Cox Comitee Report - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Cox Comitee Report

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Cox Comitee Report

Hugo Rune posted 05-27-99 08:12 AM ET
So, China has all of Uncle Sams Nuclear weapon plans. coo. What does that mean for US/China relations? For American military strategy?
walruskkkch posted 05-27-99 09:29 AM ET
It means that now, more than ever, we need to
protect our Second Amendment rights. Once the
bombs, that Clinton made possible, start falling we will have to protect ourselves. It
was bad enough secrets were stolen under Bush
and Reagan, Clinton just sold the store to
get re-elected.
OhWell posted 05-27-99 10:07 AM ET
"Clinton just sold the store..."
Real cheap too!
Fjorxc the Maniac posted 05-27-99 10:22 AM ET
Well, it means that I'm glad I have a civil defense handbook to be used in case of nuclear war. True, it's a British one from 1980, but still...
This incident will probably worsen US-China relations, as well. You wouldn't get along with somebody very well if you found out they'd stolen your car and claimed they didn't, would you?

Fjorxc the Maniac
Unwashed Village Idiot,
Wanderer,
CWALer,
8th Canadian Faction of Humanity.
Cameleon posted 05-27-99 10:50 AM ET
Nah, you have nothing to worry about. The first nuclear war will be between India and Pakistan. That's where the real threat is....
SnowFire posted 05-27-99 04:53 PM ET
Yes, India & Pakistan are much more likely to use nukes than the US or China.
walruskkkch, surely you jest. The weapons the gun-nuts want to protect are nigh-on-useless against modern weaponry, but they're good enough to kill many civilians in crime cases. Take your pick: Give military grade weapons to civilians (not likely), or simply keep guns out of civilians hands to reduce crime. Plus, you admit yourself that the theft was going on under Reagen and Bush, and Clinton's administration was the one who finally found it. Lastly, it's not like Clinton actually sold the weapons to China, like Reagan did in Iran-Contra, rather there was just security lapses.
Wraith posted 05-27-99 07:44 PM ET
--"or simply keep guns out of civilians hands to reduce crime."
This is a topic for another thread, and it's been rather heatedly debated recently. Just for the record, this statement is totally false, and if you want to contest my comment, start another thread.
--"and Clinton's administration was the one who finally found it."
Yes, as much as he tried not to, he found out about it. Of course, it took a New York Times and a Washington Post story before anyone owned up to it, but they found it.
I've been following this, and the number of people in the US government that should be thrown out for incompetence are legion. Start with the National Security Advisor, continue to the Energy Secretary, take a short trip over to the Attourney General, and take a peak up at the Pres himself (first president in history to be impeached twice?).
At best, this is a stunning display of incompetence, lack of communication, willful ignorance, and a dangerous level of influence from campaign contributions. At worst, this is just what OhWell said, a deliberate sell-off of national secrets.
There are too many suspicious coincidences involved, not to mention huge amounts of money, to make this a matter that can be passed over. That Janet Reno has done so indicates something of a political ass-covering, if not a deliberate cover up. The simple fact that the worst two companies involved in this (it wasn't all stolen from national labs) are Lorel and Huges, the former being the single biggest democratic contributor in the 1996 campaign (just when all this stuff was being found out, since the spy reports were at least the National Security Advisor level in '95). Both of them transfered missile guidance technology (among other things, and including machine tools) under relaxed export controls approved by Clinton himself, despite warning from the Justice Department (note: not Reno), who were already investigating Lorel for just such acts.
--"rather there was just security lapses."
There's no "just" about this. At minimum, it was a inexcusable, willful lack of attention to the subject on Clinton and his supporters parts to avoid negative media publicity in a politically tough time for the Pres. At worst, the President of the United States has been bought and paid for by the Chinese goverment. I don't think the worst is true, since Clinton doesn't have the guts to stick that course out, but even the best case scenario is one of the worst incidents in the history of the US.
Wraith
In nature, there are no rewards or punishments - only consequences
Spoe posted 05-27-99 08:03 PM ET
Chameleon: Interesting you should mention this, what with Kashmir heating up again. I see the Pakistanis claim to have downed 2 Indian planes today(a MiG-21 and a MiG-27, 1 pilot captured, 1 killed).
