a lot of guesswork involved, where people
are looking from the outside in and not really understanding first of all, the
internal politics, the way the business runs over there, the relationship with the
government, and also military estimates. I think there's a lot of guesswork involved
here. So what are we talking about at the end of the day,
does anybody outside of China really know what's going on in China? Mine?
Well, I don't think so. And the flip side of that is when
Trump got in office, from what I was reading in the Wall Street Journal
and the New York Times, there were stories where the Chinese people were asking
what's going on here and not really certain themselves what Trump was about because there
was some mixed signals set right when Trump got in office. People in the
United States didn't see it, but I know we may note of it on
your show. I mean, this is right when Trump got in mixed signals
during the Trump administration. You're kidding, Well, people will have no memory
of this. They didn't even see it because these were messages not delivered to
the American people, but on Ivanka Trump's Instagram account, she was dressing up
one of her children in Chinese outfits. And for a few weeks in China,
they were playing that on Chinese media and in playing up by Ivanka Trump,
and and I think she was saying something like she's having her child.
I think it was a daughter, but I'm not, you know, uh
and bet money on it. But she's made she's making statements to the Chinese
media that she was having her daughter take Mandarin lessons and this kind of stuff.
And he's out. You know, this is a you can go back
on Instagram and look at this stuff. But what was going on is they
were sending signals to each other and it wasn't clear what, you know,
what was really going on. And as time went on, though, it
does seem in the Rain report that I cite that we'll talk about in a
minute, says in it that the Chinese have become increasingly suspicious of the United
States, and for good reason, you know, the tariff war that Trump
has launched. And as you mentioned, really Biden has continued and he is
not really deviated at all from the course that Trump took when it comes to
Chinese relations with China. In fact, Biden made some statements himself last year
that he would send American soldiers to defend Taiwan, you know, which goes
against decades of official American policy in regards to whether we would defend Taiwan or
not or recognize it as an independent country independent from China, the so called
to China policy. So and then when Biden made that statement, it was
immediately walked back by figures in his administration that Security advisor, Secretary of State.
You know, this is the same sort of stuff that happened all the
time when Donald Trump was president. So it wasn't you know, in some
regards when it comes to at least this one issue, I would say Biden
has been acting identically to the former president Trump. Oh well, you can't
tell his supporters that though, and you can't tell him that there's a serious
mixed message because Ivanka at one point was getting you know, Chinese patents and
things. At another point it looked like, you know, that's right,
Trump was also let's you know, continue to go through the history, Trump
was very much blaming China directly for you know, the the the the COVID
situation, right, the China virus, remember, uh So, I mean,
we've had a lot of mixed messages over the past few years. And
still, like you said, this strong rhetoric coming from the Biden administration's weird.
Despite the fact that a lot of people had said that Biden was going
to be very well weak on China and and give in to them and everything
else. Doesn't seem that way on the surface, but who knows at this
point. I mean, it's it's a rather confusing landscape. So you know,
for the Chinese government or the people of China to be a little confused,
I don't blame them or to be a little surprised or to feel suspicious
over you know what, what really is the American position here regarding China?
How is it they're actually going to handle us going forward? And everything else?
And meanwhile, the ran Corps bration it's an interesting study as well.
So let's let's get into that. What what are we what are we looking
at? You well, to set up what they're saying too. Uh So.
Another reason I'm interested in this issue is because where I live. I
live in Virginia, there's a defense program that started and now live in a
city and the small you know about size where you live, uh say,
an area of one hundred thousand people, including the county, and the Navy
has started a defense program here. I live three miles away from the Norfolk
Hampton Road shipyards and they started a program here to train people to do welding
for shipbuilding and submarine building. Now the Navy has is instituting a new a
program to build and a whole new generation of nuclear and attack submarines. This
is their number one priority is to build you know, this defense program.
Just as bombers when General LEA May was, you know, head of the
Air Force, were the key weapon of the Air Force. These submarines now
are seen as the most important element, the future element of the Navy.
And what's happened about it, We talked about it on the show when they
were first start bringing that program into your area and introducing it. So yeah,
go ahead. What's important though, is that these submarines, each one
takes years to build, and I don't think they've They may have built one
and that's about it so far, like a prototype, and the program to
do it has barely gotten off the ground. So they said where I live,
that they were going to train a thousand people to work on these things
three years ago, and twenty twenty happened, or five years ago they said
this, twenty twenty happened, the program get delayed. Then they said,
we're gonna do it next year. Here we are twenty twenty four and they're
saying we're going to train a thousand people next year. They got they are
training some people, but not a thousand in twelve months. And from what
I understand is the reason the training is delayed is the overall program is delayed
because the supply chain issues and the shipbuilding capacity, not just for submarines but
everything all ships, whether it's merchant vessels or naval ships or whatnot. The
entire shipbuilding capacity to the United States, it was like hollowed out in the
late eighties and nineties as much of the country, you know, de industrialized.
