It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: COSCO, a Military Chinese Company Operating in a U.S. Pier.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Except that to say "class" refers to the TYPE of ship. There is no "Tsunami class" of submarine. If they're referring to the missile, then it should be "Xia class sub ARMED with....." If we're going to make decisions on this let's at least get our information right here.


Zaphod58, there are two things, first I don't think that Jon or Sean are submarine experts. If you want to sue them because of that go ahead.

You have been trying from the beginning of this thread just to dismiss it, and you are giving any excuses to do so, because you are uncomfortable with accepting this, and that's alright.

This is the same as with other people in other conspiracy theories who want to discuss what a certain person meant by say "pull it"....

You are grabbing at straws because you don't want to accept the truth.




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm trying to understand how they can claim they're going to disguise a submarine, what the point of parking a submarine at the pier and shooting missiles at us is, when they can sail to the middle of the pacific and do the same thing..... It just doesn't make sense. If they could some up with something that MAKES SENSE then I'll look at it objectively, but this DOESN'T.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Muaddib - you just got a Way Above from me
. Outstanding "exceeds" on the effort you are putting into this. It's a fascinating thread to follow.


Thank you Valhall, but in truth i wouldn't have even noticed this if Malichai didn't start another thread about the concerned U.S. citizens sending an email to the Senator. TC also helped to get the story here because Jon was having problems login in.

Other mods also mobilized to get this to the attention of TC and the other Admins, like Riwka and Majic. So, it was a team effort.


[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm trying to understand how they can claim they're going to disguise a submarine, what the point of parking a submarine at the pier and shooting missiles at us is, when they can sail to the middle of the pacific and do the same thing..... It just doesn't make sense. If they could some up with something that MAKES SENSE then I'll look at it objectively, but this DOESN'T.


First, I don't think that you even read what Jon wrote. He believes that these submarines could be used to smuggle things into the U.S. such as a dirty bomb, as another member said, weapons, or whatever. But having COSCO acquiring two submarines is not for good reasons, or to use for civilian transport.

The one who mentioned the possibility of this being used as a surprise attack was me, which also leds me to believe you have not read anything anyone has said in here. What I said, in response to another member asking why would the CCP sacrifice one of their submarines, and for what purpose, is that as long as they can smuggle the submarine in Pier J, which is large enough to hide a submarine, and you can use the traffic to disguise the solid return that any radar could pick up.

In fact as Jon said, a CCP cargo ship could hide underneath a submarine, and noone would even know it. Only Aircrew AWs, if they knew were to look for and when, could find a submarine underneath a cargo ship, or unless there were divers in the area, or unless anyone such as another submarine was actively looking for submarines, and even then, these two submarines are being classified by the CCP as civilian transport.

Anyways, as i was saying as long as the submarine can be smuggled in, which would take a lot of effort but is possible, the only thing this sumarine had to do was launch a nuclear warhead and have it detonate in the atmosphere. This will creat an EMP that would take out all electronics in the area, crippling the U.S. armed forces considerably.

Since the launch of the nuke would be really close to our borders, it would take less time for the missile to reach the required altitute which means the U.S. forces have less time to take out the nuke.

The only thing that the CCP would lose is a sub, while the west coast of the United States would be completly defenseless by an invading army.

It is like playing chess, you sacrifice a piece, even an important piece, but at the end you win.

And I said it CLEARLY...that this could be one of the reasons for the CCP to do this, but there are several other reasons why they would want two subs in their "merchantile fleet", and none of them would be for the good of the United States, which is the main point I think we all are trying to make.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Well first of all, even if it was launched from the middle of the Pacific we CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUKE. What are we going to use? The ABL that's a year away from firing it's first shot from the plane? The Aegis theater defense that is mounted on ONE SHIP in Hawaii and only hits targets towards the end of their flights? We have NO WAY to take out an ICBM.

How are they going to smuggle an entire submarine in and no one notice? US ports are too shallow for them to enter submerged, most ports are actually. If they're running on the surface someone is gonna notice.

The smuggling of things I can see, but the smuggling of a submarine into port...THAT I don't see. Yes there are risks to having COSCO own a pier, but the whole submarine parking at the pier thing..... What, are they going to somehow sneak this sub into the pier, and not ONE person is going to notice?

I'm a lot more concerned about their CARGO SHIPS than I am about some mythical submarine that doesn't exist yet, and is somehow going to sneak into a port with no one noticing it happening.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well first of all, even if it was launched from the middle of the Pacific we CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUKE. What are we going to use? The ABL that's a year away from firing it's first shot from the plane? The Aegis theater defense that is mounted on ONE SHIP in Hawaii and only hits targets towards the end of their flights? We have NO WAY to take out an ICBM.


My guess is that the CCP are at least decent war planners and will not make decisions on assumptions and take risks. If you are going to start a war of the magnitute that would be required for China to attack the U.S., i am sure they would not leave anything to chance, and neither would the United States.

