(On the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation in the language of your choice in Google Translate)
Op 31 juli jl. schreef ik het eerste deel van dit artikel*, waarin aandacht voor de wil van de VS om oorlog te voeren tegen China. Toevallig liet de Chinese minister van defensie een paar dagen geleden weten dat China in 2040 een leger wil hebben dat even sterk is als dat van de VS, ofwel nog eens een teken dat zelfs de hysterie van de VS over China's agressie en kracht zwaar en met opzet hysterisch wordt overdreven. Het gaat dan ook vooral om de economische kracht van China die de VS en nu vooral Trump dwars zit.
Uiteraard weet men in het Witte Huis, in het Pentagon, bij de CIA en bij de NSA dat China geen bedreiging is voor de militaire kracht van de VS en men daar werkelijk overweegt een oorlog te beginnen tegen China en dat gebaseerd op de idee van eigen militair overwicht. Natuurlijk zal men daarvoor één van de vele false flag operaties gebruiken, die men bij de CIA allang en breed heeft uitgedacht. Het interesseert dit geteisem en opperploerten als Rutte en von der Leyen geen zier dat één en ander kan uitdraaien op een kernoorlog en dat dit miljarden mensen het leven kan kosten, men heeft al meer dan voldoende laten weten dat men met hulp van het WEF en het IMF de wereld flink wil ontvolken**.
Onbegrijpelijk dat het kernoorlogvirus, dat vooral de hersenen aantast, niet alleen ook von der Leyen heeft kunnen aansteken, maar zo ongeveer de hele westerse wereld (althans wat betreft politici, NAVO, massamedia, rechtse denktanks, 'deskundigen' en wapenfabrikanten) is ervan overtuigd dat het een oorlog tegen China en Rusland kan winnen. Zoals eertijds Sovjetpresident Chroesjtsjov al eens opmerkte, kan je beter meteen het loodje leggen bij een aanval met kernwapens dan dit te overleven, zelfs als je in een schuilkelder zit, dit daar de aarde voor lange tijd onbewoonbaar zal zijn en bovendien dat stralingsziekte tot één van de ergste ziekten behoort, zoals veel slachtoffers van de misdadige atoombomaanvallen op Hiroshima en Nagasaki je zouden kunnen vertellen als ze nog leefden***, wat ook geldt voor de bewoners en militairen die werden blootgesteld aan de proeven met atoomwapens die men eertijds bovengronds liet plaatsvinden....
Niet bij mij bekend op het moment dat ik het eerder genoemde bericht plaatste op 31 juli jl., was de grootste militaire oefening ooit: REFORPAC 2025, die begon op 10 juli jl. in het Pacifisch gebied (het gebied van de Stille Oceaan).... Hier de link naar een pagina van wat de oorlogshitsers in de VS en haar slaafse partners in het gebied van de Stille Oceaan de 'Pacific Air Forces' noemen. De slaafse partners zijn Japan, Canada, Australië, Nieuw Zeeland, Zuid-Korea en.... Groot-Brittannië dat blijkbaar ook grenst aan de Stille Oceaan. Deze REFORPAC 2025 oefening is puur gericht op het aanvallen van China, dat is meer dan duidelijk (over agressie in beeld gesproken >> het spat ervan af!!):
Overigens zoals in mijn vorige bericht al genoemd vindt er jaarlijks ook een grote marine oefening plaats onder de noemer 'RIMPAC', waaraan ook Nederland deelneemt, als REFORPAC 2025 zijn deze oefeningen eveneens gericht op het aanvallen van China..... Om over de vele NAVO-oefeningen van de afgelopen 15 jaar in Europa, allen gericht op het aanvallen van Rusland en invallen van Russisch grondgebied maar te zwijgen en dan durft men te stellen dat China en Ruslandagressief zijn!! Wat dat betreft wordt in de tekst hieronder nog een feit gegeven: de VS heeft sinds 1991 maar liefst 251 interventies gepleegd in het buitenland, China heeft de laatste 50 jaar niet in één ander land geïntervenieerd!! Waar ik het houd op wereldwijd 800 militaire VS bases, houdt Jodie van CODEPINK het op 900 bases!! (CODEPINK is een geweldloze vredesactiegroep, die over het algemeen goed is geïnformeerd) Hieronder is een tekst opgenomen van CODEPINK bij een petitie gericht tegen oorlog met China (een petitie die wij niet kunnen tekenen, mocht je iemand kennen die wel mag tekenen, bijvoorbeeld een vakantieganger uit de VS >> hier de link naar de petitie)
(als
je de Engelse taal niet beheerst,
zet dan de tekst om in Nederlands met behulp van Google translate dat
je rechts bovenaan deze pagina ziet staan,klik
eerst in het menu op 'Engels', waarna je weer kan klikken op die
vertaalapp, daarna zie je bovenaan in het menu 'Nederlands' staan >>
klik daarop en de hele tekst staat vervolgens in het Nederlands, de
vertaling is van een redelijk goede kwaliteit.)
The
plan to invade China
The
United States is advancing its plans for war with China.
On July 10, the U.S. and its allies launched REFORPAC
2025, thelargest
Pacific military exercise since WWII,
involving over 350 aircraft and 12,000 service members at more than
50 locations across 3,000 miles in the Pacific. The U.S. Air Force
says these exercises will “prove how we’ll fight and win” a war
against China.
And
just last week, the Hudson Institute, which receives millions in
Pentagon funding, published a
128-page blueprint for collapsing and occupying China.
This horrifying document outlines a phased strategy: launch
psychological warfare, destabilize the country, embed U.S. forces in
China’s largest cities, and install a new puppet government aligned
with U.S. Interests.
One
of the authors behind this dystopian plan is Gordon G. Chang, a
self-declared “China expert” who has spent over two
decades incorrectly
predicting the collapse of China’s government.
Despite his abysmal track record, Chang continues to be invited to
major platforms, spreading regime-change rhetoric designed to justify
war and expand U.S. dominance.
He is no more than a state-aligned propagandist, useful only because
he reinforces the U.S. imperial worldview so Congress can use more of
your tax dollars to go to war on China.
One
of Chang’s many upcoming speaking events is scheduled to take place
at the 134th
annual Kentucky Bankers Association (KBA) conference,
where he will join KBA CEO Ballard Cassidy for a fireside chat. It’s
time to demand that lying imperial mouthpieces like Chang no longer
get uplifted to be used as a means for global death and destruction —
not in Congress, in academia, or anywhere.
It’s
simple: giving
a platform to people like Chang is an endorsement of war. As
the U.S. moves sinisterly closer to launching a war on China,
uplifting voices like his only serves to drive fear and normalize the
use of violence to promote U.S. interests.
All
of this is happening while U.S. officials and media continue to frame
China as the aggressor. But let’s be honest: if China surrounded
the U.S. with hundreds of foreign bases, conducted nuclear war
simulations off our coast, and hosted conferences planning
governmental collapse, the
U.S. would already be calling it an act of war.
We know this because we’ve been there before. Remember the Cuban
Missile Crisis?
Luckily,
the facts speak louder than U.S. war propaganda, and these are the
facts: the U.S. has over 900
military bases worldwide;
China has just
one.
The U.S. has carried out 251
military interventions since 1991;
China hasn’t intervened in another country for over 50
years.
It
is abundantly clear that the
U.S. is the aggressor, not China.
This
is a moment of truth. We must recognize the role that U.S. war hawks
and Pentagon-funded think tanks play in driving us toward war with
China and call
out the individuals doing the work to manufacture consent. Every
time an institution gives Gordon Chang a platform, they help
legitimize violent fantasies of regime change and U.S. domination,
laying the groundwork for war.
Voor
de bezoekers die Engels niet kunnen lezen: voor het volgende niet op dit blog
gepubliceerde artikel in hetEngels
onder de link, moet je zelf even een vertaalapp zoeken op het web.
Er zijn gratis apps van redelijke kwaliteit die dit kunnen (soms in 2
of of meer delen >> bij lange artikelen). Af en toekrijg
je bij het openen van een nieuwe pagina een pop-up die vraagt of je
een vertaling wilt hebben als de bewuste pagina in een andere taal is
gesteld.
** Zie onder andere: The
Gaza Option: Capitalism is Killing Off Surplus Humanity | Prof.
William RobinsonA
confronting and frightening conversation with Prof. William Robinson
sociologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, about why
we're screwed. Het betreft hier een artikel o.a. over de grote firma's die door automatisering en AI (kunstmatige intelligentie) geen
personeel of veel minder personeel nodig hebben, dan wel nodig zullen hebben in de nabije toekomst, waardoor er een
groot aantal mensen werkloos zal worden en overbodig zal zijn
voor de maatschappij >> men wil 'uiteraard' van deze mensen af, daar ten eerste de kosten voor het overleven van die werklozen te hoog zullen zijn voor regeringen, die zullen weigeren om de grote bedrijven daarvoor te laten betalen en ten tweede daar men bang is dat een enorme 'werkloze klasse' in opstand zal komen..... Niet voor niets ook dat men de bevolkingen in slaap sust met de leugen dat AI en automatisering voor meer banen zullen zorgen.... Om een paar automatiseringsvoorbeelden te geven (er zijn er overigens nog veel meer) >> zie wat er gebeurde met het bankpersoneel dat de kantoren van de banken bevolkte, voordat de betaalautomaten in de straten verschenen en bijna alle bankkantoren verdwenen. Hetzelfde geldt voor de automatisering die in de vorige eeuw werd ingevoerd op de boeren bedrijven.
Let
op!!
De ruimte om reacties weer te geven werkt niet altijd. Als je
commentaar hebt en het lukt niet op de normale manier, doe dit dan
via het mailadres trippleu@gmail.com, ik zal deze dan opnemen
onderaan in het bewuste artikel, althans als je geen geweld predikt,
voorts plaats ik jouw reactie ook al staat deze diametraal tegenover
dat bericht. Alvast mijn dank voor jouw eventuele reactie, Willem.
(On the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation in the language of your choice in Google Translate)
Terwijl de zetbaas van de NAVO voor de VS, aartsleugenaar, oorlogsmisdadiger en mede-genocidepleger Rutte samen met een andere machtige niet democratisch gekozen misdadiger, te weten: von der Leyen, getwee bezig zijn met het voorbereiden van oorlog tegen Rusland, niet die nu in Oekraïne wordt bevochten, maar een directe oorlog tegen Rusland, is de VS druk doende met de voorbereiding op oorlog met China, uiteraard ook met Rutte en het extra NAVO-leger van de VS op de achtergrond. (de NAVO staat in oorlogssituaties altijd onder bevel van VS officieren, derhalve is de NAVO een extra terreurleger voor de verreweg grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld: de VS)
Rutte, von der Leyen en zelfs ons eigen ministerie van 'Defensie' (lees: ministerie van Oorlog) maken er allang geen geheim meer van >> de oorlog met Rusland zal plaatsvinden en als je het geteisem hoort wil men dit liever zo snel mogelijk. In plaats van pogingen te ondernemen om diplomatiek tot een vergelijk te komen met Rusland, sturen Rutte en von der Leyen aan op oorlog.....
We moeten een noodpakket aanleggen, waar men er niet bij vertelt dat bij een oorlog tegen Rusland het Rotterdamse havengebied tot en met de Tweede Maasvlakte op zeker een doel zal zijn voor Rusland en als dat in de lucht gaat zal bijvoorbeeld zelfs een stad als Den Haag van de kaart worden geveegd, geheel dan wel grotendeels (inclusief de noodpakketten).....
Een noodpakket moet de burger een gevoel van veiligheid geven, terwijl hetzelfde tuig er niet bij vertelt dat er grote schuilkelders zouden moeten worden aangelegd voor de gewone bevolking, dit om nog enigszins kans te maken om een eerste aanval op voornoemd gebied of andere gebieden te kunnen overleven. Er zijn in het geheel geen plannen om schuilkelders aan te leggen voor het gewone volk, er is allang ingecalculeerd dat een groot deel van dat volk een oorlog niet zal overleven, al zouden ze hun hele huis hebben afgeladen met noodpakketten.....
In plaats van overleg met Rusland en China speelt men liever met het leven van honderden miljoenen mensen, ja zelfs met miljarden mensenlevens, waar wij niet alleen een gigantisch kapitaal extra gaan betalen voor het voeren van een oorlog tegen Rusland, iets waar de NAVO al 15 jaar op heeft geoefend, maar ook voor de oorlog tegen China..... Als dat gebeurt hebben we te maken met een bijzonder hete Derde Wereldoorlog (WOIII)...... Aan de oorlog tegen China zal een deel van de NAVO-lidstaten deelnemen, niet vreemd als je ziet dat die staten, inclusief Nederland, al meer dan een decennia meedoen aan de marine oefening RIMPAC in de Stille Oceaan, een oefening die is gericht op de VS oorlog tegen China....