So the way the situation is now, the Chinese are building ships at
a greater rate, their naval capacity at a much greater rate. The United
States is, and the Navy is simply trying to catch up. And if
you think of when our submarines and these things are supposed to come online.
You're talking like ten years from now. So we do have at the moment,
despite the lag in production, we have a at least what they say,
you know, I believe it. We have more ships and better ships
than the Chinese. But they are going to surpass us within ten years,
and we're just gonna be trying to, you know, build better things and
catch up. So at some point they will have a naval advantage. Whether
that's just gonna be temporary or not, you know, we'll see. But
in Taiwan is obviously closer to China than it is the United States. And
from articles, not these two, but other articles about this topic I've read,
for the United States to defend Taiwan now against a Chinese invasion would require
the help of Australia and Japan. The Japanese would have to have drones and
fighters and and be directly involved. So we don't really have from everything I've
read, we really don't have the capability to stop them with naval forces if
there was a war next month now. So the two articles that I want
to talk about, the first from the Atlantic Council, both of them are
posing the question if there was a war. If China invaded Taiwan, how
can the United States stop them? Now? The Atlantic Council is a think
tank defense think tank, and it's made up. It's a bipartisan think tank,
and it has figures on it such as Conna Lisa Rice, James Baker,
Leon Panetta who is a Democrat, Colin Powell Night label was a more
moderate Republican, Admiral Michael Mullen who was head of the Navy, Robert Gates
who is head of the Central Intelligence Agents see General Dunford who was a former
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, So David Petraeus, who was once
lionized as one of the greatest generals ever by Time magazine, plus head of
the CIA as well. Yeah, yeah, So these are the type of
people that are directors now of the Atlantic Council. So I say that in
order to point out that this isn't just a crackpot article, although it has
a crackpot conclusion to it. Well, these are people, though, that
had a front row seat, right And I'm also reminded by somebody in the
skype. You know about the Whuawei situation, and you know, different tech
issues with China as well as you know, the fentanyl crisis. A lot
of people pointing the finger at China being the manufacturer of either the the the
fentanyl directly or the precursors. And yeah, there's a lot of interplay here,
and China is a major threat technologically, socially, et cetera. And
again was one of the major focuses of you know, again a lot of
the rhetoric that has gone on here. Now what's interesting to me is in
ten years were lagging behind. And yes, we had the everything going on
pause in twenty twenty because of the COVID situation, and that stalled almost any
program of any of any significance. It seems like everything from the JFK releases
to this subprogram, right, anything the government was doing went on pause temporarily
for certain. But you know, all of these things coming together, this
is this is a strange situation. What crackpot conclusion do we have from all
these former secretaries of State and members of the Joint Chiefs CIA heads. I
mean, these are people so their name isn't known this report. Uh so
I'm not going to blame it on them. Uh well, no, but
these are people with significant positions in these organizations. Oh yeah, yeah,
yeah. I mean, I'm just saying they're directors of this Atlantic Institute this
and and you know they're publishing The Atlantic Institute's publishing this thing, and uh,
both of these reports. You know, they're dealing with the obvious problem
here. Both the United States in China have uh nuclear a lot of nuclear
weapons and can strike each other, uh and wipe each other out. And
you know, so if you're going to have a war uh with China over
Taiwan, how do you fight it without ending the world so to speak?
How do you keep it a limited war, a limited conflict that doesn't get
out of control? The article from the Atlantic Council just flat out says considered
a deliberate nuclear use of deliberate nuclear use of weapons, not accidental, but
just use them and how can we do that? So what you're telling me
is we're back to the let's see if we can win the nuclear war ideals.
No, no, no, it's it's not it's it doesn't it's not
advocating striking mainly in China are trying to wipe them out in the first strike.
But the official policy, well, I'm not saying it's unofficial. The
policy of just flat out put it this way. The policy of the Joint
Chief of Staff, the Joint Staff, the Planning and the Pentagon is not
to use, not to use nuke your weapons first. That's policy, all
right. This article is advocating to use them first, okay. And it's
what's wild is the way it wants, the way it says to do it.
So it was to do it in a way which will not trigger China
responding by launching a nu kar attack in the United States. It's assuming that
the United States will not be able to stop China from landing a force on
the island of Taiwan. And therefore it had it says what we should do
is just let them land on Taiwan. But I have to laugh because it's
so crazy. Let them land in Taiwan and then launch the nuclear attack on
Taiwan. Yeah, but see that's the craziest thing, because what good does
that do? Number one? Number two, I don't think anybody. I
mean, look, the people that are in our government currently are not going
to take the position, well, we can't do anything about it. If
China decides to take Taiwan by force, that's not going to be the official
government position for people that are currently in office. But realistically, I don't
think I've seen an analyst of any kind outside of our government that's currently employed
by our government who has said anything but we could do you know, could
we do anything about this? Probably not not currently. And as they begin
to offa study is going to argue a little differently when we get to it.
