History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Did anyone catch this line in Max Boot's recent"yellow peril" op-ed, warning that China may be looking into" creating man-made earthquakes" as a way of fighting an asymmetric war against the United States? Meanwhile, neocon national security maven Frank Gaffney warns of a Chinese Pearl Harbor attack on the US via electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon. It occurs to me, as it has before, that a capacity for embarassment is a severe liability for a D.C. wonk, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Having recently soiled the bed on the Iraq issue, one would think that Boot, Gaffney, Woolsey, Kristol, et al. would have the decency to maintain a studied silence on national security issues for a time. Or, failing that, to proceed soberly, cautiously into the discussion--rather than spinning doomsday-weapon scenarios drawn from a 1930's Buck Rogers filmreel. But D.C. is a town where you simply can't get laughed off the stage. Why bother to be careful and judicious?
What I find amazing is how many people insist on slaying strawman arguments.
Is Red China out to exterminate us? Of course not. But wars are often started by a failure to correctly identify what is most important. For the PRC, Taiwan is an important emotional issue. For the US, it is an issue of defending an important economic partner, and a symbol of democratic government. (It isn't perfect, but it is superior to what it used to have in the way of a government, and far superior to the PRC.)
China would not risk nuclear war about Taiwan. Neither would the U.S. But what happens if China perceives the U.S. as willing to allow China to invade Taiwan? But if that perception is wrong? This is what leads to wars.
Richard Ryckoff -
7/31/2005
Another piece of possibly corroborating evidence re. these weapons: the 1989 Loma Prieto San Francisco earthquake. The LA Times ran an article some months later quoting scientists who had been manning monitoring stations around the Bay area. These electronic stations were set up under a Pentagon/Navy contract to supposedly monitor submarines off the Calif. coast. This was advanced technological research and may have been a DARPA project.
These scientists, while making no allegations, reported the fact that several weeks prior to the earthquake, their test equipment started picking up ultra-low frequency waves coming from the within the earth. This was inexplicable to them. Further, they said that in the final days before the earthquake, these low frequency waves multiplied many times in intensity. They had no explanation for this phenomena.
This was, I believe, parallel to some of Tesla's work. The previous comment mentioning HAARP could be related. The gov't., if I remember correctly, took out patents on some of Tesla's concepts prior to building the HAARP facility in Alaska.
There has been research work done in the area of these types of weapons, but it is obscure and obviously not in the mainstream media. In my experience reading and researching these types of covert programs, scoffing at this type of gov't. work is never based on knowledge (but, in fact, usually emotion). I prefer applying the scientific method.
Another history changing example, that many people find shattering and impossible to accept, is the work of Peter Vogel re. "The Last Wave From Port Chicago," showing that the 1945 Trinity Test of the Atomic bomb was NOT the first test shot, and Japanese were NOT the first people to die from an atomic blast. Before you scoff - see www.portchicago.org
As I suggested previously, you'd better check your premises.
Rocky Eades -
7/31/2005
Some on the "looney" left believe that the US - using the "earthquake" weapon (based on Tesla's documented experiments in New York, btw) - caused the Christmas tsunami.
Brian Radzinsky -
7/31/2005
You make a good point. Of course I was operating almost completely on logic and entirely without information. (Incidently the opposite direction guys like Boot take, who have tons of intelligence and not a lick of sense.)
If the existence of these weapons can be corroborated, and they pose a threat, then caution is understandable. However, Boot, I'm almost certain, is operating in the Iraq style of military planning: first find a "threat" and then after declaring it as such, actually "find" the threat.
Brian Radzinsky -
7/31/2005
He'll probably go for fear, as per usual. Just convince the sheep that the Chinese are out to exterminate not just us, but our very existence and culture and he'll be able to at least give us a frosty start. At least he hopes so...