Men spreekt in de media en politiek over de agressie van China, waarbij men doelt op de kleine eilandjes die China tot haar grondgebied rekent en de eilandjes die het zelf creëert, nooit zullen die media, politici en 'deskundigen' van rechtse denktanks het volk vertellen dat de VS maar liefst 400 militaire bases heeft rond een groot deel van China, vanwaar het doelen in China kan aanvallen/raken, dit met (kern-) raketten, straaljagers, bommenwerpers, marineschepen en onderzeeërs..... Bedenk maar eens wat de VS zou doen als China 400 bases had vanwaar het de VS op redelijk korte afstand zou kunnen aanvallen >> de Derde Wereldoorlog (WOIII) zou al achter de rug zijn!! Maar nee >> China is de grote agressor!! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
De 5% die de NAVO-lidstaten exclusief de VS moeten gaan betalen is niet nodig voor de verdediging van die staten, maar voor de aanval op Rusland (en China)..... Niet voor niets als je bedenkt dat Frankrijk, Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië en Italië al 3 keer meer uitgeven aan oorlogstuig dan Rusland, terwijl de VS zelfs 7 keer meer uitgeeft aan dat oorlogstuig dan Rusland en China samen..... Als over een paar jaar alle NAVO-lidstaten behalve de VS 5% van hun bbp uitgeven aan oorlogstuig, is het totale bedrag daarvan dat deze staten jaarlijks zullen uitgeven groter dan het jaarlijkse bbp van Rusland, wat eens te meer aangeeft dat men van zins is om Rusland (en China) aan te vallen, immers waarom zouden we anders zo'n godsvermogen moeten uitgeven aan oorlogstuig voor het aanvallen van Rusland en China (niet ter verdediging tegen 'agressie' van die landen!!), terwijl alleen al 4 NAVO-lidstaten zonder de VS als gezegd nu al ruim 3 keer meer uitgeven aan oorlogstuig dan Rusland??!!!
Vergeet bij het voorgaande niet dat het westen een paar decennialang heeft volgehouden dat Taiwan een onvervreemdbaar deel is van China (de 'One China-policy'), daar heeft de VS een eind aan gemaakt (ik dacht begin deze eeuw onder oorlogsmisdadiger Bush), wat uiteraard werd gevolgd door haar slaafse NAVO-partners.
Hier een film gemaakt door John Pilger:
De fascistisch psychopathische oorlogsmisdadiger Trump verkocht zich in aanloop van de presidentsverkiezingen als een vredesstichter, echter hij was een goed half jaar aan het bewind of hij had hier al een enorme leugen van gemaakt.
Meer dan schunnig dat de reguliere westerse media hier eenzijdig over berichten en in feite meehelpen de bevolking klaar te stomen voor de volgende wereldoorlog, dit met het brengen van onvervalste propaganda, het zaaien van haat en angst, tegen resp. voor Rusland en China..... Niet zo vreemd als je bedenkt dat de spuugrijke eigenaren/investeerders van die media enorme portefeuilles bezitten met aandelen in de oorlogsindustrie en de fossiele industrie (anders gezegd: de wapenindustrie en de olie-industrie zijn industrieën die op volle toeren draaien tijdens oorlogen). Uiteraard doen alle rechtse denktanks, lobbyisten van de wapenindustrie en zogenaamde 'deskundigen' mee aan de oorlogshitserij. Als ze het er niet mee eens zijn, kunnen ze vergeten ooit nog te worden uitgenodigd door de reguliere media voor 'interviews', dan wel voor het schrijven van opiniestukken..... (zie wat er gebeurde met wetenschappers als virologen en microbiologen, plus het lot van een flink aantal artsen, die zich keerden tegen de algehele C*ron*hysterie en het inenten met een niet zorgvuldig getest Frankenstein-vaccin)
Lees de volgende uitstekende analyse over de VS voorbereiding van een heel foute oorlog tegen China, geschreven door Thomas Karat en gepubliceerd op Substack.
(als
je de Engelse taal niet beheerst,
zet dan de tekst om in Nederlands met behulp van Google translate dat
je rechts bovenaan deze pagina ziet staan,klik
eerst in het menu op 'Engels', waarna je weer kan klikken op die
vertaalapp, daarna zie je bovenaan in het menu 'Nederlands' staan >>
klik daarop en de hele tekst staat vervolgens in het Nederlands, de
vertaling is van een redelijk goede kwaliteit.)
Inside
Trump’s 2025 Blueprint for War with China
Eyes on Taiwan, Profits at Lockheed &
Co
Thomas
Karat
July
17, 2025
Introduction:
A Second-Term Escalation in the Pacific
In July
2025,
the United States is openly girding itself for a possible war with
China. President Donald Trump’s second term has unleashed a flurry
of actions – military deployments, defense pacts, industrial
mobilization, and bellicose rhetoric – all ostensibly aimed at
“deterring” China but effectively preparing
for direct conflict.
From the South
China Sea to
the Taiwan
Strait,
Washington’s moves have been aggressive. Trump’s Pentagon,
empowered by hawkish advisers and fueled by the military–industrial
complex,
is treating the Indo-Pacific as a battlefield in waiting. Critics say
this Pacific “wargasm”
is less about defense than profit and power – a war blueprint that
benefits arms dealers and ideological hardliners at the expense of
global peace.
Under
the banner of “competition,” 2025 has witnessed executive
orders and Defense Department directives explicitly
naming China as America’s top threat. U.S. officials openly discuss
“real war plans” for the Indo-Pacific geopoliticaleconomy.com.
Massive budgets are being poured into new weapons and bases, and
Washington’s allies are pressed to join the buildup. All of this is
framed as “deterrence” –
yet each step heightens tensions and inches the world closer to a
superpower clash. This investigative exposé will dissect how Trump’s
America is actively preparing
for war with China in 2025, scrutinizing who pushes this agenda and
who profits from it. I draw on official statements, leaked plans, war
games, and on-the-ground developments across the Pacific to reveal a
sobering picture: a
U.S. war machine gearing up for its next target.
In
summary: The
Trump administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy is a war blueprint in
all but name. Despite public claims of seeking peace, Washington’s
actions – from deploying bombers and missile batteries near China’s
shores to waging economic warfare and propaganda campaigns – betray
an unmistakably offensive posture. This report critically examines
those actions, the role of defense contractors and think-tank hawks
in driving escalation, and the contradictions in the U.S. narrative.
Who truly benefits from stoking a confrontation with Beijing? And at
what cost to the rest of the world?
I
discussed this executive brief with Malta’s former foreign minister
Evarist Bartolo yesterday. If you have not done so yet, subscribe on
my Youtube channel to get notified when it’s published
(https://www.youtube.com/@saltcubeanalytics).
(All
sources for factual claims are cited in the text, and a comprehensive
source list is provided at the end.)
While
Trump is preparing for war with China, Europes unelected officials
are pushing for war with Russia. Sooner rather than later both
theatres of war will merge.
Trump’s
War Footing: Rhetoric and Directives Targeting China
From
day one of his return to the White House, President Trump set a
confrontational tone on China. His administration’s official
rhetoric now
consistently casts Beijing as an imminent danger. In fact, a leaked
Pentagon memo indicated that “preparing
for war with China”
has been elevated to the Department of Defense’s top
priority,
taking precedence over all other issues geopoliticaleconomy.com.
This prioritization is reflected in high-profile speeches and policy
documents:
Trump’s
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth,
a Fox News alumnus known for hardline views, bluntly warned in May
2025 that “the
threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent”.
Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore,
Hegseth claimed Beijing is “rehearsing for the real deal” of
invading Taiwan and urged Asian nations to militarize
rapidly theguardian.com.
“There’s no reason to sugar coat it,” he said, describing
China as credibly preparing to use force to change the Indo-Pacific
balance theguardian.com.
He vowed the U.S. would expand
its presence in
the region and unveiled new joint military projects with
allies theguardian.com.
While insisting “we do not seek conflict,” Hegseth in the same
breath declared that if deterrence fails the Pentagon is “prepared
to… fight
and win, decisively”
against China defense.gov.
In essence, the Pentagon publicly affirmed it is actively
planning for war,
even as it claims to prefer peace.
Executive
directives from
the Trump White House also explicitly label China a strategic
menace. For example, in April 2025 Trump signed an executive order
declaring it U.S. policy to “revitalize
and rebuild” America’s
maritime industry for national security reasons china-briefing.com.
The order notes that the U.S. builds less than 1% of the world’s
ships while “the People’s Republic of China is responsible for
producing approximately half”china-briefing.com –
framing China’s shipbuilding dominance as a military threat. Trump
directed officials to impose new fees and restrictions on Chinese
shipping, portraying it as countering China’s “unreasonable”
drive to control global logistics china-briefing.com.
Similarly, other 2025 orders and policy moves have targeted Chinese
tech and students (more on that below), all under the guise of
national security. The messaging is clear: China
is America’s foremost adversary,
across economic, technological, and military domains.
In
his few major speeches on foreign policy this year, Trump
himself has singled out China in stark terms.
At a February 2025 press conference with India’s Prime Minister,
Trump not only hailed a new oil trade deal but segued into pledging
massive arms sales to India to counter China. “We’ll be
increasing military sales to India by many billions of dollars.
We’re also paving the way to ultimately provide India with the
F-35 stealth fighters,” Trump announced reuters.com.
(Indian officials were caught off guard, noting no such fighter deal
was actually set – Trump’s pledge was aspirational reuters.com –
but the intent to arm India against China was unmistakable). In the
same breath, Trump spoke of “radical
Islamic terrorism”;
notably, he now often mentions China alongside past U.S. bogeymen,
rhetorically putting the Chinese Communist Party in the same box as
ISIS or Iran. The administration’s National
Security Strategy (NSS) draft
circulating in Washington (according to insiders) reportedly defines
China as a “revisionist power” that must be “constrained
militarily” to
preserve U.S. primacy in Asia. Although the full NSS remains
classified, its influence is visible in budget and force posture
decisions emphasizing the China threat.
This
stark official line marks a shift from Trump’s first term
(2017–2020), when anti-China moves centered mainly on trade. Now,
in 2025, military
confrontation is foregrounded.
The irony is that public opinion, while broadly wary of China, isn’t
clamoring for war. A recent Pew Research survey found 56%
of Americans view China primarily as a “competitor”,
not an outright enemy, and the share calling China an “enemy”
actually fell to 33% (down 9 points from a year
earlier) pewresearch.org.
Even so, China
tops the list of countries Americans see as the greatest threat to
the U.S. pewresearch.org.
This threat perception is no accident – it has been cultivated
by U.S. officials and media.
Every Chinese move (a spy balloon, a naval exercise, a tech
investment) is hyped as cause for alarm on cable news. The groundwork
is being laid in the American psyche to accept the idea of an
inevitable showdown with Beijing.
Meanwhile,
Chinese officials have taken notice of Washington’s war footing –
and they are crying foul. After Secretary Hegseth’s hawkish
Shangri-La speech, Beijing’s
foreign ministry blasted the U.S. as the “true destabilizing force”
in Asia aljazeera.com.
China accused Hegseth of “vilifying China with defamatory
allegations” and “touting
a Cold War mentality”,
warning Washington not to “play with fire” over
Taiwan aljazeera.com.
A Chinese statement stressed that Taiwan is a domestic matter and
slammed U.S. military deployments in the region for turning the
Asia-Pacific into a “powder keg” aljazeera.com.
In Beijing’s eyes, all of Washington’s talk of “deterrence”
is a smokescreen for provocation. Notably, China’s Defense Minister
pointedly skipped
the Shangri-La summit (sending
lower-level delegates) in protest aljazeera.com,
a symbolic snub that underscores how dangerously frayed dialogue has
become. The war of words is escalating alongside the war
preparations.
Militarizing
the Indo-Pacific: Carriers, Bombers and Missile Batteries
On
the operational front, the U.S. has undertaken a major
military buildup in the Indo-Pacific theater in 2025.
American forces are being surged into position around China’s
perimeter, often in unprecedented ways. Key developments include:
Navy
Carrier Groups in the South China Sea: This
summer the U.S. Navy’s 7th
Fleet has
maintained an almost continuous carrier presence in the South China
Sea – a hotspot that China claims as its turf. In June, the
USS Nimitz carrier
strike group conducted “routine” flight operations deep in these
contested waters navy.mil.