But okay, this article is saying we should launch if China invades Taiwan,
we should use nuclear weapons on the soil of Taiwan against the Chinese forces,
and it bits that, you know, the Taiwan the Taiwanese may not
like us to do that. So therefore we need to talk to them ahead
of time now in playing this out with them. And this is how you
can use nuclear weapons in a limited war scenario. You know, it doesn't
get out of control. That's insane. I mean, what country is going
to get you know, look and Mike, I'm telling you what, We're
gonna knock some nukes on your country over here. You guys are cool with
it if we can just keep it on the shoreline, right What I mean?
You know what what kind of madness is that that makes no sense at
all. Mike, are you sure that this is what they're advocating. I
mean, yeah, people could read it for themselves. It's right in there.
But I mean, realistically, under what scenario in the world would anyone
that is remotely rational say, yeah, it's okay if you guys nucas a
little bit, it'll be all right long as you're helping to keep the Chinese
from getting in here. I don't think anybody would be pleased with that.
I mean, Taiwan's not that large, you know, I mean, it's
not like, Wow, that's just that's insane to me, that that that's
that's just beyond stupid. Okay, we need to talk to them about it
first. I mean, what what is going on with the Atlanta Council anyway?
Well, they're basically, I mean, this is a very long article.
It's twenty pages. Yeah, and they're just going they're going through every
possible scenario of you know, should you nuke the Chinese boats, should you
nuke mainly in China, And it just comes down to the best scenario is
nuke Taiwan? Basically, yeah, best scenario. But I doubt anybody in
Taiwan's gonna agree that that's the best scenario. I mean, would who would
voluntarily say that is just that that's beyond belief to me that that that that's
even remotely some kind of Well, let me give you, let me give
you the following. This course of logic, the the key the recommendations to
make uh sure, okay, go ahead? Uh? Do you want to
prevent the war from even starting right? Uh? First, you know,
so again, we'll work with Taiwan to set up these scenarios so you can
put them in action. Next, move away from the current policy so called
strategic ambiguity, where you know, we're saying we won't sort of hit,
we won't defend Taiwan, then say we will, and then go back and
forth like Biden's statement. Then it's walked back. Move away from that to
a full out pledge to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion, much like we
have NATO. You know, make a new uh about a complete defense commitment.
Uh, and you and state that nuclear weapons will be part of that.
And and this is to deter the war from ever happening. But again,
I wonder what business we have to introduce this, And it's just still
it's kind of crazy. But of course doing that, we could could provoke
the war, you know too, I mean if if Biden does, because
you're you're escalating the diplomatic situation, you know, well, that's escalating and
skipping a few steps to be honestly, do you because I mean, we're
at a point where the wrong rhetoric comes out and the Chinese government basically condemns
you know, the idea that you call it something other than a part of
China. Right. Uh, if it's if it's on a map and it's
not properly colored in the right color, they get upset. There's been all
kinds of weird things here. Even when Nikki Haley was in the the you
know, was our ambassador of the UN, right. Uh, there was
all kinds of things here. It's a very touchy subject with the Chinese,
at least publicly. Now, I gotta I mean this, Yeah, these
documents are wild. So let me just read you this sentence. I mean,
this is a recommendation, all right, Okay, The United States should
provide the Taiwanese military the training and equipment to provide conventional support to US nuclear
operations and to operate in the environment likely to prevail after a nuclear detonation.
Okay, so get wow, all right, So get them ready for it,
and then prep them for what we're gonna do after, you know,
the bombs are dropped and you have this problem now on your soil. Okay,
I don't do we do we have the kind of cooperative relationship currently to
do this or would we have to establish it? That's another thing. And
uh still I'm stuck on how crazy this is? Go go ahead? What
else do we have to point to in this? Well that's the main I
mean, this, this is what I've really wanted to point out. I
mean, people can read the whole thing. I would just say, you
know that this is a sign. I would say that this is this is
shows how difficult it is two to figure out what to do. You know,
if this is the best conclusion you can come up with, then it
tells me that it's very difficult. It would be very difficult for the United
States to defend Taiwan without it becoming as dangerous or more dangerous than the cub
missile crisis. You know, well, yeah, more dangerous because now you're
talking about using these things I mean literally in this article to break down.
If you if you look at the table of contents on it, right,
you know, scenarios for deliberate nuclear use, okay, after you give the
strategic context and the introduction, scenarios for Chinese nuclear first use, okay,
scenarios for US limited nuclear first use, scenarios for an extended nuclear exchange.
I mean, you know, a strategic policy and operational considerations to the United
States, right, objectives of US response, including potential nuclear use. It
seems to me like somebody here, you know, my sensing a theme.