I am sure that you do know that enemies never tell to each other what are the best weapons they have, or the best defense they have. Even a Sensei is smart enough not to teach everything to a student, in war, it is the same principle but used against the enemy.

That's one of the things that the Art of War by SunTzu teaches. When you are weak, show your enemy that you are strong, when you are strong, show your enemy that you are weak. The art of deception.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
How are they going to smuggle an entire submarine in and no one notice? US ports are too shallow for them to enter submerged, most ports are actually. If they're running on the surface someone is gonna notice.


The shallowest part of Long Beach port is 50 feet deep, if I remember correctly, the beam measurement of a Xia is 10m or 32 feet. BTW, did you read what Jon said about "parking"...or again you didn't read anything?


Originally posted by Zaphod58
The smuggling of things I can see, but the smuggling of a submarine into port...THAT I don't see. Yes there are risks to having COSCO own a pier, but the whole submarine parking at the pier thing..... What, are they going to somehow sneak this sub into the pier, and not ONE person is going to notice?


First, again, you have not read what Jon said, he didn't say anything about the submarine parking right in front of the port so the sailors can come out of the sub and plant their feet on the docks....

Do yourself a favor and read the content of a thread if you are going to discuss it...... please.....



Originally posted by Zaphod58
I'm a lot more concerned about their CARGO SHIPS than I am about some mythical submarine that doesn't exist yet, and is somehow going to sneak into a port with no one noticing it happening.


Well, you might not be concerned by a military adversary which has declared that war with the U.S. is inevitable, and who claims that they lost a submarine but there are no corroborations of such accident ever happening....which would make you a very bad war planner if you ever became one.

You want to trust the word of someone who has stated several times, "I am going to attack you, war between us is inevitable, but I am going to make sure I win".....

---edited to change comment---

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This is obviously some ploy to take advantage of the DPW deal to test the waters on how far they can go with their U.S. holdings. I wonder what China will do if another outroar makes it impossible for Congress to do anything but kick them out...

I think this is a major, major event here, the beginning of China using its newfound economic muscle against us.
This is bad news and we need to stop the Chinese



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   
I am still following up on this story. I have now sent an email to Al Santoli, who is the main source for the information on the two submarines which COSCO contracted to build.

Al Santoli is the director of Asia-Pacific Initiative, a non-for profit




www.afpc.org...

[...] organization dedicated to promoting democratic ideals, strengthening international security and mediating in conflict-plagued areas throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Through combining model humanitarian programs with traditional policy forums and pro-active strategic reports, API takes a unique approach in finding solutions to seemingly intractable challenges.

API operations are rooted in the belief that U.S. national security and the defense of international human rights are inseparable. Therefore, victory over terrorist movements requires the foresight to provide humanitarian assistance in at-risk, impoverished communities.



He is also an editor of the "American Foreign Policy Council", where he described the plans of COSCO to acquire the two 18,000 ton submarines, "for the formation of the COSCO Guangzhou "special purpose" fleet". (more)


Here is a description of the AFPC.




www.afpc.org...

For two decades, the American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) has played an essential role in the U.S. foreign policy debate. Founded in 1982, AFPC is a non-profit organization dedicated to bringing information to those who make or influence the foreign policy of the United States and to assisting world leaders, particularly in the former USSR, with building democracies and market economies. AFPC is widely recognized as a source of timely, insightful analysis on issues of foreign policy, and works closely with members of Congress, the Executive Branch and the policymaking community. It is staffed by noted specialists in foreign and defense policy, and serves as a valuable resource to officials in the highest levels of government.


I will be looking for Mr. Santoli's response, and will be posting in here as soon as possible.


(Mod edit to fix tags)

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Riwka]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   
what I don't get is well.....why nuke us. we owe them alot of money, and well, wouldn't that decrease that slim chance of them ever being paid back even more? and well, wouldn't that kill alot of those consumers they seem to be counting on to buy their products. so, I assume, that if they are gonna nuke us, well, they don't want us as trading partners anymore? Just one question, they're running the ports, if they decided that they didn't like all the other countries trading with us also, could they just refuse the shipments from entering into our ports? I imagine that eventually, we have our ports back, but how long would it take before we managed to do that? maybe it's not so much that china wants to attack us, but rather, china wants all the oil, and well, is trying to make it easier for it to be shipped there than here? Maybe those little subs are just a diversion, something to distract us from the obvious.

then again, how many chinese troops do you think could fit into one of their cargo ships? maybe they're coming to take what is theirs?



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
what I don't get is well.....why nuke us. we owe them alot of money, and well, wouldn't that decrease that slim chance of them ever being paid back even more?


If the chinese were more interested in getting paid, why would they threaten to dump U.S. dollars, which is something they threatened to do not so long ago?

With everything that is happening, China making this threat makes the devaluation of the dollar more possible, but that sort of move would not assure that the U.S. will pay any of that money back to China. It would just help to devaluate the dollar and cause more economic problems for us back home.