And while one Pacific-based carrier was temporarily redeployed to
the Middle East in late June (to respond to an unrelated crisis),
another flattop soon took its place. These carrier patrols,
ostensibly freedom-of-navigation exercises, are a clear show of
force on China’s doorstep. Each carrier brings a wing of 60+
strike fighters within range of Chinese territory, a fact not lost
on Beijing. Chinese forces shadow these patrols and frequently
condemn them as “military
provocation.” The
risk of close encounters – like the near-collision between a
Chinese destroyer and a U.S. cruiser earlier this year – continues
to mount with each voyage.
Strategic
Bombers Forward-Deployed: The
U.S. Air Force has ramped up its Bomber Task Force rotations in the
Western Pacific to a tempo not seen since the Cold War. In July
2025, multiple B-52H
Stratofortress heavy
bombers from North Dakota arrived at Andersen Air Force Base in
Guam afgsc.af.mil.
Pacific Air Forces said this deployment would support training with
allies and “reinforce
the rules-based international order in the
Indo-Pacific” afgsc.af.mil.
The truth is these nuclear-capable bombers serve as a blunt reminder
of American striking power – each B-52 can carry long-range cruise
missiles or even nuclear gravity bombs. Earlier in the year, a
rotation of B-1B
Lancer bombers
drilled over the South China Sea, and in June the Air Force even
dispatched stealth B-2
Spirit bombers
to Guam reuters.com.
Two B-2s were spotted at Guam’s Andersen base, amid reports they
might proceed onward to Diego
Garcia,
the U.S. base in the Indian Ocean, putting them in ideal range of
the Persian Gulf (or China’s western flank) reuters.com.
Pentagon officials officially declined to say if the B-2 deployment
was aimed at China or the Middle East, but the signal was sent: the
U.S. can quickly mass strategic bombers in the Pacific for either
contingency. In Hegseth’s words, the U.S. is “improving
forward force posture” and
stands ready to “fight and win” if called upon defense.gov.
Missile
Batteries and ‘First Island Chain’ Bases: Perhaps
the most provocative changes are with U.S. missile forces. In a
little-noticed but hugely significant move, the U.S. Army
quietly installed
a brand-new mid-range missile system in the northern Philippines in
2024 geopoliticaleconomy.com.
By 2025, this Typhon
missile system –
capable of firing precision missiles up to 1,500–2,000 km – is
reportedly operational and aimed at high-value targets on China’s
mainland geopoliticaleconomy.com.
According to the Wall
Street Journal,
this is “the
first time since the Cold War that the U.S. has deployed a
land-based launch system with such long range outside its
borders” geopoliticaleconomy.com.
In effect, the U.S. now has land-based missiles in the Philippines
that put Beijing,
Shanghai and other major Chinese cities within striking
distance geopoliticaleconomy.com.
It is hard to overstate how escalatory this is – analogous to the
Cuban Missile Crisis, but with roles reversed and happening
gradually rather than in one fell swoop. Beijing was predictably
livid, calling the deployment a “significant escalation” and
vowing countermeasures geopoliticaleconomy.com.
The U.S. has also secured access to nine
military bases in the Philippines under
an Expanded Defense Cooperation Agreement geopoliticaleconomy.com.
American forces are rotating through at least four new sites
including naval and air bases facing the South China Sea and Taiwan.
Construction crews (funded by U.S. defense budget dollars) are
lengthening runways, building ammunition depots, and positioning
Patriot air defense units on Philippine soil. This effort revives a
U.S. foothold in the archipelago decades after bases like Subic Bay
closed – a clear sign the Pentagon is preparing for a Pacific
conflict.
Japan
as a Military Hub: Under
Trump’s prodding, U.S. allies like Japan are accelerating their
own rearmament. Hegseth bluntly stated the U.S. is turning “Japan
into a war-fighting headquarters”
for the region geopoliticaleconomy.com.
Indeed, the U.S. Marines’ new Okinawa-based Marine
Littoral Regiment became
fully operational in 2025, armed with anti-ship missiles intended to
bottle up the Chinese navy in the event of war. Japan’s
government, has agreed to an unprecedented military expansion –
doubling defense spending to 2% of GDP and deploying its own
long-range missiles on the Ryukyu Islands near Taiwan. However,
tensions have arisen: when the Trump administration
recently demanded
Tokyo boost defense spending even further than
planned, Japan bristled. In fact, Japan canceled a
high-level bilateral meeting in July after an overzealous U.S.
official (Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge
Colby)
pressed for more Japanese funding reuters.com.
Such incidents reveal a contradiction: Washington wants allies
heavily armed, but also under
its thumb.
Despite the frictions, Japan is on board with the overall strategy –
buying Tomahawk cruise missiles from the U.S., fortifying its
southwestern islands, and integrating
its command-and-control with U.S. forces to
an unprecedented degree. For Washington’s war planners, a
militarized Japan is a linchpin of any fight with China.
Australia,
Guam, and Beyond: In
the wider Pacific, the U.S. is shoring up every foothold. Guam,
a U.S. territory long dubbed America’s “tip of the spear” in
the Pacific, is getting dramatic upgrades to withstand Chinese
missile barrages. The Army is rushing to deploy an Aegis
Ashore missile
defense system there by 2026, and INDOPACOM has requested $430
million to
accelerate a new integrated air-defense system for Guam against
“ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missile
threats” defensenews.com.
New hardened aircraft shelters and fuel depots are under
construction on Guam to support expanded Air Force operations
(including accommodating all those visiting bombers).
Simultaneously, the Pentagon is investing
in smaller Pacific islands:
the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, the Federated States of
Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. In 2025 the U.S. renewed its
strategic agreements with Palau, Micronesia and RMI, paying for
access to these countries in exchange for rights to build
facilities defensenews.com.
INDOPACOM’s wish list even earmarked $40 million for Navy
activities in Micronesia –
to negotiate land use and start developing infrastructure for U.S.
forces defensenews.com.
This hints at future bases or ports in those sparsely defended
nations. And in Australia,
U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers are set to rotationally deploy to Tindal
airbase (a deal struck in late 2022) – a plan which Trump’s
administration has kept on track. The U.S. and Australia also
conducted a major naval “Joint
Sail” exercise through the South China Sea in April
2025 cpf.navy.mil,
pointedly sailing together near disputed reefs to signal unity
against China’s claims. Taken together, these moves extend a
U.S.-led arc
of military power around
China from the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia) through Southeast Asia
(Philippines, Singapore access), Oceania (Pacific Islands), to
Northeast Asia (Japan, Korea).
Every
step of this buildup has been justified in Washington
as “deterrence” –
the idea being that a stronger forward posture will dissuade Beijing
from aggression. But Chinese officials see something more sinister:
encirclement. One Chinese state media editorial warned that the U.S.
is “building
Asia’s NATO” and
wants to station missiles in “any country that lets them in.”
Indeed, Beijing points to the multilateral
alliances the
U.S. is weaving as evidence of hostile intent. Trump’s team has
leaned heavily into forums like the Quad
(U.S., Japan, Australia, India) and AUKUS to
tighten the noose:
In
early 2025, Secretary
of State Marco Rubio (yes,
Senator Rubio got the job) hosted the Quad foreign ministers in
Washington, D.C., making it his first diplomatic
act the day after Trump’s inauguration reuters.com.
The message was unmistakable: countering Beijing is priority #1. The
four ministers announced plans for a full leaders’ summit later in
the year and pledged regular consultations to ensure a “free, open
and secure Indo-Pacific”reuters.com.
Analysts noted this early Quad meeting was meant to signal
that Trump’s
“America First” isolationism won’t apply to Asia –
he intends to rally allies against China. However, by mid-2025 the
bloom was off the rose. Trump’s abrasive style and scattershot
trade wars strained those same alliances. Rubio’s June Quad
meeting came as Trump was distracted by a new war in the Middle East
and doubling down on tariffs that even hit U.S. allies reuters.com.
Notably, the prime ministers of Japan and Australia skipped a NATO
summit in Europe around the same time – perhaps reluctant to be
seen in U.S.-led global events while Trump was clobbering their
industries with tariffs reuters.com.
Still, despite the frictions, Quad cooperation on military logistics
and intelligence sharing has deepened this year (albeit quietly).
Joint surveillance of Chinese submarine movements and coordinated
Coast Guard patrols in the Pacific are rumored to be in effect among
the four nations.
The AUKUS
pact (Australia-UK-U.S.),
launched in 2021 to give Australia nuclear submarines, has
encountered turbulence under Trump. In March 2025, barely weeks
after Canberra announced details of a $360 billion sub deal, the
Trump Pentagon launched a “snap
review” of
AUKUS theguardian.com.
Trump’s undersecretary of defense in charge of the review is none
other than Elbridge
Colby,
a known China hawk but also an AUKUS skeptic theguardian.com.
By July, it was clear this review would drag on for months, delaying
Australia’s submarine plans theguardian.com.
Australian and British officials have been left anxiously waiting
while Washington rethinks terms. Insiders say Trump wanted to
squeeze concessions – possibly to make Australia pay more, or to
ensure U.S. shipyards get a bigger slice of the work. The
uncertainty led Australia’s Defense Minister to publicly call for
“better strategic communications” to maintain public support for
AUKUS theguardian.com.
Despite the hiccups, few expect Trump to truly torpedo AUKUS –
it’s too strategically valuable for containing China. In fact,
Australia is charging ahead on other fronts: host-nation support
agreements are being signed to host U.S.
submarine visits and bomber deployments in
the interim. And Canberra just announced it will buy
additional long-range missiles (such
as the U.S. AGM-158 JASSM) and collaborate on hypersonic missile R&D
with the U.S. and UK as part of AUKUS. So while Trump’s team might
renegotiate details, the expansion of
AUKUS-style military integration in Asia continues. The pact is
already broadening beyond submarines to encompass AI, cyber warfare,
and quantum technologies – all explicitly aimed at staying ahead
of China.
In
sum, the U.S. in 2025 has set the Indo-Pacific chessboard for
conflict. American
warships and warplanes are in China’s face daily,
conducting surveillance and “freedom of navigation” maneuvers
within sight of Chinese coasts. Allied
militaries are drilling together in
China’s backyard at an unprecedented scale. (E.g., in May, the
U.S., Japan and the Philippines staged joint naval drills off the
disputed Scarborough Shoal, practicing crisis response in waters
China also claims navytimes.com.
And for the first
time ever,
U.S. Coast Guard vessels participated alongside the Philippine Navy
and Air Force in exercises near Palawan – a symbol of deepening
partnership in pushing back on China’s maritime
claims reuters.com.)
The forward
deployment of U.S. missiles and
advanced radars on Asian soil is steadily advancing. It’s exactly
the scenario Chinese defense planners feared when the “Asia
Pivot”
was first debated a decade ago – except Trump’s version is far
more explicitly militaristic. Beijing has responded with its own
muscle-flexing (dozens of Chinese fighters buzzing Taiwan’s
airspace, a new aircraft carrier prowling near Japan, etc.), creating
a classic security dilemma. Each side justifies its actions as
defensive reactions to the other, ratcheting up the risk of an
incident or miscalculation that could spark actual fighting. The
Indo-Pacific feels like a powder keg with a very short fuse.
The
War Machine in Overdrive: Budgets, Bombs and Profiteering
Militaristic
rhetoric and forward deployments are one side of preparing for war –
the other is arming
oneself to the teeth.
In 2025, the U.S. military and its corporate partners have embarked
on a spending spree to bulk
up for a Pacific conflict.
This is a bonanza for American defense contractors, who are seeing
their order books filled with Indo-Pacific-related weapons contracts.
Consider the following:
Budget
Windfalls for the Pacific: The
Pentagon’s budget for fiscal year 2025 (which began in October
2024) and the proposed FY2026 request both reflect a major shift of
resources toward Asia. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), which
oversees all forces in the region, bluntly told Congress it needs
billions more to counter China. In its official FY25 “unfunded
priorities” list
– basically a command’s wish list beyond the base budget –
INDOPACOM asked for $11
billion extraabove the
White House’s request defensenews.com.
That amount is three
times greater than
what it asked the previous year, a dramatic
increase defensenews.com.
The wish list (obtained by reporters) would fund a laundry list of
war-fighting investments: new military construction for Pacific
basing infrastructure,
accelerated procurement of advanced munitions, space-based
surveillance assets, and robust air and missile defenses for
Guam defensenews.com.