Timexwatch posted 05-27-99 08:30 PM ET
I just don't like the idea of neutron bomb plans and W-88 specs floating around inside Communist China. They are unfriendly enough already and from what I've seen, all to willing to sell plans to whoever can pony up the money. India and Pakistan are bad enough, but does any county need nations like Iran or North Korea to have any type of nuclear capibility..............I didn't think so.
SnowFire posted 05-27-99 09:23 PM ET
Wraith: Kill the word "just." I was trying to say that a willful selling of weapons to "bad" countries is worse than incompetence letting the weapons get stolen. And I fully agree that Clinton's administration should have done a lot better job and looked into the matter sooner... but they figured it out eventually. And again, Reagan and Bush commited similar sins, so there's plenty of blame to go around.
"this statement is totally false"
I completely agree. What, you were refering to my statement, not yours? Never mind. In any case, I'm not sure if I want to start a new thread to go the full 12 rounds yet, but the stats are on my side- households with guns in them are 3 times more likely to have a gun-related accident. Also, look at the gun deaths for places like Great Britain or Australia. Yes, there are people who are trained and competent and use their guns intelligently. But- and I'm terribly sorry to have say this- my right to be safe is a higher god than their right to have a gun.
Imran Siddiqui posted 05-27-99 09:58 PM ET
Lastly, it's not like Reagan actually sold the weapons to Iran, like Clinton did in China, there was just security lapses.
I just love how wods are just so interchangable! And it can be true in this way as well! Touche!
Imran Siddiqui
walruskkkch posted 05-27-99 10:34 PM ET
The protect the second amendment remark was in reference to what we will have left to defend our homes and property AFTER a nuke
attack, not protect us from the nukes themselves. As far as the gun debate goes, the reason for the second amendment is that the founders were wary of centralized government and wanted the people to retain some measure of protection from a state which would wield unrestricted and uncontested coersive power over them. If today some individuals break the law to kill creating newer ones won't stop them. Why not laws against nails, propane tanks and the other sundry items the kids in Colorado used to build bombs? Why not ban kids under 21 from driving cars? They kill many more people
than guns in schools. The ultimate problem with freedom is that it so darned messy! Some
people abuse it but where is the point were
you limit the freedom of the majority because of the crimes of the few? By the way the scariest part of the China thefts is that it might not end there. Who will THEY
sell the secrets to? Maybe a war between China and the US is a remote thing, but what if they sold the secrets to building miniture
weapons to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan
or a terrorist group? How would you feel in SMAC if someone stole your tech and then gave it to others and you lost your lead in technology? Oh well, just trying to get back on track.
Wraith posted 05-27-99 10:48 PM ET
--"all to willing to sell plans to whoever can pony up the money."
This is certainly another part of the problem. Who knows where all these things will end up now.
--"Kill the word "just.""
Gladly
--"And again, Reagan and Bush commited similar sins, so there's plenty of blame to go around."
I'm not aware of any cases where Reagan or Bush were notified of foreign espionage and failed to do anything about it until after the press started publishing articles about it, and then tried to claim he'd never been notified of it. Please, enlighten us on the details.
--"I'm not sure if I want to start a new thread to go the full 12 rounds yet,"
Then, please, don't bring up here again. The Cox report is a serious enough matter on it's own, trying to wade through two nasty debates at once is a bit more than I care to do right now, and if we leave gun control in this thread, it'll quickly dominate (since it's an issue that's been around a lot longer).
Wraith
Resistance is useless! (If < 1 ohm)
Wraith posted 05-27-99 10:59 PM ET
A quick note...
I just started skimming the Cox report (hope to have time to give it a full reading, but I doubt it), and found something very interesting. Specifically, how the US found out about the nuclear secret thefts.

In 1995, a "walk-in" approached the Central Intelligence Agency outside of the PRC and provided an official PRC document classified "Secret" that contained design information on the W-88 Trident D-5 warhead, the most modern in the U.S. arsenal, as well as technical information concerning other thermonuclear warheads.
The CIA later determined that the "walk-in" was directed by the PRC intelligence services. Nonetheless, the CIA and other Intelligence Community analysts that reviewed the document concluded that it contained U.S. thermonuclear warhead design information.

Cox Report, Chapter 2
So, you see, they didn't "find this out" and put a stop to it, the Chinese bloody well went up the CIA and thumbed their noses at them. How in the bloody blue blazes can anyone give Clinton any credit at all for this? Keep in mind that even after this happened it still took almost four years and a major news break to get anything done about this.