Somebody really badly wants to go from the mad policy right, the mutually destroyed
destructive deterrent policy too. Well, let's see if we can use these things
a little bit and you know, cause a post nuclear strategy to emerge.
What in the world is going on with the Atlanta Council, I just I
mean, where does this come from? Wow? And then they have you
know, recommendations and all that at the end, and it's just to me,
it's like all of these different main mainland targets for US nuclear use.
I mean, man, okay, so how does anyone imagine a scenario like
this with anything beginning that's not going to cause escalation. See, that's the
other problem is when you engage in, whether it's conventional warfare or any of
this strategic stuff or use of these different weapons or whatever, escalation is a
almost a certainty, and b is something that must be considered at all times
because the moment you engage in this. This is why it's always dangerous to
even engage in the rhetoric, because the rhetoric can often lead to real world
things getting lit off accidentally. Even this just seems like an unnecessary provocation and
idea about how to deal with something that clearly the US doesn't have the diplomatic
or you know, or other spheres of influence in order to push off of
it. Seems like, you know, we've lost on all these other fronts
here. We're definitely behind them militarily, We're behind the Chinese regarding being able
to deal with this. Let me ask you something, Mike, Why in
the world would Taiwan be this important that we would risk entering a post nuclear
use age right where these things are being used. Why would we even risk
changing the world condition here? Because it's not thought of commonly that it's something
that would be even considered. You know, remember when people are talking about
Russia and what's going on there and the use of battlefield nukes. Everybody goes,
WHOA, we don't want to get that started, because that can lead
to other things. Even if you have these small strategic things that are being
utilized right, you don't know how it could grow out of control really fast
in real time. And meanwhile, the Atlantic Council is basically proposing the idea
that well, let's let's talk about what happens if we do start using this.
I mean, does this represent a I don't know, a new kind
of philosophy that's emerging from these things tanks? Now? I mean, does
this represent something larger? Or is this? I mean, because this is
just crazy to me. I can't see how this would be even remotely palatable
to anybody to consider this. It seems like this is exactly the kind of
stuff you need to avoid unless you know, look, if you want to
try and do damage control because it's a certainty that you're going to engage in
this, that seems to be one thing. But I mean, this is
just the craziest position I've ever heard of. Mike, what are your thoughts
on this? Well? This are I mean, the arguments they make in
this article at the beginning is before getting this nuclear war stuff, their nuclear
weapons stuff is why why is Taiwan so important? So in their argument,
I'm just gonna list what they say to you. I'm not saying I'm just
gonna list it then comment on it. But that's a huge that's a huge
part of the stories. First of all, why in the hell would we
even be considering something like this. It means that there must be something of
great significance well to be considering something that could have such drastic consequences. What
is their reasoning that this is so important? Why is this so important that
basically it's on a page. But basically they're just they're re They're creating a
domino theory argument. They say, if Taiwan, if China gets control of
Taiwan, it would be afford operating base. They could attack Japan, they
could take a couple of disputed islands that they have over Japan. Quote.
A key goal of US foreign and national security politicians and civil War two has
been to prevent any hostile power from dominating key regions of the world. A
Chinese conquest to Taiwan, when we move China closer to dominating the Western Pacific,
a Chinese conquest that Taiwan would call into question the foundations of the rules
based international order. US in action would be seen as a sign of decreased
US will and capability to defend other countries. So the argument here is that
it's the inaction that we wouldn't want to have come out of this, like
in other words, I mean, it's the same crap that they said about
Vietnam. Well, yeah, and Domino theory, for God's sake, Now
we're back to that right where Oh, if that happens, then all these
other places might fall to it as well, and then we'll be faced with
what a larger unified Asian communist threat. Basically that that that's what the big
worry is, and we're gonna go nuclear about it. That that to me
is crazy. And even if China took Taiwan, yeah, they mean they're
gonna They're not gonna invade Japan. And you look, other countries around China,
including Russia you know, historically are not their friends. You know,
a Japan, Vietnam, UH, Korea, India, uh, go on
and on, you know, all their surrounding larger country you know, major
countries are not just gonna like become their puppets or just get invaded or something.
Well, yeah, and there's the quick question too, is worst case
scenario. Let's just say they land with military force starting now and absolutely a
certain complete control over the eye. What really changes in the in the world?
Exactly? Not much. Well, I mean the same thing that changed
when China took control of Hong Kong. What changed? I don't know.
England didn't collapse, right, I mean, you know things will change on
Taiwan. I'm not saying I want it to happen. I'm not advocating for
it or anything of that sort. I just I just read these things and
I'm just like, well, can we do? You know, I throw
up my hands, what can we do? So? What about the theories
of victory? That that's the title of the Brookings Institute study and Brookings you
know, okay, so let me let me load that up. It's well
right, and and and again. Look, I'll look at the RAM study
over here, right, I mean the Rand Study, not Brookings Institute Rand
Study. Yeah, yeah, good. If you don't have it loaded up,
I mean I can read you want me to read from that I got
it. I got it. So the people should know the Rand Institute is
closely connected to to the Pentagon. Okay, It's nonprofit based in California.