For example, INDOPACOM earmarked $3.3
billion just
for new
construction projects
to expand its “footprint” – essentially building and upgrading
bases across the region defensenews.com.
It also sought over $1
billion to fast-track the
Navy’s Maritime
Strike Tomahawk (a
long-range cruise missile) and hundreds of millions more for
stockpiles of SM-6
air defense missiles, Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles, and
Army Precision
Strike Missiles defensenews.com.
These are exactly the weapons a war with China would burn through
quickly. (Notably, a congressional war game found that a U.S.-China
clash over Taiwan would “rapidly
deplete munitions stockpiles” –
particularly anti-ship missiles defensenews.com.
The generals are determined to avoid a shortage, hence buying more
now.) While not all of INDOPACOM’s wishlist has been funded yet,
Congress appears sympathetic: leaders of the Armed Services
Committees have signaled bipartisan support to pour additional
billions into the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. The bottom line is
that military
spending focused on China has exploded.
The FY2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is approaching
an unprecedented $895 billion defensenews.com,
and a significant chunk of the plus-up is directed toward
Asia-related programs.
Feeding
the Military–Industrial Complex: U.S.
defense contractors are reaping enormous contracts to enable this
Pacific buildup. Giant firms like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing,
and Northrop Grumman dominate the systems being procured – from
fighters and ships down to missiles and sensors. A few examples from
just the first half of 2025 illustrate the surge:
Lockheed
Martin,
the world’s largest arms maker, secured a new $1.0
billion Navy contract in
June to continue developing a cutting-edge hypersonic
missile system dsm.forecastinternational.com.
The program, called Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), aims to
deploy ultra-fast (Mach 5+) missiles on Navy destroyers and
submarines that could strike targets in the western Pacific within
minutes. Despite some testing delays, Congress shoveled another
$904 million into CPS R&D for FY25, and procurement of the
first missiles is set for FY26 dsm.forecastinternational.com.
Lockheed’s contract covers engineering, integration, and long
lead materials to keep the hypersonic effort on
schedule dsm.forecastinternational.com.
Make no mistake – this weapon is being developed with
China in mind,
to hit targets like Chinese airbases or missile launchers before
they can move. Hypersonics are a prime example of the new arms race
underway.
In
the realm of aircraft,
Lockheed’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter – the marquee U.S. stealth
jet – is not yet in the hands of Taiwan or India, but the
administration dangles it as a carrot. When Trump announced
willingness to eventually sell F-35s to India reuters.com,
it signaled potentially enormous future contracts for Lockheed (and
a major shift, since India previously was kept at the F-16 level).
Meanwhile, other allies are buying American combat aircraft in
bulk: Japan and South Korea’s orders for F-35s are ongoing, and
now the
Philippines –
which hasn’t had jet fighters in decades – is being brought
into the fold. In April 2025, the State Department approved a $5.58
billion weapons package for the Philippines that
includes 20
new F-16 fighter jets plus
hundreds of missiles and bombs defensenews.com.
The principal contractor for the deal? Lockheed
Martin defensenews.com.
This sale, coming right after SecDef Hegseth visited Manila, is
explicitly tied to the China threat: Hegseth said the U.S. seeks to
“re-establish deterrence” by strengthening regional
allies defensenews.com.
For the defense industry, it’s a windfall – Manila’s purchase
covers not just the aircraft but also advanced AMRAAM
air-to-air missiles, Sidewinder missiles, JDAM smart bombs, and
more defensenews.com.
Essentially, a whole mini-air force package. U.S. contractors will
profit not only from the initial sale but from decades of
maintenance, training, and spare parts.
Over
on the Army side, missile
and rocket programs are
in high demand thanks to Indo-Pacific needs (and lessons from
Ukraine’s war). In May 2025, the Army awarded Lockheed a $742
million contract to
produce more HIMARS mobile
rocket launchers defense.gov,
a system that proved its worth in Ukraine and is now planned for
deployment in Asia (including being sold to Taiwan). Likewise, the
Army’s new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), with a range reaching
500km, has Lockheed as lead contractor and is earmarked for Pacific
use against ships and bases. The impending multi-billion-dollar
contracts for PrSM mass production will fatten Lockheed’s coffers
further. And as noted earlier, INDOPACOM is asking for extra
Tomahawk cruise missiles – made by Raytheon – and SM-6 missiles
(also Raytheon). These big defense firms are rotating executives
through the Pentagon’s revolving door and lobbying hard on
Capitol Hill to ensure the money spigot stays open.
Silicon
Valley joins the fray: Interestingly,
it’s not just the traditional defense giants. A new crop of
tech-oriented defense startups are soaking up venture capital to
build autonomous drones, AI surveillance, and other high-tech tools
geared for a China conflict. The Pentagon is actively courting
these firms. One high-profile example is Anduril
Industries,
founded by tech billionaire Palmer Luckey. Anduril has landed major
Pentagon contracts for AI-enabled surveillance systems and drone
swarms. Luckey openly boasts that Anduril “keeps its eyes on the
prize, which is great-power
conflict in the Pacific,”
and that many of his teams are developing weapons on a timeline to
be ready by 2027 –
the year China’s Xi Jinping has said the PLA should be prepared
to take Taiwan geopoliticaleconomy.com.
According to the Wall
Street Journal,
Anduril and similar startups are part of one of the “largest
shifts since World War II” in
the defense sector: a wave of private
venture-capital funding pouring
into defense tech companies geopoliticaleconomy.com.
Traditionally, big defense R&D was funded by government, but
now the likes of Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and other tech barons are
funding military projects directly, betting on a coming China
clash. This privatization of the war build-up means even more
vested interests piling up on the side of confrontation –
there’s money
to be made in war, and big tech wants its cut.
The alignment of Silicon Valley with the Pentagon was cemented by
the 2024 WSJ piece titled “Tech
Bros Are Betting They Can Help Win a War With China”,
featuring Luckey and others geopoliticaleconomy.com.
Their message: the U.S. needs cheaper,
smarter, more numerous weapons
(autonomous drones, robot submarines, satellite swarms) to
overwhelm China’s numerical advantage. Not coincidentally, these
are exactly the systems these startups are developing. The
consequence is a deepening synergy between Big Tech and the
military, further entrenching war preparations as a business
strategy.
It
is worth noting the direct beneficiaries of this frenzy. Weapons
manufacturers’ stock prices have
soared on expectations of Asia-driven orders. Lockheed Martin and
Northrop Grumman hit all-time highs in 2025. At Lockheed’s annual
shareholder meeting, executives crowed about “growing opportunities
in the Indo-Pacific” and projected higher revenue thanks to
“increased demand for F-35, missile defense, and naval weapons
systems” in allies like Japan, Taiwan, and Australia.
The military–industrial
complex that
President Eisenhower warned of is in full swing, its influence
pervasive in Washington’s policymaking. Think tanks that take
defense contractor money churn out report after report inflating the
China threat. For example, the hawkish Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) ran
a series of high-profile war games on a China-Taiwan conflict, widely
reported in the press. The war game results – heavy
U.S. losses but a costly victory –
were used to argue for buying even more weapons. CSIS experts noted
the U.S. could lose “almost its entire global fleet of tactical
aircraft” and at least two
aircraft carriers in
a Taiwan war scenario breakingdefense.com.
Such findings conveniently bolster the Navy’s case for more
carriers and the Air Force’s case for more jets. The overlap of
interests is clear: by publicizing how “badly” the U.S. could get
hurt in a war, these think tanks (often funded by the very companies
that build carriers and jets) help scare Congress into allocating
more money for the Pentagon. It’s a feedback loop of threat
inflation and profiteering.
All
the while, Trump and bipartisan hawks in Congress sell these
expenditures as necessary for “peace
through strength.” Yet
the spending itself is further incentivizing
a confrontational stance. Once billions have been sunk into, say,
installing missiles in Asia and surging forces forward, the threshold
to use them may lower in a crisis. Officials might feel they
have “use
it or lose it” options
if conflict seems imminent. The more military assets are packed into
the region, the more any small spark (like a clash over a Taiwan
flyover or a misfire at sea) could ignite a larger conflagration. We
saw a hint of this in late 2024 when a Chinese naval militia boat
collided with a Philippine coast guard vessel – an incident where
U.S. Indo-Pacific Command went on heightened alert and war-gamed
options to intervene if things spiraled. In 2025, there have been
near-misses between U.S. and Chinese jets over the South China Sea;
each incident raises calls in Washington to “show
resolve”,
which typically means sending even more firepower as a “message.”
It’s a dangerous cycle.
In
sum, American
militarism is on overdrive,
fueled by those who profit from it. The military-industrial complex
has found its new raison d’être after the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan: prepare
for war with China.
Think-tank pundits, retired generals on defense company boards, and
legislators flush with industry donations all bang the drum that the
U.S. must arm up now to prevail later. It’s telling that even as
U.S. officials insist they hope to avoid war, they speak as if war is
increasingly likely. As Hegseth put it, “those
who long for peace must prepare for war” defense.gov –
a twist on an old Latin adage. The catch is that preparing so
ostentatiously can make
war more likely, by convincing the other side that conflict is
inevitable. The beneficiaries of this preparation are clear:
contractors and their investors, Pentagon planners with enlarged
fiefdoms, and political hawks with axes to grind. The potential
losers, should war actually break out, would be literally everyone –
from frontline servicemembers to ordinary citizens in the U.S.,
China, and across the world who would suffer the economic and human
fallout of a superpower war.
Shadow
Wars: Covert Ops, Think Tank Crusaders, and Propaganda
While
carrier deployments and contracts make headlines, some of the most
significant war preparations unfold in the shadows or in the battle
for hearts and minds. In 2025, the U.S. has been expanding
covert military activities and intelligence operations focused on
China,
as well as waging an information war to shape narratives. Let’s
pull back the curtain on a few of these under-the-radar aspects:
Boots
on the Ground in Taiwan (Quietly): One
of Washington’s worst-kept secrets is that U.S. military personnel
are present in Taiwan training that island’s forces. For years
this was downplayed as a handful of advisors. But in May 2025, a
former U.S. admiral testifying to Congress let slip a bombshell
figure: about 500 American
military trainers are operating in Taiwan currently stripes.com.
That is more
than ten times the
number previously acknowledged (a 2024 report mentioned only 41
personnel) stripes.comstripes.com.
The retired Adm. Mark Montgomery, speaking to the House Select
Committee on China, even argued that “it
needs to be a thousand” U.S.
trainers to adequately prepare Taiwan’s
defense stripes.comstripes.com.
This revelation underscores how far the U.S. has gone in blurring
the line of the One-China policy.
American troops (or “contractors” or “temporary personnel” –
however they classify them) are on Taiwanese soil, teaching infantry
small unit tactics, assisting with warplane maintenance, drilling
cyber defense, and more. In fact, just weeks earlier, Taiwanese
troops for the first time test-fired U.S.-supplied HIMARS
rockets with
American technicians (from Lockheed Martin) present to
observe stripes.comstripes.com.
All this is meant to sharpen Taiwan into what military planners term
a “porcupine” – bristling with enough defenses to make a
Chinese invasion costly or impossible. Beijing of course is enraged
by these covert military ties. In their eyes, the U.S. is
effectively stationing
forces in what China considers its territory,
a severe violation of past understandings. The risk here is that
such activities, if exposed dramatically (say, if China were to
capture or kill U.S. personnel in a Taiwan contingency), could
trigger direct U.S.-China clashes. The Trump administration has been
deliberately opaque about this, officially sticking to the line that
there’s no “permanent” U.S. troop presence in Taiwan. But the
number 500 speaks for itself. It shows a creeping
escalation on the ground short
of war – preparing Taiwan for war, and by extension drawing the
U.S. closer to the fire.
Operations
in the Philippines and Japan’s Periphery: In
the Philippines,
the U.S. is not just building facilities; it’s likely
running joint
surveillance and special ops.
There are unconfirmed reports that U.S. Special Forces have been
rotating through Philippine bases in western Luzon, near the
Scarborough Shoal, helping the Philippines monitor Chinese naval
movements. After all, those new EDCA bases give American forces
strategic vantage points – for instance, a base in northern Luzon
is just 200 miles from Taiwan, perfect for hosting U.S. drones or
P-8A spy planes that can surveil the Taiwan Strait. (Indeed, a U.S.