Oh, yes, for anyone looking to see this report, the online version is at http://www.house.gov/coxreport/cont/gncont.html
Wraith
Non-linear, far from equilibrium and strangely attracted.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Cox Comitee Report
Hugo Rune	posted 05-27-99 08:12 AM ET So, China has all of Uncle Sams Nuclear weapon plans. coo. What does that mean for US/China relations? For American military strategy?
walruskkkch	posted 05-27-99 09:29 AM ET It means that now, more than ever, we need to protect our Second Amendment rights. Once the bombs, that Clinton made possible, start falling we will have to protect ourselves. It was bad enough secrets were stolen under Bush and Reagan, Clinton just sold the store to get re-elected.
OhWell	posted 05-27-99 10:07 AM ET "Clinton just sold the store..." Real cheap too!
Fjorxc the Maniac	posted 05-27-99 10:22 AM ET Well, it means that I'm glad I have a civil defense handbook to be used in case of nuclear war. True, it's a British one from 1980, but still... This incident will probably worsen US-China relations, as well. You wouldn't get along with somebody very well if you found out they'd stolen your car and claimed they didn't, would you? Fjorxc the Maniac Unwashed Village Idiot, Wanderer, CWALer, 8th Canadian Faction of Humanity.
Cameleon	posted 05-27-99 10:50 AM ET Nah, you have nothing to worry about. The first nuclear war will be between India and Pakistan. That's where the real threat is....
SnowFire	posted 05-27-99 04:53 PM ET Yes, India & Pakistan are much more likely to use nukes than the US or China. walruskkkch, surely you jest. The weapons the gun-nuts want to protect are nigh-on-useless against modern weaponry, but they're good enough to kill many civilians in crime cases. Take your pick: Give military grade weapons to civilians (not likely), or simply keep guns out of civilians hands to reduce crime. Plus, you admit yourself that the theft was going on under Reagen and Bush, and Clinton's administration was the one who finally found it. Lastly, it's not like Clinton actually sold the weapons to China, like Reagan did in Iran-Contra, rather there was just security lapses.
Wraith	posted 05-27-99 07:44 PM ET --"or simply keep guns out of civilians hands to reduce crime." This is a topic for another thread, and it's been rather heatedly debated recently. Just for the record, this statement is totally false, and if you want to contest my comment, start another thread. --"and Clinton's administration was the one who finally found it." Yes, as much as he tried not to, he found out about it. Of course, it took a New York Times and a Washington Post story before anyone owned up to it, but they found it. I've been following this, and the number of people in the US government that should be thrown out for incompetence are legion. Start with the National Security Advisor, continue to the Energy Secretary, take a short trip over to the Attourney General, and take a peak up at the Pres himself (first president in history to be impeached twice?). At best, this is a stunning display of incompetence, lack of communication, willful ignorance, and a dangerous level of influence from campaign contributions. At worst, this is just what OhWell said, a deliberate sell-off of national secrets. There are too many suspicious coincidences involved, not to mention huge amounts of money, to make this a matter that can be passed over. That Janet Reno has done so indicates something of a political ass-covering, if not a deliberate cover up. The simple fact that the worst two companies involved in this (it wasn't all stolen from national labs) are Lorel and Huges, the former being the single biggest democratic contributor in the 1996 campaign (just when all this stuff was being found out, since the spy reports were at least the National Security Advisor level in '95). Both of them transfered missile guidance technology (among other things, and including machine tools) under relaxed export controls approved by Clinton himself, despite warning from the Justice Department (note: not Reno), who were already investigating Lorel for just such acts. --"rather there was just security lapses." There's no "just" about this. At minimum, it was a inexcusable, willful lack of attention to the subject on Clinton and his supporters parts to avoid negative media publicity in a politically tough time for the Pres. At worst, the President of the United States has been bought and paid for by the Chinese goverment. I don't think the worst is true, since Clinton doesn't have the guts to stick that course out, but even the best case scenario is one of the worst incidents in the history of the US. Wraith In nature, there are no rewards or punishments - only consequences
Spoe	posted 05-27-99 08:03 PM ET Chameleon: Interesting you should mention this, what with Kashmir heating up again. I see the Pakistanis claim to have downed 2 Indian planes today(a MiG-21 and a MiG-27, 1 pilot captured, 1 killed).
Timexwatch	posted 05-27-99 08:30 PM ET I just don't like the idea of neutron bomb plans and W-88 specs floating around inside Communist China. They are unfriendly enough already and from what I've seen, all to willing to sell plans to whoever can pony up the money. India and Pakistan are bad enough, but does any county need nations like Iran or North Korea to have any type of nuclear capibility..............I didn't think so.