Robert Higgs -
7/30/2005
Gene writes, "Having recently soiled the bed on the Iraq issue, one would think that Boot, Gaffney, Woolsey, Kristol, et al. would have the decency to maintain a studied silence on national security issues for a time. Or, failing that, to proceed soberly, cautiously into the discussion." On the contrary. The tall tales the neocons spread through various channels, from the power-besotted upper reaches of the executive branch to the fetid fever swamps of Fox News viewers, before and since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, have served the disseminators extremely well. The neocons got the war they craved, and U.S. forces remain lodged in Iraq and most likely will remain there for a long, long time—it's hard to walk away from those giant bases, so strategically located for future geopolitical shenanigans. Mission accomplished. Every neocon in the government has either retained his position or been elevated to a higher one. They are living proof not only that the Big Lie works, but that relentless distribution of little lies works, too. Why should they stop now?
David Timothy Beito -
7/30/2005
Correction. The above post by Robert Higgs and was posted under my name by mistake.
David T. Beito -
7/30/2005
Gene writes, "Having recently soiled the bed on the Iraq issue, one would think that Boot, Gaffney, Woolsey, Kristol, et al. would have the decency to maintain a studied silence on national security issues for a time. Or, failing that, to proceed soberly, cautiously into the discussion." On the contrary. The tall tales the neocons spread through various channels, from the power-besotted upper reaches of the executive branch to the fetid fever swamps of Fox News viewers, before and since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, have served the disseminators extremely well. The neocons got the war they craved, and U.S. forces remain lodged in Iraq and most likely will remain there for a long, long time—it's hard to walk away from those giant bases, so strategically located for future geopolitical shenanigans. Mission accomplished. Every neocon in the government has either retained his position or been elevated to a higher one. They are living proof not only that the Big Lie works, but that relentless distribution of little lies works, too. Why should they stop now?
Robert Higgs -
7/30/2005
Gene writes, "Having recently soiled the bed on the Iraq issue, one would think that Boot, Gaffney, Woolsey, Kristol, et al. would have the decency to maintain a studied silence on national security issues for a time. Or, failing that, to proceed soberly, cautiously into the discussion." On the contrary. The tall tales the neocons spread through various channels, from the power-besotted upper reaches of the executive branch to the fetid fever swamps of Fox News viewers, before and since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, have served the disseminators extremely well. The neocons got the war they craved, and U.S. forces remain lodged in Iraq and most likely will remain there for a long, long time—it's hard to walk away from those giant bases, so strategically located for future geopolitical shenanigans. Mission accomplished. Every neocon in the government has either retained his position or been elevated to a higher one. They are living proof not only that the Big Lie works, but that relentless distribution of little lies works, too. Why should they stop now?
Rowan Arthur Berkeley -
7/30/2005
well, yeah, you have the HAARP system, which can fry any given piece of ionosphere. Whether doing this will produce a predictable effect at some desired place on earth is another question, but tinfoil hats might come in handy after all, one day.
David Timothy Beito -
7/30/2005
Interesting information. Thanks.
Richard Ryckoff -
7/30/2005
This actually raises a serious issue - little known - like many, many covert and "black" Pentagon programs.
Max Boot is a typical, i.e., despicable neocon. However, some of these characters know things that most of the rest of us don't (since their connections obviously run to the very top of the Pentagon). Most people, of course, would react the same way as Brian R. and David B. to any suggestion of "seismic weaponry" or "weather weaponry." As a certain philosopher said, it might be appropriate to check your premises...
There is significant evidence that these "Buck Rogers" types of weaponry have been developed for at least 25 or 30 years by the U.S. One piece of evidence: Pres. Carter signed a treaty w/the Soviet Union in the 1970's supposedly outlawing "weather weaponry(!)" You don't pledge to not use something that doesn't or can't exist.
I think Boot, like most right-wingnuts, is trying to scare us with psycho/techno projection. It's much more likely that we have it, not the Chinese. Remember the "missile gap," etc. from 1960.
David T. Beito -
7/29/2005
A Cold or Hot war with China will be a tough sell but Boot will can be depended on to give it the old college try. Of course, he'll have to dream up some sort of "battle of civilizations" scenario to get mainstream conservatives all worked up, perhaps some sort of modernized version of the Mask of Fu Manchu.
Brian Radzinsky -
7/29/2005
And once China destroys us with their CONTRIVED EARTHQUAKE OF DOOM (official name, my sources tell me), they'll promptly clone millions of *new* Americans to replace those that have died and are no longer able to buy all their inexpensive goods.