Navy P-8A
Poseidon patrol
aircraft took part in the May joint exercise off
Palawan reuters.com,
underscoring the integration of U.S.-Philippine maritime domain
awareness.) It wouldn’t be surprising if CIA
and NSA personnel are
also quietly increasing their activities in these locations, setting
up signals intelligence posts targeting Chinese communications in
the South China Sea. As for Japan,
beyond Okinawa, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces – prodded by U.S.
advice – have begun stationing anti-ship missile batteries on some
of the southwest islands such as Amami and Miyako. The U.S. likely
has liaisons assisting. There are rumors (unconfirmed) that U.S.
Marines have even rehearsed dispersing to remote Japanese islands
with armed drones as part of a fast-response strategy. These kinds
of forward operations are kept low-profile to avoid alarming local
populations or sparking diplomatic blowback, but they are happening.
A notable point: when Japan in July balked at Trump’s heavy
pressure for more defense spending, it canceled a top-level meeting
as noted reuters.com.
Trump’s team has managed to ruffle allies even as it courts them –
a pattern also seen with South Korea, where Trump’s demands for
more host-nation financial support earlier in the year caused some
strain (even though Seoul too is expanding its military focus on
China’s threat). Despite diplomatic spats,
the military-to-military
ties with
these allies are strong and tightening. The absence of high-profile
summits hasn’t stopped working-level cooperation aimed at China:
joint intelligence centers, combined contingency planning for a
Taiwan scenario, and inter-operability exercises all continue apace
behind the scenes.
Think
Tanks and Hawkish Ideologues: There
is a cohort of influential
Washington think-tank figures and former officials who
have been beating the war drums on China and now find themselves in
positions of power or influence in Trump’s 2.0 administration.
We’ve mentioned Elbridge Colby, a former Trump Pentagon official
and think-tanker who wrote the 2018 National Defense Strategy
focusing on great power competition – he’s now effectively
steering AUKUS adjustments and pushing allies hard. Another example
is the Heritage
Foundation,
a conservative think tank that has reportedly had direct channels to
Trump’s NSC advising an even tougher line on China. Heritage
analysts in 2025 have advocated for blockading
Chinese ports if
Beijing makes any move on Taiwan – an escalatory idea that
nonetheless shows up in talking points of some congressmen.
The Center
for Security Policy and
other far-right policy shops have painted U.S.-China relations in
almost apocalyptic civilizational clash terms, framing any
compromise as appeasement. This intellectual environment in D.C. is
a far cry from a few years ago when debate existed on engaging
China. Now it’s a competition of who can sound tougher. Even
moderate voices (think the Brookings Institution or the Quincy
Institute) who urge caution are drowned out by a consensus
that “China
must be confronted.” The
result is an echo chamber where proposals like decoupling
the U.S. and Chinese economies,
sanctioning Chinese officials, or giving explicit security
guarantees to Taiwan gain traction. Notably, a bill is moving
through Congress (with Trump’s quiet approval) to authorize the
Pentagon to “lend”
or pre-position significant weapons stockpiles in Taiwan for
its defense – akin to the lend-lease for Ukraine. Crafted with
input from think-tank hawks, this measure would essentially turn
Taiwan into a porcupine armed in advance with U.S. munitions, ready
to use if war breaks out. Beijing has warned this would cross red
lines, but that only seems to encourage the hawks further, as they
see value in demonstrating “resolve.” It’s a dangerous
feedback loop where provocative proposals become policy, raising the
risk of miscalculation. These policy entrepreneurs – be they at
CSIS, AEI, Heritage, or newer China-skeptic outfits – function as
an intellectual
vanguard for escalation,
often funded by defense industry or ultranationalist political
donors. They produce the white papers that become legislation or
executive action.
Economic
Warfare and Tech Blockades: Preparing
for war isn’t just about guns and ships – it’s also
about strangling
your opponent’s capacities.
In 2025 the U.S. has continued and intensified the economic
war on China,
which began under Trump’s first term (tariffs) and got a
tech-centric boost under Biden. Now Trump is supercharging it. The
trade war that started with tariffs on steel and solar panels has
morphed into a tech
blockade aimed at
hobbling China’s high-tech industries. In May 2025, the U.S.
Department of Commerce quietly ordered
American companies to cease exporting critical chip design software
and semiconductor materials to China china-briefing.com.
This move – targeting companies like Cadence and Synopsys that
provide essential Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools – is
a huge
blow to China’s chip development china-briefing.com.
Licenses that were previously granted to sell certain tools to
Chinese fabs have been revoked china-briefing.com.
Additionally, specialty chemicals (butane, ethane, etc.) and even
machine tools needed for chip production were swept into this
ban china-briefing.com.
Essentially, Washington is trying to choke
off China’s ability to make advanced semiconductors,
the brains in everything from smartphones to missiles. A Chinese
Foreign Ministry spokesperson angrily condemned these steps as
“unreasonable economic coercion” and noted how the U.S. keeps
“turning the tables” after demanding
deals china-briefing.comchina-briefing.com.
But the U.S. is unrelenting – seeing this as a long-term play to
slow China’s technological rise, especially in AI and military
tech. Alongside tech bans, the tariff
regime that
started in the 2018 trade war remains largely in place and has even
escalated in bizarre ways. Trump slapped new “reciprocal”
tariffs on basically all Chinese goods in early 2025, raising total
duties to 145%
on average china-briefing.com.
(Yes, you read that right – when you stack Trump’s new 125%
tariff on top of the existing 20% from before, plus Biden-era
tariffs, the effective rate is 145% china-briefing.com.
It’s practically a prohibitive tax.) He’s called this his
“nuclear
tariff,”
meant to force China into economic concessions, but it functions as
economic warfare. China retaliated by raising its own tariffs on
U.S. goods to 125% and then said it would stop responding
tit-for-tat because at that level, trade is
non-viable china-briefing.com.
Indeed, trade volumes are plummeting. Trump’s advisers have openly
discussed “decoupling” the
two economies to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese supply chains
before any conflict. They frame it as reducing vulnerability, but it
also serves to weaken China’s economy over time. The collateral
damage includes U.S. businesses and consumers facing higher costs,
but Trump seems willing to bear that domestically in order to
inflict pain on Beijing. (At campaign rallies, Trump sells it
as “finally
making China pay”and
bringing manufacturing back to the USA – a claim not borne out by
facts, but politically resonant.)
We
should also note targeted
financial warfare:
there have been discussions in the administration about sanctioning
major Chinese banks or even trying to cut China off from the SWIFT
international payment system should a Taiwan crisis occur. That
hasn’t happened yet, but some preparatory groundwork is visible –
e.g., Treasury quietly pressuring allies in Europe and Asia to have
contingency plans if Chinese banks are sanctioned. All this economic
strife is part of the broader war footing. It’s economic
“softening up” of
the adversary, much like how the U.S. sanctioned Iraq in the 1990s
before the 2003 invasion. The risk, of course, is that China views
these actions as acts of aggression to which it must respond
assertively, potentially in the very arenas (like the South China
Sea or cyber domain) that could trigger a shooting war.
Cyber
and Space Frontiers: Though
less visible, the U.S. is heavily investing in capabilities to blind
and cripple China in cyberspace and outer space early
in a conflict. U.S. Cyber Command has grown rapidly with a specific
eye on China’s networks. DefenseScoop reported the command
requested significantly more
funding for cyber operations in the Pacific as
part of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative defensescoop.com.
This includes developing offensive
cyber tools to
target Chinese command-and-control, power grids, and even critical
infrastructure like port systems in the event of war. On the space
front, the U.S. Space Force and intelligence community have launched
new surveillance satellites over the Indo-Pacific and experimented
with rapid-launch mini satellites to ensure resilience if China
tries to shoot down U.S. satellites. Conversely, the Pentagon is
exploring ways to threaten China’s satellites (some suggest using
cyber means to avoid space debris). The fact that INDOPACOM’s
wishlist included $1.4
billion for classified space programs –
half of it to accelerate space-based missile sensor development,
half for “space control” (a euphemism likely for offensive
counter-space systems) defensenews.com –
shows how vital the high ground of space is
considered defensenews.com.
If conflict comes, expect the first blows to possibly be silent ones
in the ether and the void: malware frying command circuits,
satellites suddenly going dark. Those preparations are being made
now, entirely out of public view.
Propaganda
and Public Perception Management: Lastly,
the domestic front. To sustain a campaign toward possible
war, public
opinion must be managed.
2025 has seen a noticeable uptick in U.S. media coverage portraying
China as an aggressive, lawless threat – essentially preparing the
American public psychologically for a potential confrontation. News
networks bombard viewers with segments on Chinese spy balloons (an
incident from early 2023 got turned into months of “balloon
threat” talk), on China’s human rights abuses, on Chinese
“influence operations” in the U.S., and of course on Taiwan as a
democracy under threat. The framing is consistently Good
vs. Evil,
with the U.S. and its allies as the righteous side resisting Chinese
authoritarian expansion. There is very little nuance or airing of
Chinese perspectives in mainstream media. This one-sided narrative
serves to condition
Americans to accept the costs of a hardline policy,
including military expenditures and possibly casualties. A striking
example: when a Chinese naval fighter had a near miss with a U.S.
surveillance plane in January, U.S. media uniformly blamed Chinese
recklessness. Few mentioned that the U.S. plane was flying off
China’s coast in the first place. By leaving out context, the
media creates an impression that China is acting out of pure
aggression when often it’s responding to U.S. activities. This
drumbeat has had an effect: despite slightly softening views of
China noted earlier, still 43%
of Americans now name China as the greatest enemy or
threat, higher than any other country reddit.comnewsweek.com.
That perception provides political cover for hawks. The U.S.
government also engages in propaganda abroad. Radio Free Asia and
Voice of America broadcasts in Mandarin have ramped up messaging to
undermine the Chinese Communist Party’s image domestically,
highlighting economic troubles or scandals. And via social media,
the State Department subtly pushes content (through influencers or
proxies) that bolsters pro-U.S. sentiment in Asian countries, aiming
to counter Chinese narratives. Beijing, for its part, accuses the
U.S. of hypocrisy
and fear-mongering,
saying Washington talks about a “rules-based order”
while itself violating
rules (pointing to things like unilateral sanctions and military
meddling). Chinese officials also frequently note that the
U.S. profits from war,
citing how American arms companies benefit from tensions – a
talking point not entirely without merit.
Ultimately,
the information
war is
about legitimacy. Washington wants the world (and its own citizens)
to view a potential U.S. military response to Chinese actions –
say, an intervention if China moves on Taiwan – as justified and
necessary. To that end, painting China as a dangerous aggressor
serves to pre-empt any dissent about U.S. involvement. If or when
conflict breaks out, Americans might recall years of hearing how
monstrous the CCP is and thus readily support war, much as decades of
anti-Soviet propaganda prepared the public for the Cold War
confrontations. It is sobering that we are even contemplating such
a scenario, but the groundwork is undeniably being laid.
Conclusion:
Profiting from Peril – Who Benefits and Who Bears the Risks?
What
we are witnessing in 2025 is the culmination of a trend years in the
making: the United States transitioning from the post-9/11 “war on
terror” era to a renewed
era of great-power military confrontation.
The Indo-Pacific, with China as the designated adversary, is now the
central theater of U.S. militarism. The Trump administration’s
second term has peeled away any remaining ambiguity – through its
actions and policies, it is effectively planning
for war with China,
even as it insists that war is not desired. This duality (claiming to
seek peace while aggressively preparing for war) is not new in
history, but it is extremely perilous given the stakes of a
U.S.–China conflict, which could go nuclear or devastate the global
economy.
We
must ask: Who
actually benefits from this march toward the brink? The
answers are instructive:
The
Military-Industrial Complex: Defense
contractors, arms dealers, and now tech tycoons investing in defense
startups are the most immediate beneficiaries. They are raking in
profits from weapons sales, new contracts, and increased defense
budgets. Every missile battery placed in Asia, every fighter jet
sold to an ally, every software contract to “harden networks”
against China translates to revenue for these firms. CEOs of major
defense companies have explicitly told shareholders that great-power
competition (read: China threat) is good
for business.
Their lobbyists in D.C. work hand in glove with hawkish think tanks
to ensure the money keeps flowing. It is no coincidence
that Lockheed
Martin’s stock and dividends are soaring –
war preparations are lucrative.
Hawkish
Politicians and Think-Tank Ideologues: For
political figures – Republican or Democrat – who posture as
“tough on China,” the current climate is advantageous. They gain
media visibility, fundraising support, and career advancement by
aligning with the hard line. No candidate wants to be seen as “soft”
on China these days, which means the hawks largely set the agenda.
