It got omitted (operator error?): The number of fully automatic AK-47s seized in the containers in Oakland, CA, was 2,000.

TFP thesis is not exactly the same as Golistyn’s past warnings about the long-range strategic deception to dominate the world. He foresaw that it would entail a process of “convergence” wherein the West would eventually be encircled (geopolitically & militarily) and forced to a point of “surrender” on the East’s terms. He suggested that the West would be defeated without firing a shot. America would be the number one target in this quest. However, he did hold out the possibility that it might take a limited nuclear strike on the US in order to accomplish a checkmate position, along “Pearl Harbour lines.” Who else in the world predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall, etc., a decade before it happened?! This is a very important question to ask and ponder. It goes to the validity of Golitsyn’s bona fides and lends credibility to his overall predictive methodology of analysis. ---- Well, actually in c.1986-1987 I predicted the Berlin Wall would come down before 2000 and some sort of loosening of the USSR's grip on at least some of the Warsaw Pact as a necessary prerequisite to Germany's unification and at least Western and Central Europe's unification. Of course that was based on personal religious beliefs, not purely geopolitical analysis of Communist methodology. By the way, did I tell you that I was stationed in Berlin before, during, and after that event? That was pretty sweet. -- DJim ======== TFP thesis is a deductive outgrowth of Golitsyn’s methodology, albeit imperfect. Much of it is directly supported by Golitsyn’s previously stated concepts and principles, such as, that all endeavors undertaken by Russian and Chinese intelligence organizations are coordinated and dedicated to the overall long-range strategic plan against the West. Multifacets of TFP: (((Drugs, gangs, organized crime, sleeper agents/terrorists))) ---- Okay, they're actively running some and influencing other gang and drug activity against America. That's a national security threat, but not a military threat. We have national agencies devoted to countering that threat, including in the intelligence community. Actually counter-narcotics has been a DoD mission area for many years, even though the threat is not overtly military in nature. It's debatable how good a job they are all doing, and I personally think we should focus far more resources on securing our borders, for example. As far as I'm concerned, dollars spent in this mission area are far better spent than dollars spent in peacekeeping or foreign aid or tighter airport security. As for subjects like WMD proliferation, suspicious shipping movements, etc., we do already try to track this stuff. I often have to delete messages out of my classified inbox that got pulled in by my message profile because they happened to have some combination of keywords that I'm looking for, only to turn out to be describing some suspicious sea or air commercial transportation movements. -- DJim ======== In Bartlett’s speech, he explained that he, Representative Curt Weldon, and the rest of their contingent were threatened by a Russian representative (during a meeting to resolve the Bosnian conflict), that, if they really wanted to hurt us (in response for being unconsulted/disregarded during the Bosnia intervention) Russia could launch an EMP laydown over America from a submarine in the Atlantic without fear of retaliation. Bartlett (who sits on the Armed Services and Science committee with access to very wide array of highly classified information) explained why the Russian’s threat had credibility about no fear of retaliation. He implied that a Russian submarine launch of a missile would not be traceable, we would not know for certain who launched the missile; therefore, we wouldn’t be able to retaliate. He also implied that this “untraceable” aspect was further elaborated on by Senator Kyl in a report he had done and by Peter Vincent Pry. But, his speech didn’t make it absolutely clear on this point. (His assertion made me wonder, because I thought we had the capability to detect any and all missile signatures once launched. However, I further considered the following: Although we may be able to detect a missile launch, if it comes out of the Atlantic (relatively close to our shores), do we have the capability to determine that it is launched by a Russian sub? I wonder. Do we track each and every Russian sub and know their locations at all times? I don’t think so. Does the signature of each missile conclusively identify it’s origins? I don’t think so. So, I have tentatively concluded in my mind that Bartlett’s assertion IS possible even though it came as a surprise to me...I hadn’t considered it before.) However, regardless of whether or not Russia could launch an untraceable EMP missile attack, Bartlett elaborated on the aspect of a terrorist organization launching such an attack from one of a thousand freighters transversing the Atlantic at an

AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER FOR TFP: O.K. people, move along...nothing to see here. The Intelligence Community has everything under control. I'm not saying that we can't be surprised, but....we just can't be surprised. Our technological means of intelligence gathering can not be thwarted. We will foresee anything and everything that might happen. The means of communication with our satellites will not and can not be interrupted for the very short period of time it would take for ICBMs to be on their way to America, let alone six months to a year following a Super-EMP attack (delivered, btw, with just one device high enough just to the Southwest of Chicago). Don't worry about notions al-Qeada or their possible assistant China orchestrating a Super-EMP and/or an outright nuke attack from missiles hidden in Panama brought in by COSCO (which only has a fraction of their containers inspected - in AMERICA that is) nor the possibility of Chinese cruise missiles in the Bahamas. And, certainly don't worry about what amounts to an advanced Chinese Army already on our shores bidding their time with their paramilitary arms and equipment at the ready. These are Goofey ideas anyway. America is the only super power and we can not be defeated. You can all rest easy now and live happily everafter. The end.

AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER FOR TFP: O.K. people, move along...nothing to see here. The Intelligence Community has everything under control. I'm not saying that we can't be surprised, but....we just can't be surprised. Our technological means of intelligence gathering can not be thwarted. We will foresee anything and everything that might happen. The means of communication with our satellites will not and can not be interrupted for the very short period of time it would take for ICBMs to be on their way to America, let alone six months to a year following a Super-EMP attack (delivered, btw, with just one device high enough just to the Southwest of Chicago). Don't worry about notions al-Qeada or their possible assistant China orchestrating a Super-EMP and/or an outright nuke attack from missiles hidden in Panama brought in by COSCO (which only has a fraction of their containers inspected - in AMERICA that is) nor the possibility of Chinese cruise missiles in the Bahamas. And, certainly don't worry about what amounts to an advanced Chinese Army already on our shores bidding their time with their paramilitary arms and equipment at the ready. These are Goofey ideas anyway. America is the only super power and we can not be defeated. You can all rest easy now and live happily everafter. The end. --------------------- At last! The Voice of Reason! Glad to see you've come over. Worry about al Qaeda trying to attack us? Yes. Worry about al Qaeda trying to attack us with some sort of WMD? Yes, that could happen. Worry about al Qaeda trying to attack us with some sort of WMD delivered on an American target by rocket? Well, I guess that could happen. Worry about al Qaeda trying to attack us with some sort of WMD delivered on an American target in America by rocket? Hmmm, well, that's possible. Worry about al Qaeda trying to attack us with a Super-EMP nuke delivered on an American target over Chicago by rocket? Uhhh, yeah, okay. Worry about China trying to attack us? Yes. Worry about China trying to attack us with some sort of WMD? Yes. Worry about China trying to attack us with some sort of WMD delivered on an American target in America by rocket? Yes. Worry about China trying to attack us with a Super-EMP nuke delivered on an American target over America by rocket? Yes, that could happen. Worry about China trying to attack us with a Super-EMP nuke delivered on an American target over America by rocket secretly deployed in Panama? Well, I guess that could happen. Worry about China trying to attack us with a Super-EMP nuke delivered on an American target over America by rocket secretly deployed in Panama, combined with a nuclear cruise-missile strike from secretly-deployed missiles in the Bahamas? Hmmm, well, that's possible. Worry about China trying to attack us with a Super-EMP nuke delivered on an American target over America by rocket secretly deployed in Panama, combined with a nuclear cruise-missile strike from secretly-deployed missiles in the Bahamas, followed by a couple hundred thousand Chinese infantry here on student visas attacking all across the country using arms and equipment smuggled in inside those 99.8% of unchecked containers? Uhhh, yeah, okay. You see, while all of the above, and a gazillion other, scenarios are theoretically possible, some are less likely than others and (more to my point) some of them are more likely to be detected and detected sooner than others. Anyone can sit around and dream up 1001 "What Ifs," but the mere fact that you can conceive of a possible surprise scenario does not mean 1) they're doing it, 2) it would work, 3) that we aren't looking for something like that, and 4) that we wouldn't detect it first. Everything you've ever mentioned probably has at least some degree of possibility of success, and at least some degree of possibility of prior detection by us. How about worry about al Qaeda simultaneously releasing a thousand tons of anthrax all over America using 1000 crop-dusters smuggled into America inside shipping containers and assembled at strategic locations around the nation? How about worry about al Qaeda trying to attack us with a nuke in a container delivered to New York harbor? How about China has actually smuggled in not hundreds, or thousands, but millions of troops already, and entire tank divisions have been assembled and are awaiting the command to roar out of their hiding places? How about China has been smuggling in just a single H-Bomb a year in a shipping container (that's just one out of millions each year, certainly easily done) and dispersing them to warehouses across America. Right now there could easily be a five megaton thermonuclear device in the middle of each of our 20 largest cities. How about China has studied what happened in the northeastern US a couple years ago with that power outage, and has devised a plan to destroy a half-dozen high voltage towers in selec