Its founder, one of its founders was General Curtis LeMay. Is funded by
the Air Force and companies like Douglas Aircraft. You know, it gets private
donations too. It's not it's a nonprofit, but you know it's it's closely
connected. More I would say it's even more connected. I mean, what
difference does it make? But more more connected, uh, and important than
this Atlantic Council thing. So we don't have access to the obviously we need
and you in any everyone listening, we don't have access to the actual Pentagon
war plans for these different scenarios that are created by the Joint Staff that works
under the Joint chiefs of Staff. However, sometimes these people, these think
tanks do, or at least they are able to talk to the people involved
in this article inside of it. I read the whole thing yesterday. It's
forty three pages. But inside of it it states that the Joint Staff plans
do not involve any first use of nuclear weapons. Okay, thank god,
I just want to state that flat out after this Atlantic Council madness. Look,
you're talking about think tanks versus what our government's actually doing. And one
would think this would have been something more typical of what might have come out
of the think tanks when like guys like John Bolton were involved, because he
was a guy who was very much focused on this. There's that former Trump
administration advisor I was trying to think of earlier, right, John Bolton,
who very much was focused on China and constantly telling us that we're ignoring this,
and this is the this is really the larger question. Forget about all
these other things that are emerging. This is ultimately the existential threat to the
United States, Right is China, China, China, China, you know.
And that's that was. It seems like I thought we were past this.
But the weirdness of you know this, let's see if we can engage
with nuclear use and all these other things. I mean, how far is
too far? And again you make it very clear this has nothing to do
with you know, our government policy at the moment. This is these think
tanks that usually do have some influence though, kicking these ideas around. Well,
this was this report when I read it this the rand study. Yeah,
this one is really you know, the point of bring up the other
one is just to highlight how this issue, you know, is you difficult
to deal with in kind of like I mean, it's a lot of craziness,
you know, I don't know, I mean, what, well,
a lot of hyperbole is going to come out of this, because it makes
people very nervous when you know, an adversarial nation has outpaced us militarily regarding
the population, seemingly out maneuvers to us in a lot of different way.
But clearly we're back to the discussion of you know, is it our responsibility
to defend? Like why is it even our problem? What's going on with
Taiwan? You know, why is that something that we need to be involved
in and even considering such madness like you know, first use of nuclear weapons?
Or gee, how do we respond? How do we deal with the
prolonged nuclear exchange? I'm saying, I'm thinking we don't, you know,
we don't. How about avoid it? How about this is the thing I
thought we were supposed to be avoiding. But anyway, what is what is
the major difference between the rantic good? The point of this this study forty
three pages. It's really advocating a course of action. Okay, Yeah,
I can imagine that this study is being presented to all the Senators and congressmen
and saying this is the plan, this is why we're funding all these programs,
and this is the best course of action we got. Well, here's
the justification for our need for the National Defense Authorization for the next few years,
because we need to catch up to China, et cetera. So this
is kind of ye. So it's not talking about we've got to catch up.
It's posing a plan to win. Okay. The title is US Military
Theories of Victory for War with the People's Republic of China. And what it
does, I mean, it's a long like logic exercise basically, and it
says there's one, two, three, four, five, five ways,
and it's Taiwan is the main you know, arena of conflict, right or
issue. It just assumes it's going to be a Taiwan that a war would
be fought over, and there's five ways to fight a war against China,
and it breaks them down and says what are their limitations? Number one it
labels brute force, and that would be total attack on China to destroy their
capability launch war limitations quote implausible when fighting a nuclear arm great power. All
right, forget that one. Okay. The next idea denial convinced China that
it cannot successfully take Taiwan by destroying the capabilities supporting an amphibious invasion. Limitations
requires sufficient power to blunt an invasion and still creates escalation risks. Okay,
and as a stated, it's dicey whether we would be able to defeat unlikely
that we would be able to defeat them at this moment or next month,
next devaluing which they assert. I mean, I don't really know how you
would actually do this, that you'd make Taiwan h less beneficial by destroying its
infrastructure in semicheductor industry. I don't know. You know, this says limitations
impractical, you know, I guess nuking them or whatever is put that in
there. It's impractical. Yeah, fair enough. I mean, is it
practical to say, turn around and intentionally destroyed the Taiwanese economy completely in order
to make it a less attractive target? I mean, sorry, I think
we're going back into crazy land again here. Yeah, but go ahead,
Yeah, next brinksmanship convinced China that the future costs of fighting for Taiwan may
become intolerable by threatening escalations such as nuclear use, so escalation or threats of
escalation. And if that benksmanship limitation undesirable given China's ability to retaliate in kind,
but and the limited stakes at half the United States, and frankly,
I've always thought this that in the end, if we tried nuclear braakesmanship of
China, we would fold, just as the Soviet Union folded when it came
to the Cuban missile crisis. Because how many Americans, you know, it's
not as important to us well in the world. Now, exactly, how
in the world are you going to justify this? This is what the question
is, right, How could you possibly justify any escalation? What would And
ultimately, I'm sorry, but this is the ultimate question. What does the
United States gain? Let's just say, you know, any any of these
operations are successful, we successfully discourage the Chinese from landing and invasion force,
Taiwanese independence gets asserted. Okay, great, we might have a greatful ally
for a minute, But other than that, what do we get out of
this? Honestly, I mean, what is the ultimate goal, what is
the big gain? That would be gambling all these assets on and taking this
studies asking those questions. It's just doesn't ask those How do we win?