Former officials who advocated confrontation (some of whom might
have been sidelined in more diplomatic administrations) now find
their views vindicated and their influence amplified. Careers are
being built atop the “China threat” – from aspiring
politicians to analysts churning out books with titles like “The
Coming War with China: And How to Win It.” It’s
a disturbing jingoistic revival, but it rewards those who partake.
Autocrats
and Nationalists in Beijing: It
may seem counter-intuitive, but the escalation also benefits
hardliners in China.
Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party’s nationalist wing
point to U.S. encirclement and hostility as justification for their
own domestic repression and military expansion. They can say to the
Chinese people: “See,
the Americans want to keep China down, they are preparing to attack
us or keep us subservient. We must rally ‘round the flag, double
down on military investments, and tolerate sacrifices to ensure our
security.” Thus,
the hawks on both sides feed off each other. Moderates or advocates
of U.S.-China cooperation in Beijing have been sidelined just as
surely as doves in Washington. In that sense, the drive to war
strengthens authoritarians and weakens voices of compromise across
the board.
Who
bears the risks? Everyone
else. The
ordinary citizens of the U.S. and China (and likely many other
nations) are the ones who would pay the price of a war. Already,
American consumers pay higher prices due to tariffs, U.S. farmers
lost a lucrative market, Chinese workers lost jobs as exports fell –
all in the name of economic war. If a shooting war erupts, the human
cost could be catastrophic: tens of thousands (if not more) could
perish in the first days, as war games predict breakingdefense.com.
A conflict over Taiwan could draw in Japan, Australia, and others,
potentially spiraling into a regional or even global war. Nuclear
escalation, while hopefully deterred, cannot be ruled out when two
nuclear superpowers directly clash – as RAND war simulations grimly
acknowledged. Even absent nuclear use, the global economy would
likely crash; supply chains would disintegrate, plunging the world
into depression. In other words, the
public at large has everything to lose and very little to gain from
a U.S.-China war. There is no clear “win” scenario – even if
the U.S. military “prevails” in a war over Taiwan per some
models, it comes at staggering costs and leaves the world
destabilized.
Yet,
those considerations do not seem to be pumping the brakes in
Washington. The momentum of militarization has a logic of its own. As
Eisenhower warned, the military-industrial complex, once formed,
pushes for its own continuation and growth geopoliticaleconomy.com.
Add to that a polarized U.S. political environment where being
anti-China is one of the few bipartisan agreements, and you have a
recipe for continuing
escalation.
The Trump administration may be especially bellicose, but it’s
building on frameworks laid by the previous administration and
largely supported by Democrats in Congress as well. The Biden-era
concept of a “free
and open Indo-Pacific”
aimed at countering China has simply been given more muscle by Trump.
There is almost a consensus
in Washington for confrontation,
differing only in degree and style.
This
critical exposé has sought to illuminate the scope and scale of U.S.
preparations for war with China as of 2025. The facts are documented:
U.S. officials openly talk of imminent threats and war plans; troops
and missiles are moving into Asia-Pacific positions; budgets and arms
production are surging; think tanks and media churn out war
messaging; covert operations push ever closer to China’s red lines.
It is a dramatic
militarization that
too few members of the public fully realize, overshadowed perhaps by
other news. One hopes that awareness can spur course corrections –
that cooler heads could still prevail to dial down this march to war.
Diplomacy, confidence-building measures, and arms control (like
resurrecting some form of the INF treaty in Asia, or agreements on
cyber and space conduct) are possible off-ramps if there is political
will.
However,
at this moment, the trajectory is worrying. As one regional observer
quipped, “Cold
War 2.0 is on autopilot to become a hot war.” The
United States under Trump is reloading for a confrontation many
generals have convinced themselves is inevitable. It’s as if
lessons from past fiascos (Vietnam, Iraq) have been forgotten in
record time, and the hubris of American militarism is gearing up for
another go – this time against a far more powerful foe. The
Indo-Pacific powder keg keeps being filled: one more bomber here, one
more alliance there, one more sanction, one more nationalist speech.
Eventually, it may only take a spark.
The
world can only hope that sanity prevails before that spark is struck.
Until then, we must critically examine and question this escalation.
Who truly benefits? Are we being led into a catastrophic war by those
who will never themselves pay the price? These questions demand
answers and accountability. As citizens and as a global community, we
should demand that diplomacy,
restraint, and mutual security replace
the current fever for militarized “deterrence” which looks ever
more like a self-fulfilling prophecy of war.
In
the words of an old anti-war maxim: “Who
profits?” Follow
the money and the ideology – and we see it is the war machine.
Stopping it will require an informed public and leaders with the
courage to break from the jingoistic script. The stakes – world
peace or world war – could not be higher.
Too
honest for main stream media. Too dangerous to ignore. So share it.
The
Guardian – Trump news at a glance: Hegseth warns of ‘imminent’
China threat (June
1, 2025). Guardian
staff report on Defense Sec. Pete Hegseth’s Shangri-La Dialogue
speech calling China a real and imminent threat, urging Asian allies
to boost militaries. URL: theguardian.com
U.S.
Department of Defense – Remarks by Secretary Hegseth at Shangri-La
Dialogue (May
30, 2025). Official
transcript/highlights of Hegseth’s speech emphasizing Indo-Pacific
as priority, allies sharing burden, U.S. prepared to fight if
needed. URL: defense.govdefense.gov
Reuters
– US Secretary of State Rubio to host Quad foreign ministers (June
26, 2025). News
report on Marco Rubio convening Quad meeting, signaling
counter-China focus from day 1 of Trump term; notes Japan/Australia
concerns after US pressure for more defense
spending. URL: reuters.com
The
Guardian – Fate of AUKUS deal may be delayed as UK/Australia await
Trump review (July
10, 2025). Report
on Trump admin’s snap review of AUKUS submarine pact led by
skeptic Elbridge Colby, causing uncertainty and likely extension
beyond 30 days. URL: theguardian.com
Reuters
– B-2 bombers moving to Guam amid Middle East tensions (June
21, 2025). Report
that U.S. is deploying B-2 stealth bombers to Guam, possibly to
position for Iran strikes, noting an Indo-Pacific carrier was
heading to Middle East; highlights flexibility of bomber
force. URL: reuters.com
Air
Force Global Strike Command – US Airmen deploy for Indo-Pacific
Bomber Task Force (July
9, 2025). Official
release detailing multiple B-52 bombers and personnel from Minot AFB
arriving in Guam for bomber task force, to train with allies and
perform deterrence missions in Indo-Pacific. URL: afgsc.af.mil
Reuters
– Philippines, U.S. hold joint maritime drills in South China
Sea (May
21, 2025). News
report on first-ever U.S.-Philippines Coast Guard joint drills off
Palawan, involving navy, air force and a U.S. P-8A aircraft, aimed
at improving maritime partnership amid China
tensions. URL: reuters.com
Defense
News – US approves sale of F-16s to the Philippines in $5.5bn
package (Apr
2, 2025). Article
on State Dept approving 20 F-16s plus missiles and bombs to
Philippines; follows Hegseth visit and precedes Balikatan exercise;
Lockheed is main contractor. URL: defensenews.com
Reuters
– Trump says US to increase military sales to India, eventually
F-35s (Feb
14, 2025). News
on Trump’s statement at White House with PM Modi promising “many
billions” in arms sales to India and paving way for future F-35
offer, as part of deepening defense ties against
China. URL: reuters.com
Forecast
Int’l Defense – Lockheed awarded $1B Navy contract for
hypersonic missile (June
3, 2025). Report
on $1 billion contract for Lockheed to continue Conventional Prompt
Strike hypersonic program, detailing tasks and funding from
FY24–FY25, and noting Navy’s plans and delays in fielding
CPS. URL: dsm.forecastinternational.com
Breaking
Defense – ‘A bloody mess’: How a China-US conflict over Taiwan
could play out (Aug
11, 2022). Analysis
of CSIS war game showing U.S. and allies could repel a Chinese
invasion of Taiwan but at huge cost: ~500 US aircraft, 20 ships, 2
carriers lost in weeks, leaving U.S. weakened; used to argue for
more spending. URL: breakingdefense.com
Geopolitical
Economy (Ben Norton) – US military prepares for war on China,
Silicon Valley profits (Apr
28, 2025). Investigative
piece describing leaked Pentagon memo prioritizing war prep,
Hegseth’s March threats, US deploying Typhon missiles in
Philippines (2000 km range), and Silicon Valley venture capital
(e.g. Anduril) focusing on China war tech with quotes from Palmer
Luckey. URL: geopoliticaleconomy.com
China
Briefing – US-China Relations in Trump 2.0: Timeline (running
timeline, 2025). Chronology
of Trump admin actions on China; includes April 9, 2025 executive
order on shipbuilding (“revitalize domestic maritime industry”
due to PRC building half the ships); May 29, 2025 Commerce Dept
ordering stop to exports of chip design tools and materials to
China; and visa revocations for Chinese
students. URL: china-briefing.com
Al
Jazeera – China warns US not to ‘play with fire’ over
Taiwan (June
1, 2025). Report
on China’s response to Hegseth’s “China threat” speech:
Beijing calls US a destabilizing force, accuses Hegseth of Cold War
mentality, warns US against using Taiwan as chip or deploying
offensive arms in region, saying US is biggest factor undermining
SCS peace. URL: aljazeera.com
Reuters
– US & Philippine coast guards hold first joint drills in
disputed sea (May
21, 2025). Coverage
of maritime exercise off Philippines involving US Coast Guard Cutter
and Philippine vessels/aircraft, meant to improve inter-operability
amid China maritime disputes. (Same
event as source 7, reinforcing significance.) URL: reuters.com
Stars
and Stripes – US has 500 military trainers in Taiwan, retired
admiral says (May
27, 2025). Report
revealing congressional testimony that ~500 US defense personnel are
in Taiwan (vs 39 disclosed in 2023); the admiral urges doubling to
1000; includes detail of HIMARS drill with Lockheed tech support in
Taiwan. URL: stripes.com
Reuters
– US, Japan, Philippines stage naval drills in South China
Sea (June
2025). Short
piece on a tri-nation naval exercise near Scarborough Shoal to boost
crisis readiness, signaling unity against Chinese
claims. (Illustrates
increasing multilateral military coordination.) URL: navytimes.com
Defense
News – INDOPACOM’s $11 billion wish list for FY25 (Mar
19, 2024). Article
detailing Indo-Pacific Command’s unfunded priorities list asking
$11B over budget: $3.3B for new construction (bases), funds for Guam
defense, classified space, +$1B for missiles like Maritime Strike
Tomahawk, SM-6, etc; notes this is 3x last year’s request and
aimed at bolstering posture to deter China. URL: defensenews.com
Pew
Research – Views of China as a competitor and threat (US Public
Opinion) (Apr
17, 2025). Survey
results: 56% of Americans see China as a competitor, 33% enemy (down
from 42% last year); China is named by plurality as top threat to
US; partisan differences noted but overall threat perception remains
high. URL: pewresearch.org
Reuters
– China’s navy holds patrols near disputed shoal after US-Phil
drills (June
2025). Describes
Chinese response of launching military patrols around Scarborough
Shoal following US-Philippines joint drills, illustrating
action-reaction cycle. URL: armyrecognition.comaljazeera.com (via
related sources)
The
Guardian – China remains top military and cyber threat to US,
intel report (March
2025). Notes
the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment
emphasizes China as the foremost threat (military, cyber espionage),
reinforcing official narrative. URL: theguardian.com
Al
Jazeera – From students to tech: How US-China ties are
sliding (Explainer,
June 2025). Outlines
how despite a tariff truce, relations worsen via visa cancellations
for students, tech export bans, etc., providing context to the tech
war and cultural decoupling (Chinese student visas “aggressively”
revoked as per Rubio’s order). URL: china-briefing.com
Defense.gov
– DOD Releases FY2025 Budget Highlights (March
2024). States
the budget’s focus on Indo-Pacific deterrence with investments in
missile defense, long-range fires, etc., aligning resources to China
challenge. URL: defense.gov (derived
from summary)
The
Economist – China hawks losing influence in Trumpworld? (Analysis,
2025). Argues
that some conventional China hawks face competition from Trump’s
transactional approach, but ultimately Trump 2.0 has adopted many
hawkish policies regardless. Provides nuance on internal
debates. URL:
(analysis perspective)
Ben
Norton via Washington Post leak – Pentagon making China war prep
top priority (referenced
in Source 12). WaPo
leak (Jan 2025) indicating internal directive to prioritize
Indo-Pacific war prep above other missions, validating the
militarized shift. URL: geopoliticaleconomy.com
=======================================
Voor de bezoekers die Engels niet kunnen lezen: voor de niet op dit blog gepubliceerde artikelen in hetEngels onder de links, moet je zelf even een vertaalapp zoeken op het web. Er zijn gratis apps van redelijke kwaliteit die dit kunnen (soms in 2 of of meer delen >> bij lange artikelen). Af en toekrijg je bij het openen van een nieuwe pagina een pop-up die vraagt of je een vertaling wilt hebben als de bewuste pagina in een andere taal is gesteld.