"If all you're saying is that Russia and China as nations are ‘still’ a threat, you are not telling DoD anything it doesn't already understand perfectly well. Maybe there are American citizens who are ignorant of the potential danger, but the intelligence community is not.” "Are they a threat? Yes. However, they're basically a potential threat, rather than a present threat. The only exception to this is nuclear exchange: Russia could fry us, and even China could hurt us horribly--just like they both could do for decades past, most likely for many decades to come, and maybe for the rest of our life span. "It really doesn't matter in and of itself whether Russia and China are run by scheming commies bent on our destruction--if they never act on it. We already assume Russia and China are threat nations that must be watched. The important part is how can they hurt us, what indications are there that they are about to try it, and how should/have we prepared to counter anything they might try." _____________________________________ Without understanding that Russia AND China are a continuing CURRENT threat (from 1958 - today); without understanding that they have coordinated extensive means of deception against the West throughout this period; without understanding that al-Qaeda may only represent the puppet, but not its master; without understanding that conventional means of diplomacy to nudge Russia more into the Western sphere and free-trade out the Red in China as fruitless undertakings; and, without understanding the mind of our enemy, odds are great (“99.8 %?”) that we will be surprised at the end of “the final phase.” The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that DoD and the Intelligence community DOES NOT understand THIS threat that Russia and China poses. If it has indeed been on-going since 1958 (per Golitsyn), then it is NOT a “potential threat,” it is a current threat that will not be seen nor understood unless - at least - the possibility of the long-range strategic deception is considered plausible. Extensive research intelligence is the first step in proper assessment. If “potential threats” are not properly assessed, it is quite likely it will come back to bite us in the ass. Did we know about India’s nuclear development? No. Why? Because they knew what we could see and detect and they knew the times when we had the capability to see and detect. Additionally, they employed deceptive misdirection to pull our attention elsewhere: “Further, adversaries have grown skilled at hiding their activities, as demonstrated by the surprise nuclear tests in India during 1994 (John 2001). Indian officials had determined exactly when US satellite cameras would be passing over their nuclear testing facility near Pokharan in the Rajasthan Desert. In synchrony with these flights (every three days), Indian nuclear scientists camouflaged their activities....The Indians also adroitly used deception techniques to fool intelligence....also stepped up activities at the far-removed missile testing site, in an attempt to draw attention of spy cameras away from the nuclear testing site.” (“Strategic Intelligence,” 2004 pp. 44-45) (Then, of course, to name another “surprise” was North Korea’s advance stage of its nuclear program development and possession of operable nuclear weapons.) This particular section of Strategic Intelligence highlights the fact of the limitations of all means of intelligence collection, from HUMINT to MASINT. The point being, a determined, deceiving enemy can prevent us from knowing what is actually happening for their most closely-held endeavors. On 26 Jun 05, in a Washington Times article titled, “Chinese Dragon Awakens,” Bill Gertz wrote: “Air Force Gen. Paul V. Hester, head of the Pacific Air Forces, said the US military has been watching China’s military buildup but has found it difficult to penetrate Beijing’s ‘veil’ of secrecy over it...’They have great equipment. The fighters are very technologically advanced, and WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THEM gives us pause for concern against ours,’ he said...Michael Pillsbury, a former Pentagon official and specialist on China’s military, said the internal US government debate on the issue and EXCESSIVE CHINESE SECRECY about its military buildup ‘has cost us 10 years to figure out what to do.’ [Emphasis added.] In a part two of Gertz’s special on China, on 27 Jun 05, in “Thefts of US Techonology Boost China’s Weaponry,” he wrote: “...The FBI has been unable to find out who in the US government supplied China with secrets on every deployed nuclear weapon th the US arsenal, including the W-88, the small warhead used on US submarine-launched nuclear missiles...As with China’s military buildup, China’s drive for advanced technology with military applications has been underestimated by the US intelligence community...Unlike the United States, China does not distinguish between civilian and military