How do we win? Okay? High? So we're just how to the
study, you know, and the other one too, by the way,
is how do we win? Regardless of the condition, how do we win?
How do we win? In the in the final military strategy is what
they call cost and position convinced China the costs are too high by military measures
such as Blockader's tragic air chat attacks against China. Problem retaliate retaliate retaliation risk
is high, yeah, very high, and unlikely to generate pressure quickly enough
to stop it, as we learned in Vietnam. I'm saying that as we
learn in Vietnam. But but in the end, the this study says that
the only two options that have the possibility of working are this last one,
which they which the study then rejects in favor of the denial strategy. In
what the denial strategy involves is, first of all, you want to do
everything you can to keep this a limited war, not going nuclear. So
what you do is you don't attack mainly in China. You don't make this
a war of unlimited objectives, you know, like in World War two unconditional
defeat of the Nazis Japanese. Now what you do is you say we are
going to defend Taiwan from an amphibious invasion, and you keep the focus of
the conflict on stopping the the amphibious invasion seeking the boats or if it's airplanes
lifting people in since paratroopers or whatnot. You only attack the forces involved in
invading Taiwan. And that way you can limit keep the conflict contained. Uh
just to that and uh so that's what the study advocates. And it says
that we could win that conflict, and it's the only possibility of winning is
that is doing it that way. You know, we can't win. No
one can win a nuclear you know, strike both sides striking each other's continents.
So just keep it to a naval battle. Look, somebody in my
chat room points, you know, says that you know we're not using our
common sense here, that you know that there is an importance in Taiwan because
of their their capacity. Let me see, because of the large advanced dedicated
semiconductor boundaries. Okay, yeah, but is that worth this kind of escalation
is my question? I mean, ultimately cost benefit analysis, does it make
sense? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to uh, you know,
go about this another way so as not to lose access? Or is somebody
thinking that it's too great of a strategic choke point for China, you know,
to be able to deny the West access to something like that. And
if that's the case, that is a huge vulnerability that that that that needs
be dealt with immediately another way, and it's not militarily, you know,
the the superconductor situation or even these issues that came up over chips, right,
remember the Chips Act and all that stuff regarding well how come we're getting
all our chips from China, you know, and this and that. Yeah,
that that's a huge vulnerability. I get it, But I don't see
how that equates, you know, or or that justifies I should say,
uh, the type of briachmanship you're talking about, or the use of weapons
or or this kind of military involvement which lends itself immediately to further escalation.
Well outside of Taiwan. I'm just thinking again, cost benefit analysis, Uh,
you got a major problem here. Uh, it doesn't make sense to
me, none of this does. But but continue, Mike, I'm sorry.
I just I saw that in the chat and want to point it out.
Okay, So I'm trying to find a sentence buried in this whole thing
that it's I'm not gonna be able to find it. Well here it is,
well, ultimately, you know, okay, because it's since like I
said, this is a very you know, forty three pages and all this
logical arguments, and it's all designed to build its advocating for that position right
a naval battle. Now, I want to say I've heard I met once
Colonel Larry Wilkerson, who was calling Palace chief of staff when he worked in
the State Department. It talked for like an hour after he spoke somewhere,
and I've seen him on YouTube a lot in interviews and multiple times again we
don't have access to this information, so but multiple times I've seen him state
that the Pentagon has war gained this scenario and that what ends up happening is
one side ships the naval forces get wiped out, and then it goes nuclear.
So this article doesn't say anything. I mean, he says that,
however, this article has this line in it after pushing this option. Yeah,
it may ultimately be. It's basically says, we only have two things
we can do. We can declare as the other article advocated, actually that
okay, Taiwan is something we're going to go to nuclear war over and just
flat out to Claire like we did with NATO in in Western Europe. Right,
Uh, just flat out to Claire that knowing that it it escalates the
whole situation. That's one one option. The other option is the naval battle,
okay, and we may lose the naval battle. And know this,
this thing, you know, has the title saying this is how we win.