Visitors who can't read Dutch for the articles other than from this blog: on the web you can find free translation apps with reasonable quality, which can do the job (it's possible you have to do it 2 or more times >> with lengthy articles)Sometimes when you open a new page in an other language, you get a pop-up with the question if you need a translation.
'NAVO uitbreiding over de wereld zal uiterst destabiliserend werken en is levensgevaarlijk'(zie de links in dat bericht!!) De illegale NAVO uitbreiding richting Moskou was één van de belangrijkste redenen voor Rusland om in te grijpen in Oekraïne en de NAVO heeft daarmee de wereldstabiliteit al jaren geleden ondergraven...... De Britse minister van buitenlandse zaken heeft een pleidooi gehouden om terreurorganisatie NAVO uit te breiden tot over de hele wereld..... Zo kan het westen nog makkelijker de grondstoffen elders onder controle krijgen en houden, de handelsroutes beheersen, bovendien kan het westen daarmee landen met geweld tot de orde roepen als die niet wensen te leven onder de inhumane neoliberale westerse breidel van het VS imperium (het Vierde Rijk)...... Daarbij heeft GB 145 militaire bases over de wereld (zie: 'Groot-Brittannië heeft 145 militaire bases in 42 landen')terwijl de VS er meer dan 800 heeft, waarvan er meer dan 400 om een groot deel van China liggen, vanwaar China kan worden bestookt met (kern-) raketten, straaljagers en bommenwerpers..... Om nog maar te zwijgen over de met kernwapens bewapende atoomonderzeeërs van deze 2 landen en hun vliegdekschepen..... Het uiteindelijke doel van de VS is niet Rusland maar China dat een bedreiging vormt voor de smerige VS hegemonie over de wereld..... Zie:'VS: het uiteindelijke doel is niet Rusland maar China' (!!!!)
'Media en denktanks in de VS bereiden het volk voor op oorlog met China' (17mei 2022) Dat geldt overigens ook voor de andere reguliere westerse media, denktanks en veel westerse politici, die zo veel en zo vaak mogelijk China demoniseren als een gevaar voor de wereldvrede, terwijl China al vele decennialang geen oorlogen is gestart, dan wel militair illegale oorlogen steunt zoals de VS met hulp van haar NAVO-partners wel heeft gedaan en nog steeds doet, neem alleen al de genocide die de Saoedische terreurcoalitie uitvoert op de sjiitische bevolking van Jemen, waar begin 2021 al meer dan 500.000 doden waren te betreuren waaronder meer dan 100.000 kinderen, dat aantal is intussen al heel veel groter en het zal me niet verbazen als de moordteller intussen de 600.000 is gepasseerd...... De aandacht van de westerse media voor deze genocide is nul komma nada, maar god wat gaat men in diezelfde media de plaat uit over de inval van Rusland in Oekraïne, terwijl deze is uitgelokt door de VS en haar NAVO-partners.....
Hier nog een aantal berichten over de NAVO, haar zetbaas voor de VS oorlogsmisdadiger en mede verantwoordelijke voor 2 genocides (die tegen de sjiieten in Jemen en die tegen het Palestijnse volk in de Gazastrook en op de West Bank): Mark Rutte en de oorlog van 'zijn' VS-terreurbondgenootschap tegen Rusland in Oekraïne:
NATO(26
juli 2025) Biljana Vankovska >> The
No-Exit Trap of Hotel California? Hier de laatste 2 passages van dit
artikel:Despite
NATO’s global expansion, it remains a paper tiger militarily.
It cannot prepare for so many simultaneous confrontations, nor will
it find enthusiasm among its citizens. Trump’s policy of extortion
and blackmail has its limits, just like his tariff madness. Our
task is to reveal the cracks in the fractured shell of this emerging
militarism and to resist the fear that it harbors an Alien-like
monstrosity–like in the film series. If a new Nazism emerges—its
contours already visible—we, the inhabitants of NATOland, will be
its first victims—followed
by our manufactured enemies. The
No-Exit Trap of Hotel California?
'EVEN
THE DUTCH SECURITY SERVICES ARE NOW CONTRADICTING MARK RUTTE'S LIES'
(19 juli 2025) Wouter Timmers >> “The
likelihood of a direct military attack by Russia on NATO territory is
UNLIKELY." This is stated in the Threat Assessment of State
Actors 2025, a joint report by the AIVD (General Intelligence and
Security Service) and MIVD (Military Intelligence and Security
Service) and the National Coordinator for Counter-terrorism and
Security (NCTV).
'It was never about Ukraine' (5 juni 2025) Een artikel van Eduardo Vasco gepubliceerd op Strategic Culture Foundation >> (3 passages uit dit artikel): The rhetoric of imperialist powers about Russia has only been matched during the preparatory phases of major wars. Just a few days ago, Kaja Kallas stated that Russia has “a long-term plan for a long-term aggression” and that “Europe is under attack and our continent sits in a world becoming more dangerous.” She echoed warnings from Mark Rutte who, days earlier, had declared to Europeans: “you have to get your Russian language course out, or go to New Zealand,” when he predicted Russia might attack the continent in the coming years. The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Mathew Whitaker, also warned: “the threats facing NATO are growing and our adversaries are certainly not waiting for us to rearm or be ready for them to make the first move.” These are only the latest among dozens of statements by high representatives of European and American imperialism signaling the approach of a war against Russia. At the NATO Summit in Madrid in June 2022, Russia was reclassified from “partner country” (2010) to “the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” Josep Borrell has repeatedly said that Russia is “an existential threat” to Europe. When Hitler was preparing for the future invasion of the Soviet Union, his January 30, 1939 speech in the Reichstag went in a similar direction to that of today’s European leaders: “if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.” Hitler said this seven months before invading Poland. When European imperialists are about to unleash war, they will not hesitate to speak in the same terms as Hitler.
'NATO’s 5% Pledge' (26 juni 2025) Een artikel van Medea Benjamin, door Savage Minds gepost op Substack >> An Obscene Betrayal of Global Needs.
'Germany stoking Russophobia and fears of World War III' (16 juni 2025) Norbert Davies, gepubliceerd op Strategic Culture Foundation >> Berlin continues to peddle lunacy, warning the state needs to be prepared for an attack from Russia within the next four years.
'The Odessa Moment' (17 mei 2025) Een artikel van Scott Ritter waarin hij het mislukte overleg tussen Oekraïne en Rusland in Istanbul analyseert.
'First Excavation of the Age of Apostasy' (16 mei 2025) Een artikel van Boaventura de Sousa Santos, gepubliceerd op Savage Minds. Signs of the End of Present Era Lie in Abandonment of the Beliefs That Founded It. Een goed artikel over de gang naar een nieuwe fascistische orde.
'NATO-Korruptionsskandal: Ermittlungen gegen NSPA-Mitarbeiter – Rutte unter Druck' (16 mei 2025) Een artikel van Willi Huber gepubliceerd op Report24. De inkooporganisatie van de NAVO, de NSPA, wordt verweten corrupt te zijn, geld wit te wassen en een criminele vereniging te zijn..... Er zijn arrestaties verricht in België en Nederland. Voorts hebben België, Nederland, Luxemburg. Spanje, de VS en Italië geprobeerd de zaak onder de pet te houden!! Grote kans dat aartsleugenaar en oorlogsmisdadiger en mede schuldige aan de genocide in Jemen en later die in de Gazastrook Rutte, mede schuldig is aan deze poging de boel uit de media te houden.....
'Biden Confirms Why the US Needed This War' (27 maart 2022, Consortium News) Ofwel: de VS heeft met opzet de boel in Oekraïne zo gemanipuleerd dat Rusland het land wel moest binnenvallen. De VS en de rest van de NAVO wilden Rusland zo verzwakken dat Putin zou moeten aftreden en Rusland geen bedreiging meer zou zijn voor de VS..... Verder was het de opzet van de VS om de economie van de EU-lidstaten een fikse klap te bezorgen dit ten voordele van de eigen economie, een zaak die Trump met zijn 'tariffs' in een versnelling heeft gezet..... Oh en het Engelse woord 'turf' zal ook wel een favoriet woord van Trump zijn, in VS slang betekent dat: 'the territory or area of activity over which a person or group claims exclusive rights' Zie wat het voorgaande betreft ook het artikel onder de volgende link: 'SCOTT RITTER: Merkel Reveals West’s Duplicity' (5 december 2022, Consortium News)
The Taurus "Menace"' (1 maart 2025) Wunderwaffe again or just another story for the masses? Een artikel dat eerder werd gepubliceerd op Substack door Black Mountain Analysis(1 maart 2025) en werd geschreven door Mike Mihajlovic.
'Duitsland op oorlogspad tegen Rusland: permanente Duitse basis in Baltisch gebied en pure oorlogshitserij van bondskanselier Scholz' (21 december 2023) En zie de berichten onder de links in dat artikel!! Verder ook met de redenen waarom Rusland Oekraïne is binnengevallen, redenen die men in het westen niet alleen verzwijgt maar in een aantal landen zelfs verbiedt, zoals in Frankrijk, Duitsland en Groot-Brittannië, waar journalisten die daarover hebben bericht worden vervolgd en geen gebruik meer kunnen maken van hun bankrekening(wat ons straks ook wacht met de digitale EU pas en de digitale euro, als we kritiek hebben op de regering, of op antidemocratische maatregelen zoals die tijdens de COVID-hysterie werden genomen....)....
'VN-commissie erkent de feiten van oorlogsmisdaden begaan door het Oekraïense leger' (18 maart 2023) Waarbij de VN tevens rapporteert dat het Oekraïense nazi-terreurleger (niet zo genoemd door de VN) clusterbommen heeft ingezet tegen de eigen bevolking en het beschieten van civiele infrastructuur door dat leger, beschietingen van onder andere kleuterscholen, markten en woonwijken.... Dat leger doet één en ander om het de Russen in de schoenen te schuiven, een false flag operatie noemt men dat, een specialiteit van terreurorganisatie CIA, waarvan agenten het Oekraïense-nazi-leger in dit soort zaken hebben opgeleid!!! Er is al sinds de door de VS georganiseerde opstand (2013) en coup (2014) een groot aantal CIA agenten werkzaam in Oekraïne.
'Nuland accidentally reveals the true aim of the West in Ukraine' (!!!!) (27 februari 2024, Information Clearing House) Nuland was op de aangegeven datum nog VS staatssecretaris voor BuZa. Het ware doel was het opgang houden van de oorlog in Oekraïne, daar dit goed is voor de wapenfabrieken in de VS en daarmee tevens het belang dienende van het daarachterliggende militair-industrieel complex en de spuugrijke miljonairs en miljardairs die grootaandeelhouders zijn van deze doodsindustrie......
'How the CIA Destabilizes the World' En dan te bedenken dat de VS, de grootste terreurentiteit ter wereld, ieder land dat het als vijand ziet, ervan beschuldigt destabiliserend bezig te zijn, terwijl deze vereniging van terreurstaten alleen deze eeuw al meer dan 5 miljoen vooral moslims heeft vermoord in de illegale oorlogen die het begon en dat gebaseerd op zware leugens (met hulp van haar andere slaafse NAVO-lidstaten)..... Dit nog naast het illegaal sancties uitoefenen op landen die niet braaf doen wat Washington eist, sancties waardoor ook nog eens extra mensen overlijden door tekorten aan voedsel, medicijnen en medische hulpmiddelen..... Te zot en schunnig voor woorden!!