I see a trend these days of borrower countries taking advantage of countries like the U.S. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to do the same and think only of business. There are a lot of debts, from developed countries which the U.S. has forgiven in the past, but perhaps it is time to "unforgive" those debts and use that money to pay our debt, starting with paying our debt to the CCP.


Originally posted by dawnstar
and well, wouldn't that kill alot of those consumers they seem to be counting on to buy their products. so, I assume, that if they are gonna nuke us, well, they don't want us as trading partners anymore?


First, do note that in my theoretical scenario, the Chinese detonate a nuke in the atmosphere to create an EMP. They don't have to detonate it right on top of the U.S. it could be done in the ocean and it will still affect all electronic equipments in a large area.

The CCP doesn't care about the U.S. paying back. The CCP wants to be the new superpower and having the U.S. pay back our debt to them will not allow them to raise to the next supewrpower.

You also have to take into account what Chinese officials have been saying; that war is inevitable with the U.S., that they must make sure they win the war, etc, etc. The CCP is not interested in the least for the U.S. to pay our debt, we are a threat to their plans, which inckude invading Taiwan and expanding their territories to other areas.


Originally posted by dawnstar
Just one question, they're running the ports, if they decided that they didn't like all the other countries trading with us also, could they just refuse the shipments from entering into our ports?


They are not running all our ports. They have control of Pier J in LA, which is part of the biggest port in the west coast of the U.S. They can't refuse shipments from entering our other piers and ports.


Originally posted by dawnstar
I imagine that eventually, we have our ports back, but how long would it take before we managed to do that? maybe it's not so much that china wants to attack us, but rather, china wants all the oil, and well, is trying to make it easier for it to be shipped there than here?


dawnstar, I doubt that chinese officials would be making empty threats. They have it in their minds to have a war with the U.S. I have written in the past about a book written in 1999, by two senior PLA colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, which was sanctioned by the CCP.

In this book, these two PLA colonels propose unrestrictive tactics to be used against the U.S. during a high tech war. Including and not limited to "using terrorism, such as using Bin Laden and bombing the WTC", remember that this was written in 1999. They also describe in this book how they must attack the U.S. economically, as well as other conventional, and unconventional tactics to be used for China to be at the top of the world.

Here is a link to what is written in that book, and btw, I have given links in the past to military papers which confirm the existance of this Chinese book, and it's contents.

cryptome.org...



Originally posted by dawnstar
Maybe those little subs are just a diversion, something to distract us from the obvious.


Each one of those subs is 18,000 tons, they are not little at all. As for the reason for COSCO wanting these subs, whatever the reason, it is not going to be good for the U.S.



Originally posted by dawnstar
then again, how many chinese troops do you think could fit into one of their cargo ships? maybe they're coming to take what is theirs?


They can fit tanks, and other military equipment in their cargo ships, as well as troops.

What I don't understand is your statement that "maybe they are coming to take what's theirs?" There is nothing in the U.S. that is property of the CCP, except for Pier J, and some bases they have bought from Clinton when he was in office. What the CCP owns in the U.S. should belong only to the U.S. and not to the CCP, or any other foreign country.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I found another report on COSCO, and it's illegal smuggling of weapons, among some of it's other businesses.


Dirty Business: China Ocean Shipping Company Allegedly Running Guns --and Who Knows What Else -- to Cuba

(Washington, D.C.): A front-page article in today's Washington Times identified the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) as a key player in the ongoing, surreptitious delivery of weapons from China to Cuba. Ironically, this report comes shortly after the COSCO's CEO paid a visit to the Times for the purpose of disavowing widely reported connections between his company and the Chinese military.

According to the Times, Beijing's arms deliveries to Cuba have taken place on at least three separate occasions within the past several months. This pattern of reported transfers belie the claim that COSCO's activities are solely driven by the pursuit of profit, independent of the Chinese government's foreign policy agenda. Instead, it seems far more likely that COSCO -- a 100% Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) -- is doing precisely what its owners instruct it to do, i.e., supporting the PRC's goal of increasing military and economic collaboration between Havana and Beijing.


Now, the most important part is what follows.


Mr. Suettinger, who described Chung as a "hustler," also stated in a White House memo: "And to the degree it motivates him to continue contributing to the [Democratic National Committee], who am I to complain," Mr. Suettinger said. "Cosco is the merchant marine arm of the PLA Navy," Mr. Timperlake said. "If the Chinese military ever mobilized troops for action against Taiwan, Cosco would be part of the operation."

Cosco ships would provide arms and logistics support for Chinese military operations, U.S. officials said.


Al Santoli, a national security aide to Rep. Dana Rorhabacher, said Cosco is well-known for worldwide support of Chinese weapons sales.


www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org...

Anyone who is remotely interested in what COSCO is, and the businesses it has been doing should read the information in the above link.

Anyways, with everything that we know, do we truly want COSCO to keep owning Pier J in LA? I don't think so.

BTW, I still haven't received a response from Mr. Santoli, I will write to him again tomorrow and every two days until I receive a response from him. I will give an update on what he says if he allows me to make public what he has to say.





[edit on 23-3-2006 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join