It's a theory of victory, and it's advocating for this naval battle scenario.
But then it has this two sentences and and keep in mind that this
Larry Wilkerson has claimed that when they wore game it it leads to nuclear war,
just the naval battle because one side gets sunk. You know what happens
when the US A thousand American sailors are are killed. What does the president
then do? Does he go nu cure or is he going to resign?
You know what what's he going to do? So in the end, it's
because we don't want to make nuclear commitment and say, this is West Germany.
This is the quote. It may ultimately be in the US interest to
accept a greater risk of a limited defeat over Taiwan, then to cultivate a
much greater risk of nuclear escalation. These are decisions that US political leadership,
not Department of Defense would make. Well, No, the d o D.
The d D has just charged with win win win. You don't go
to the god and say, strategically, we need you to lose, but
don't lose too big. I mean, that makes no sense. So well
I read that. What I see is this is up. This is the
policy right here. All right, We're gonna have this naval battle to defend
Taiwan. We're gonna we have this great military industrial complex for trying to catch
up the ship construction UH to fight this possible battle. And in the end
we may lose that battle and they admit that, and then the President's gonna
have decide if we're gonna have nuclear warnit. Mike, it just seems all
crazy all the way through to me. I don't you know, I don't
get it. It's I don't again, I still stand by I don't see
how this is worth it. Maybe it's just me, I I don't see
the cost benefit analysis here panning out that it would be worth this kind of
escalation, this kind of risk. Uh, you know, in the in
a worldwide sense, it's well to escape this. I mean, maybe you
know, maybe maybe you know, we don't know what the real odds are
that China's even gonna invade Taiwan. Maybe this is just never gonna happen anyway.
Well, there's option three, as we might be, you know,
gaming out discussing something that is never going to happen anyway. But they do
wish to assert, you know, dominance over that particular island. They definitely
assert ownership over it, and do not like it, and and definitely react
really badly when anybody makes a suggestion that Taiwan could be independent, could be
separate from being anything other than another asset under the Chinese government's control. I
mean, it's it's a rough spot, and this all sounds crazy. So
look, Mike, we've been talking for almost an hour, so I mean,
I'd love for you to kind of just tell people what to take away
from this, What is the thing to take away? Please, Gus,
I don't know what the you know, I don't know what the you'd hope
that there's people in the government trying to figure out scenarios to void What are
alternative courses of action that involve diplomacy or you know something, Various pressure points,
various points of influence, various possibilities could be played out here before ever
bothering to introduce a military element directly into the situation. Uh there's tons of
possibilities before this, right to even consider this further on down the line,
the idea of use of it, the idea of let's yeah, sure,
we'll just have a naval conflict. I'm sure it'll just stay on the high
seas. Uh No, this is craziness, Mike. And what do you
think why is it that this is coming out now? Why do you think
this is a point of discussion now as opposed to you know, like I
said, the majority of what the media's treating us to is all sorts of
considerations. Yes, indeed, be ready and be afraid of World War three.
But the scenarios right now and the mainstream media have nothing to do with
China except that they might come in on the side of Russia, they would
be much more closely allied to Russia. Right, the whole brick situation.
All of these things are worthy of consideration. But to me, it's crazy
to consider, you know, that type of escalation or direct conflict what as
a first line of defense as opposed to a last line of defense here to
not allow the you know what, another country to assert its dominance over Taiwan
if you consider that it is separate indeed or not? I mean, really,
Mike, ultimately, what should we take away from all this? Well,
just hope it doesn't happen. Yeah, no, absolutely. Look I
never ever sit here and and wish for prey, for spoil for conflict.
Absolutely not. That's not my style at all. And uh, I know
it's not something anybody should be really wanting to see, But I mean,
ultimately it is it also inevitable? You know? That's the thing I didn't
catch in these articles, by the way, and these studies is if they
felt that, you know, I saw what was it in the uh in
the Atlantic Council one. They seem to give us an idea that, you
know, a conflict is inevitable, right, Uh, we're gonna have to
choose what type of conflict, And they indeed want to advocate the idea that
well, you know, since eventually we're going to get the nuclear weapons anyway,
Uh, there's a way to do that and not lose all the way
at least, which to me is madness. The moment you start considering use
of stuff like that, to me, you definitely lost some serious perspective.
