eersandbeers wrote:
ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
First, broadly, we have a horrible history of stopping espionage in this country going back to the founding to FBI Agent Hansen. Foreign countries find ways to infiltrate our best secrets.
Agreed. One of the other cases I'm researching is the Hanssen case, and the lack of internal safeguards at the FBI during that time is laughable. Literally none existed. Hanssen was far from the master spy the FBI likes to present him as.
Also, there are the numerous year of the spy ones-Ames included.
eersandbeers wrote:
ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Second, The report did not specifically name Clinton, the testimony did. But, Inhofe is known as a hardcore R and this was 1999, a very partisan time against Clinton. That is to be kept in mind.
But, the Cox report is another thing to read on the subject btw.
Well I think the political connections were clear. Clinton had connections to Riady all the way back to his time as governor. His further connections to John Huang, Johnnie Chung, Charlie Trie, and Maria Hsia were all quite clear also.
I don't deny the links, but question the strong language saying Clinton personally knew and purposely covered it up. That is like trying to link Reagan to Iran contra, it is simple to do, but hard to prove.
eersandbeers wrote:
ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Third, for my work my boss is examining Chinese nuclear and anti-satellite espionage, and has had me look over several court cases over the past 10 years that have focused on Chinese nationals stealing and funneling nuclear secrets, weapons technology and advanced weaponry from labs and contract firms. (The docs and names are at my office)
So, the problem was not limited to Clinton and Bush officials were also having a hard time containing Chinese espionage as well.
I'm not trying to paint it as purely a Clinton problem. The Chinese were stealing nuclear secrets since the 70's.
The difference is Clinton intentionally covered up and protected those Chinese agents because they were his biggest political donors.
Agreed.
By the way, two of the names that have spied for the Chinese recently are
Ko-Suen Moon and Greg Bergerson.
eersandbeers wrote:
ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
Fourth, even if this was the advanced nuclear technology, the fact that it has not upset the strategic nature and the Chinese nuclear doctrine is significant. It has not allowed China to adopt a more hardline nuclear posture or radically ramp up their nuclear stockpile. China still maintains a no first use policy and still has less nuclear weapons than Britain and France.
I'd say it upset the strategic balance of power a great deal. Here are a couple of quotes from the Cox Report:
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has stolen design information on the United States’ most advanced thermonuclear weapons.
These thefts of nuclear secrets from our national weapons laboratories enabled the PRC to design, develop, and successfully test modern strategic nuclear weapons sooner than would otherwise have been possible. The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give the PRC design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own.
The stolen U.S. nuclear secrets give the PRC design information on thermonuclearweapons on a par with our own. Currently deployed PRC ICBMs targeted on U.S. cities are based on 1950s-era nuclear weapons designs. With the stolen U.S. technology, the PRC has leaped, in a handful of years, from 1950s-era strategic nuclear capabilities to the more modern thermonuclear weapons designs. These modern thermonuclear weapons took the United States decades of effort, hundreds of millions of dollars, and numerous nuclear tests to achieve
It allowed China to achieve our level of technology in a relatively short period of time. Those few statements show just how severe this loss of information was. Not to mention, China spread that information to other countries in the world.
I know William Triplett is a hardline former military man, but he doesn't necessarily believe the same thing about China's peaceful intentions.
I know this is your area of expertise, so maybe the report was being overly dramatic. The report did not mention Clinton's corruption a single time though. It merely stuck to the facts.
I'm not a huge fan of the Cox report, as i think it takes a very hard line on the Chinese, worst case assessment. It is interesting, but I take it with a grain of salt. As Jefferey Lewis writes, (the original form back in 2004, but can't find any updated one online)
http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/the_minimum_means_of_reprisal.pdf, the U.S. intelligence community has a history of overstating the Chinese threat.
That said, while this was and is an issue, it by no means dramatically changed the strategic nuclear doctrine or posture of China.
While the designs are a huge loss, the fact is I'm not sure China can actually replicate the modern warheads, given the use of the top secret Fogbank material
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1814/fogbank Since, the U.S. has a hard time making this stuff, I'm not totally sure the Chinese can make and mass produce it as well.
Also, I have yet to come across any information about China selling or dealing off the design to other countries.
You are not overly dramatic at all, in fact it is good to bring the issue of Chinese espionage to light, both Clinton and Bush years.