SnowFire	posted 05-27-99 09:23 PM ET Wraith: Kill the word "just." I was trying to say that a willful selling of weapons to "bad" countries is worse than incompetence letting the weapons get stolen. And I fully agree that Clinton's administration should have done a lot better job and looked into the matter sooner... but they figured it out eventually. And again, Reagan and Bush commited similar sins, so there's plenty of blame to go around. "this statement is totally false" I completely agree. What, you were refering to my statement, not yours? Never mind. In any case, I'm not sure if I want to start a new thread to go the full 12 rounds yet, but the stats are on my side- households with guns in them are 3 times more likely to have a gun-related accident. Also, look at the gun deaths for places like Great Britain or Australia. Yes, there are people who are trained and competent and use their guns intelligently. But- and I'm terribly sorry to have say this- my right to be safe is a higher god than their right to have a gun.
Imran Siddiqui	posted 05-27-99 09:58 PM ET Lastly, it's not like Reagan actually sold the weapons to Iran, like Clinton did in China, there was just security lapses. I just love how wods are just so interchangable! And it can be true in this way as well! Touche! Imran Siddiqui
walruskkkch	posted 05-27-99 10:34 PM ET The protect the second amendment remark was in reference to what we will have left to defend our homes and property AFTER a nuke attack, not protect us from the nukes themselves. As far as the gun debate goes, the reason for the second amendment is that the founders were wary of centralized government and wanted the people to retain some measure of protection from a state which would wield unrestricted and uncontested coersive power over them. If today some individuals break the law to kill creating newer ones won't stop them. Why not laws against nails, propane tanks and the other sundry items the kids in Colorado used to build bombs? Why not ban kids under 21 from driving cars? They kill many more people than guns in schools. The ultimate problem with freedom is that it so darned messy! Some people abuse it but where is the point were you limit the freedom of the majority because of the crimes of the few? By the way the scariest part of the China thefts is that it might not end there. Who will THEY sell the secrets to? Maybe a war between China and the US is a remote thing, but what if they sold the secrets to building miniture weapons to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan or a terrorist group? How would you feel in SMAC if someone stole your tech and then gave it to others and you lost your lead in technology? Oh well, just trying to get back on track.
Wraith	posted 05-27-99 10:48 PM ET --"all to willing to sell plans to whoever can pony up the money." This is certainly another part of the problem. Who knows where all these things will end up now. --"Kill the word "just."" Gladly --"And again, Reagan and Bush commited similar sins, so there's plenty of blame to go around." I'm not aware of any cases where Reagan or Bush were notified of foreign espionage and failed to do anything about it until after the press started publishing articles about it, and then tried to claim he'd never been notified of it. Please, enlighten us on the details. --"I'm not sure if I want to start a new thread to go the full 12 rounds yet," Then, please, don't bring up here again. The Cox report is a serious enough matter on it's own, trying to wade through two nasty debates at once is a bit more than I care to do right now, and if we leave gun control in this thread, it'll quickly dominate (since it's an issue that's been around a lot longer). Wraith Resistance is useless! (If < 1 ohm)
Wraith	posted 05-27-99 10:59 PM ET A quick note... I just started skimming the Cox report (hope to have time to give it a full reading, but I doubt it), and found something very interesting. Specifically, how the US found out about the nuclear secret thefts. In 1995, a "walk-in" approached the Central Intelligence Agency outside of the PRC and provided an official PRC document classified "Secret" that contained design information on the W-88 Trident D-5 warhead, the most modern in the U.S. arsenal, as well as technical information concerning other thermonuclear warheads. The CIA later determined that the "walk-in" was directed by the PRC intelligence services. Nonetheless, the CIA and other Intelligence Community analysts that reviewed the document concluded that it contained U.S. thermonuclear warhead design information. Cox Report, Chapter 2 So, you see, they didn't "find this out" and put a stop to it, the Chinese bloody well went up the CIA and thumbed their noses at them. How in the bloody blue blazes can anyone give Clinton any credit at all for this? Keep in mind that even after this happened it still took almost four years and a major news break to get anything done about this. Oh, yes, for anyone looking to see this report, the online version is at http://www.house.gov/coxreport/cont/gncont.html Wraith Non-linear, far from equilibrium and strangely attracted.