But yeah, the thing about the new nuclear weapons is you have to create
these crazy scenarios to imagine a way to be able to use them. So,
for example, in the Ukraine Russia conflict, there's a Russian think tank
that put out an article last year advocating for the use of a tactical nuclear
weapon against Ukraine. And their argument was that in this article, and you
know that there's gonna be a there's risk of a nuclear a growing risk that
the United States is going to have some sort of war somewhere in the world
of Taiwan and possibly a place with another power and use nuclear weapons. So
if we use a tactical nuclear weapon, now how the Russians in Ukraine,
it would be help us in that war and also remind the world how terrible
these weapons are, so it's less likely they'll be used again. It's less
likely that the United States will get into this war that claim the world's heading
for. I mean, it's just you know, fantastic nonsense. Yeah,
well exactly. And to me, you know, look, I don't think
it's inevitable. I don't think it's necessary. And again I don't think the
cost benefit analysis bears out it as any sort of necessity. So you know,
what is it that we're looking at here? To me, it's all
crazy all the time, Mike, And no matter how you slice it,
I think to spoil for a larger conflict, to spoil for escalation without you
know, an absolute, you know, inevitable requirement for it. If it
was unavoidable completely, then that's one thing. But to actually ask for it
or to initiate it, as you know, some of these think tanks are
talking about. Now, you know, how do we initiate the kind of
war we can win? Is pretty much the overall theme. I don't know
how it is you believe that you can win in a nuclear exchange of any
significance whatsoever, And the moment that that's introduced, that crosses the line that
we have not crossed now, you know, since World War Two, so
you know who wants to be party to that. I don't get it to
me. It just sounds like the bad idea that it'll keep on giving and
getting worse if we go in any of these proposed directions according to the think
tanks. I don't think the think tanks are thinking Mike, basically, but
you out there, you could be thinking be in the no go to Wallstreet,
Window dot com. That is Mike's main hub and all that good stuff.
And again he's the author of a lot of great books. But the
three I would point to, or well, the two I would point to
immediately is why the Vietnam War and the War State, and absolutely I endorse
those. But he's also written about the history of Danville, Virginia, and
he's got books about financial stuff and all that out there. Mike's keen ability
to turn complex issues into something that could be easily understood is really his greatest
skill and strength as an author and as somebody who does this kind of analysis.
What's interesting here, Mike, is that you have something very complex here
that I'm not saying that you failed at all, but it's very difficult to
simplify this kind of crazy that's coming out of Rand Corporation in the Atlanta Council
here. It's difficult to take all those nuances, crush it down and have
it make any sort of sense. These ideas of escalation of nuclear involvement,
of really again crossing a line that has not been crossed in a very long
time on the global stage. So what, you know, what is your
sort of wrap it up or final thoughts on all this? I mean,
it's like doctor Strange glove stuff. It's the Bob. I mean, that's
what it's like, you know, That's that's what the world of these think
tanks is. Man, oh man, gentlemen, no fighting in here.
This is a war room, all right. Well, anyway, again,
thanks Mike Swanson for joining us here tonight on the Ocelli Effect here on a
Thursday, considering China and the crazy ideas that are growing in the think tanks.
I don't know what else that titled this show. Maybe I'll get to
a better one when I write it up. But man, Mike, thanks
for thanks for giving me a little something to worry about, because if people
are thinking this way, I mean, they've lost their minds. I don't
know what else to say. This to me just seems crazy. I don't
care who's at the chairman, I don't care who's in charge. I don't
care how intelligent this is supposed to be. This to me seems like just
madness that keeps on giving. But anyway, Wall Street Window dot Com is
Mike say again The War State and Why the Vietnam War, the two books
I highly recommend Mike Swanson on the o'elli effect and Uh, We're all done
here. No matter who you are, where you are, when you are,
remember I'm o Chili dot com, wall Stream Window Dott Gold similar the
stock market, wall Stream Window Dott. Perhaps you're invested deeply, Perhaps you're
not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street windows on
condos on com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State,
understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit
of his knowledge. Wall Street Window Dott. Go there, now go there,
now go there, now go ahead. Fascination, Right, well,
what do you want to know? Dy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriend he knew
Ruby and Arry Handswer weapons really I imagine I could claim I have four wheels.
It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald was on the
building, and I'm trying to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on
now has a real effort on the day assassination book intolaim. Go to Amazon
dot com, enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results
for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and
the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's
say you can get Judith Arry Baker in her own words from the author himself,
signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at ki as jfk at
aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many,
many fantastic claims. Judith very Baker in her own words. Thank you for
all the great information. Do you like history? Real history that you were
never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in nation Building in
Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson with new documentation never seen before that'll open your
eyes to events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs
in nation building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get
your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike
Swanson revelation to conversation. The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times
and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would
not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His
assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the
national security state. Before World War II, the United States was a continental
republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals
such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there
were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not
destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a
Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The War
State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was up
against For more information, the Warstate, dot Com, the dot com radio
Net. In Denial The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock.
Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today.
Larry Hancock's book In Denial ripped the cover off many of them, using
new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has
ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United
States did not earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are
doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some
want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air Strikes
and Tanks Larryhncock. For more information go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com, in digital or
physical, dot Com Radio o Chilly dot Com. Revelation through Conversation, Ready
did he Happen?