There are two serious errors to be made in the formulation of strategy in a complex system. One, is to be too unresponsive to stimuli, and thereby fail to draw appropriate or correct conclusions within a diffuse array of data. The other is to become hyper-reactive to all potential correlations, and thereby fail to draw appropriate or correct conclusions within a diffuse array of data. I began to suspect the impact of the latter during my interest in the origins of World War One. It seemed to me that certain key players had become attuned, or conditioned, towards thought patterns as Hilobill is expressing here. Biologically speaking, I think that there is a brain chemistry to aggression and confrontation that deliberately promotes or exaggerates specious, (or as DJ suggests) low order coincidences into a magnificent tapestry or web of conspiracy. Why this happens, I'm not certain, but I bet those suffering from the condition were pretty good at waging and winning wars. It's interesting to note that Bill's contention of PLA sleeper troops, or whomever, is pretty much the same fare as the old German waiters-are-storm troopers that were the "menace" to England in dime-store fare such as Riddle in the Sand (circa about 1910). Anyways, from what I read the threats are EMP and WMD....the same old threats from the 1960's onward. I'd agree that EMP is a first-order danger. I'd disagree that it's capable of disabling or hindering an American nuclear counterattack, and I'd wonder about the need for a grand conspiracy to deliver it? First step:build an SS-18 Second: Fire it at the USA. Seems straightforward. No need for cross-dressing genetically alterted ape-troops to hide in banana shipments from Del Monte, we can have this puppy wrapped up and under the tree by 1975. Strategy in a way is simply the art of prioritizing, or assessing risk so that a nation's real-world national interests are as best defended, and as comprehensively covered, as is possible. Bill's thesis appears to me to be "Step 1" of a national defense program - the part where potential risks are identified. But it doesn't look to move on to Step 2 and beyond, where these risks are classified or related in a probability or lethality heirarchy so that meaningful action can be taken that BEST blends resources to priorities. As such, to me, it looks like a mess. You've mentioned Pearl Harbor. It's interesting to note that in 1941 the USAAF command in Washington sat down and actually did a risk assessment calculation for Oahu, and prioritized the Japanese threats to their position that they assessed as feasible. It's also interesting to note that they got it right - air attack was identified as the single likeliest threat to the base (followed by submarine attack, invasion, naval bombardment and infiltration/5th Column activity in some order or other that I've forgotten). Short, the commander at Oahu, REVERSED infiltration and air attack in his defense planning, which led in part to the disaster. Bill, I appreciate your enthusiasm but you've got to understand. I'm up here in Canada were it seems to be getting redder all the time, if you know what I mean. (Believe it or not, I'm fairly right wing for this place). If a President came out with some of the things you're saying, he'd be seen as a dangerous nutcase by the population up here, and it would seriously hurt your relations with us. X2 that for Europe. Diplomacy and an air of considered calm are critical in team-building with us wiener countries that come in handy in a war every now and again.