'Wel sancties n.a.v. Navalny's dood, maar géén sancties tegen Israël vanwege de genocide die nu al aan meer dan 35.000 Palestijnen het leven heeft gekost.....' (25 februari 2024) Het is als met de bombardementen op de Houthi's en verdere bevolking van Jemen, terwijl de Houthi's in Jemen zich als één van de weinigen hebben gekeerd tegen de genocide die Israël uitvoert op de Palestijnen, het grootste deel van de tijd geen dode door hun acties tegen schepen met bestemming Israël, pas onlangs vielen de eerste doden (het zou me niet verbazen als de NAVO-schepen dit expres hebben laten gebeuren om hun acties tegen Jemen te legitimeren....).... Maar zoals gezegd wordt Jemen gebombardeerd door de VS, Groot-Brittannië, en nog een paar slaafse NAVO-lidstaten waaronder Nederland..... Ofwel oorlogsvoering tegen een land dat zich verzet tegen de Israëlische genocide op de Palestijnen en ook juist daarom, maar zelfs niet één sanctie tegen Israël, ondertussen hoeft Rusland bij wijze van spreken maar een scheet te laten en het westen neemt nog meer sancties......
'SCOTT RITTER: Twitter Wars—My Personal Experience in Twitter’s Ongoing Assault on Free Speech' Lezen mensen!! Scott Ritter is één van de deskundigen die het massamoord verhaal in Boetsja (Bucha) naar de prullenbak verwees, daar op de beelden uit die stad waarop lijken waren te zien op straat, deze na een fiks aantal dagen te hebben gelegen (de Russen waren al dagen eerder vertrokken) niet waren opgezwollen en opengebarsten, wat normaal wel zou zijn gebeurd...... Ofwel die massamoord is in scene gezet (een false flag operatie om Rusland verder te demoniseren)..... Intussen is bekend dat de neonazi's na het vertrek van het Russische legeronderdeel alle burgers hebben vermoord die voedselhulp van de Russen hebben aangenomen, of die hand-en-spandiensten verleenden aan de Russen, dan wel die van etnisch Russisch komaf waren....... Zoals iedereen zou kunnen weten dat het nazi-Azov-bataljon in de staalfabriek in Marioepol burgers als gijzelaars heeft vastgehouden >> getuigenissen te over.....
Let
op!!
De ruimte om reacties weer te geven werkt niet altijd. Als je
commentaar hebt en het lukt niet op de normale manier, doe dit dan
via het mailadres trippleu@gmail.com, ik zal deze dan opnemen
onderaan in het bewuste artikel, althans als je geen geweld predikt,
voorts plaats ik jouw reactie ook al staat deze diametraal tegenover
dat bericht. Alvast mijn dank voor jouw eventuele reactie, Willem.
Algoritmes worden ook als een vorm van censuur ingezet, zodat je sites en blogs als dit blog niet kan vinden, neem daarom altijd een link over van de sites of blogs die je graag bezoekt, meestal kan dat door simpelweg de naam te slepen naar je werkblak, zo kan je de foto van mijn inmiddels overleden katten Indy en Donnie bovenaan deze pagina naar je werkbalk slepen, je ziet dan een rode 'B' van blogger staan plus een paar woorden, door met je rechtermuisknop (of de rechter kliktoets op je laptop dan wel op je notebook) daarop te klikken, kan je die woorden verwijderen en daar bijvoorbeeld A, of Ap invullen (van Azijnpisser) vervolgens word je door daarop te klikken direct naar dit blog geleid.
Muziek 'likes' van mijn lieve zoon Loek via Spotify en mijn 'likes' op Spotify, Shazam en YouTube
Allereerst een lijst met nummers die mijn lieve zoon Loek maakte voordat hij op12 mei 2023 deze wereld verliet: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/773aEa9s9gx7FBYsdqrkWN (lees door voor de gebruiksaanwijzing >>), daarna een lijst met meer dan 11.000 nummers van mijn 'likes' die via Shazam op Spotify werd geplaatst (als je geen Spotify account hebt zie dan de lijst daarna op Shazam) Je krijgt bij de eerste lijsten, als die van Loek, lullig genoeg geen automatische koppeling, selecteer de link (blauw maken en daarna met de rechter muistoets of de rechter toets van de touchpad/trackpad op je laptop of notebook klikken, vervolgens in het menu bovenaan op 'koppeling openen' klikken en je zit op de bewuste lijst. Hier eerst de link naar mijn lijst op Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3hwttmZUT17ITKimZq6e2V
Vervolgens de link naar mijn Shazam nummers (hier kunnen dubbele nummers op staan): https://www.shazam.com/nl/myshazam En tot slot de link naar vooral albums op YouTube (let op een aantal links werken niet meer of niet goed, zoek dan zelf op YouTube met gebruikmaking van de naam van de band of muzikant): Lewis Black, Zappa (Frank is not dead, he just smells funny), Shpongle, Brian Eno, Ween, Fay Lovsky, Spike Jones, Björk, The Fugs, Alabama 3, Faithless, Dreadzone, Anubian Lights, Lydia Lunch, Amy Winehouse (niet het 'dronken' filmpje), Enter Shikarihttps://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=enter+shikari+full+albums;"> voor muziek van dr. Pisser, klik op: 'recept' waarna u >400 van deze 'Muzikale recepten' met links naar YouTube kan vinden. Na een aantal recepten ziet u het laatst gelezen recept telkens weer herhaald worden, klik op het label 'recept' onder het laatste recept dat u las, waarna u weer nieuwe recepten te zien krijgt.
TABAKSACCIJNS EN CORRUPTIE
Tips voor 'vapers': veel gezeur anno 2019 over vapen en een 'vreemde longziekte'. Gebruik je e-sigaret niet als een gewone sigaret, immers die brand op en je moet dus blijven roken tot je het zat bent of tot de sigaret op is. Dit hoeft niet met de e-sigaret, deze werkt, mits opgeladen en gevuld met vloeistof, direct en je kan deze na een paar trekken wegleggen. Nogmaals: gebruik de e-sigaret dan ook niet als een sigaret. Daarover gesproken: als je aan een e-sigaret trekt doe dit dan niet direct op je longen, maar als een sigaret, dus eerst in je mond en dan pas inademen. Het laatste zie je maar weinig mensen doen (althans ik zie dat weinig). Directe inademing is overigens ook al niet nodig als je wiet of hasj rookt, ook het in je longen houden van de rook met wiet of hasj is totaal overbodig, je kan dit gewoon als een sigaret roken, 'stoned' wordt je toch wel en even snel. Houd je aan deze zaken en je zal zien dat je met vapen heel veel minder tabak rookt, of daar zelfs helemaal mee kan stoppen! Dan nog het volgende: vape alleen met vloeistof die van tabak is gemaakt, de extra smaken voegen meer overbodige schadelijke stoffen toe. Het is een misvatting dat vapen even slecht is als tabak, er zitten aanzienlijk minder schadelijke stoffen in en in vergelijking met de gewone sigaret, bevat de vape vloeistof maar één verslavende stof en dat is nicotine (in de gewone sigaret zitten meerdere verslavende stoffen waar de minst verslavende nicotine is !!!).Tot slot, rook je nog niet? Begin er niet aan en ga ajb niet vapen! Verslaving aan tabak is een vervelende en uiterst kostbare ziekte.
Per 1 maart 2011 werden de tabaksaccijns verhoogd. Voor shag ging de prijs met 0,26 cent per pakje van 45 gram omhoog.
Per 1 juli 2012 verhoogden de fabrikanten de prijs van tabak, voor een pakje shag met 15 cent. Per 1 januari 2013 wordt de prijs van tabak door de regering nog eens verhoogd, voor shag maar liefst 60 cent per pakje!
Maar er is meer, de belastingdienst heeft gezorgd voor minimum accijns: het absolute bedrag dat wordt geheven, is per 1 maart 2011 zodanig verhoogd, dat deze ten alle tijde gelijk is aan het bedrag dat als accijns wordt geheven op de hoogste prijsklasse. Een leuk cadeau in 2011, van de zeer 'integere' CDA tabakslobbyist Hillen en het laatste kabinet Balkenende, voor de grote tabaksfabrikanten, waar zoals gezegd in 2012 nog een cadeau van het disfunctionerende demissionaire kabinet Rutte bijkwam in 2013, met hulp van 'oppositiepartijen D66, GL en CU.
Daarnaast zijn al die prijsverhogingen een mooi cadeau voor de georganiseerde misdaad, die jaarlijks miljarden sigaretten smokkelen. Niets nieuws, want het CDA heeft via de EVP toch al hechte banden met de maffia, bij de VVD is het al niet veel anders en zoals blijkt ook bij D66, GL en CU.
Begin februari 2011 werd bekend, dat een onderdeel van defensie zich bezighield met misdaad, o.a. werd de smokkel van illegale sigaretten genoemd....
Vooralsnog weigert (september 2012) demissionair minister van Volksgezondheid Schippers de tabaksindustrie te dwingen de samenstelling van 'geheime' stoffen in tabak prijs te geven, stoffen die de verslaving aan tabak verzwaren en die de gezondheid nog meer schaden...
Het is zelfs zo zot, dat de minst verslavende stof in tabak nicotine is...... Nadat D66 hufter Borst weigerde de extra verslavende stoffen in tabak te verbieden, daar dit het roken zou bevorderen, hebben alle regeringen daarna deze meer dan schunnige houding
gevolgd.....
Totale opbrengst van tabaksaccijns in 2011: twaalf miljard euro!!!!!!!!!!! Dus als u nog eens wilt zeuren over de hoge kosten die rokers voor de gezondheidszorg opleveren..............
Het is intussen 2019 en nog steeds liegt men in de politiek dat prijsverhogingen het enige middel is om roken tegen te gaan. Daarvoor wijst men naar Australië, zonder te melden dat daar het aantal gerookte illegale sigaretten volgens deskundigen het aantal legaal verkochte sigaretten benadert...... Overigens is het nu al een paar jaar zo dat het aantal rokers in Nederland niet daalt, ondanks de enorme prijsverhogingen (waarvan vooral arme Nederlanders het slachtoffer zijn en zoals je weet: financiële problemen zijn geen stimulans om te stoppen met roken....).......
Correcties en aanvulling gedaan op 16 oktober 2019.
Muziektip van uw Azijnpisser bij de koppen en aanhangsels van Wilders en andere fascisten
Zit u zich te ergeren aan Wilders of andere politici met aanhangsels, beluister dan bijvoorbeeld Alabama 3 met het nummer 'Woody Guthrie' van de cd 'Power in the blood'. En u weet het: geluidsniveau 80 en de bas op abn (aardbevingsniveau). U zult merken dat u daar weer wat rustiger van wordt. Wetenschappelijk is het al vaker bewezen: muziek kan geneeskrachtig werken!
Atoom-stroom
Er werd tot voor kort veel reclame gemaakt voor atoomstroom. Als u in het bezit bent van 2 hersencellen of meer, zal u de leugens onmiddellijk herkennen. Voor de 1 hersen-celligen of andere dombo's het volgende: atoom-stroom is allesbehalve co2 vrij, kijk naar de bouw van zo'n centrale, afbraak is nog nooit gedaan en is praktisch bijna onhaalbaar. Bij de winning van uranium ontstaat een gigantische milieuvervuiling. Van ellende weten we niet waar we met het afval naar toe moeten. Dan de leugen subsidievrij: er is geen manier van energie opwekken, waar zoveel subsidie voor is gebruikt en gebruikt wordt dan voor kernenergie. Nog belangrijker: u scheept de wereld, uw kinderen en kindskinderen op met een gevaarlijk afval probleem, niet alleen het kernafval, ook de gebouwen die blijven staan zijn levensgevaarlijk afval! Het is inmiddels april 2013 en zijn we de ramp met de kerncentrales in het Japanse Fukushima 'rijker', intussen is het ongeveer een jaar geleden, dat de pro-kernenergie reclames te horen waren, maar waakzaamheid blijft geboden. De lobbyisten voor deze peperdure en levensgevaarlijke technologie werken dag en nacht door..... Samsom, de PvdA windvaan was voor de ramp in Japan, al 'voorzichtig' voor kernenergie, een mening die 180 graden draaide na de ramp in Fukushima, maar kijk niet op, als hij later zijn mening weer eens omdraait... Aanvulling op de veiligheid: volgens IT specialist Ronald Prins van Fox-IT, kan een elektriciteitscentrale via internet worden aangevallen, zelfs als de systemen niet op dat net zijn aangesloten (zie mijn bericht van 10 december 2010)
Het is bij de laatste aanpassing van deze boodschap april 2013 en binnenkort wordt de kerncentrale van Borssele stilgelegd voor de jaarlijkse controle, Essent en Delta hebben met de overheid afgesproken niet het hele reactorvat op haarscheurtjes te controleren.... (zie o.a. mijn berichten van 11 april 2013 en 4 maart 2015).
Hans Crombag in Oba Live (Radio 5) vrijdag 26 maart 2010