I thought I clearly made the point that when discussing their current direct military threat--as in their tanks, destroyers, or bombers, for example--they are not a current threat when you define current threat as a force that could invade America today, but remain a potential threat as defined by the fact that they could conceivably gain the military wherewithall to attack and defeat us in open combat at some time in the future. Thus, we must continue to treat them as threat nations and we must continue to pay close attention to them. In addition, they also present a threat that is a current threat, in the form of asymmetric, surprise, non-conventional attacks, including attacks that would not fit in traditional definitions of warfare at all (like a cyber attack on our stock exchanges, for example). DoD is quite aware of that fact as well, and keeps tabs on all sorts of Russian and Chinese activities that are not overtly military but could somehow contribute to a national security threat. If we are doing that but supposedly do not "understand" the threat posed to us, how/what would we being doing any differently if we did "understand" the threat? What potential threats are we failing to consider? "Did we know about India’s nuclear development? No." Exqueeze me? "No"? You mean we had no idea that India was developing nuclear weapons until after they detonated a nuclear device? Of course that's not what you mean. I'm guessing you're referring a specific test of a specific device several years ago, one in particular that we didn't know they'd tested it until they did it. Yes, the Indians engaged in a significant campaign to hide and misdirect us so that they could detonate it before we knew it was happening. Well done. Well, there it is, another intelligence failure. Apparently we can't know everything. Gee, exactly what I've said all along. "The point being, a determined, deceiving enemy can prevent us from knowing what is actually happening for their most closely-held endeavors." Yes, that's possible, with a significant effort applied to specific programs, they can succeed in guarding some aspects/events of some of them until after completion. We are quite aware that many countries are to varying degrees aware of how capable our collection efforts are, and that they take measures to attempt to deny us collection opportunities. Yes, they try to determine when our national technical means are able to observe specific areas, and then they take steps to only operate when they think we can't observe them. "Is MASINT (or any other INT) omnipotent or omnipresent being able to detect all Chinese factories all of the time?" Well, I bet I've answered that question (in the abstract) a half-dozen times: no, we can't collect, report, analyze, and produce intel on everything. "There is an array of technology and weapon systems that may exist completely undetected and unknown by us which Russia and China MAY have developed and perfected, such as, plasma stealth cloaking and nanotechnology (which would render all our nuclear weapons neutralized). Whether or not these exist is not the point. The point is that such technology would be closely held and it is quite plausible that we would never know about it despite all of our sophisticated technological means of intelligence collection." Yeah, some supersecretdeathraygizmo could be on a Russian drawing board at this very second (are you trembling yet?) I would assume there are MANY. Of course! Why not? Why should today be any different than any other day in history? All countries have/are always trying to develop new and better weapons technology. And it's an undeniable truism that until we learn about them, we don't know about them. It is proper and sensible to be concerned about threatening activities for which you have evidence of their existence. It can be reasonable to be concerned about whether we are failing to observe potentially available evidence of the existence of hitherto unknown threats. It is neurotic to be primarily focused on very specifically defined but wholly invented (i.e., imaginary) threats for which you have no evidence. I'm still waiting to hear how any lack of conviction regarding whether there is a current plan underway inhibits our ability to detect any current activities that we are looking for anyway regardless of whether the plan exists or not--other than to possibly guide us in some undefined way about where/what to look at/for. "If a miracle were to happen wherein our intelligence, security and defense establishments at least considered this possibility, a final analysis would be reached that would be incapable of proving beyond a reasonable doubt of Russia and China’s CURRENT threat status; it can only be provable to the standard of the preponderance of evidence." "It"? What, that Russia and China are a threat? We already know that! That they are about to attack us? There is n

Well, good luck to both of you. I have overlooked the many mischaracterizations of my position throughout the course of this thread, which have been peppered with several smug and sarcastic remarks. However, the final straw for me is to have my position twisted into being a "horrorable spasm," not a thesis, and to reduce my position into that of neuroses with, "It is neurotic to be primarily focused on very specifically defined but wholly invented (i.e., imaginary) threats for which you have no evidence." Quite unbecoming if you ask me. Aloha, HB

Aloha. Come back anytime you have examples of behavior about which you'd like opinions on how relatively important they are, how they fit into a bigger picture, etc. In other words, when there are tangible examples of a threat from Russia and China, as opposed to when it's just another "Gee, but they *might* have xyz, and since we don't know that they don't, we can and should assume that they do." Also, you might try to clarify exactly how knowing about TFP will help to guide the intelligence process and improve our readiness posture/what we should do about it, which I think is tied into Glenn's "Step 2" and my "Now what?" criticisms. Displacedjim

Jim, "...when there are tangible examples of a threat from Russia and China, as opposed to when it's just another "Gee, but they *might* have xyz, and since we don't know that they don't, we can and should assume that they do." Even to the end, sanctimonious sarcasm and distortion of my views. I wonder how honorable General MacArthur would have considered such conduct coming from a member of the officer corps? Although you're not in the Army's officer corps, I would assume that your particular branch holds to the same values...Doesn't it? Aloha, HB