The political media establishment is the enemy


11-30-2015 7-41-02 AM

The 2016 election is not a contest between the Democrat and Republican ideologies, nor is it a choice among various approaches to address the nation’s problems, but something far more fundamental.

It is a battle between the entrenched power of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.
It is a conflict between those who want to adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law and the party leaders and a biased media, who wish to continue the practices of political expediency and crony capitalism.

It is a decadent system the political-media elite created and continues to nurture, one that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

There are only two issues that matter for the 2016 election: the political-media establishment is hopelessly corrupt and, although we have elections, we no longer have representative government.

It is a system, not incapable of, but largely unwilling to solve pressing national issues like illegal immigration, a moribund economy or the threat from radical Islam.

It is because solutions benefitting the American people conflict with the financial or ideological interests of the oligarchy, the Democrat and Republican establishments, the media and their financiers, who every four years hire a President.

It is a system that, through benign, if not criminal neglect, made possible the two-term Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, who, if he continues unopposed, will fundamentally transform the United States from a capitalist republic based on Judeo-Christian democratic principles into some kind of Islamo-Marxist totalitarian perversion, a permanently weakened and fragmented America.

It is now but a tiny step to Obama’s “America” from that which the oligarchy has already shaped, a composite government of J. L. Talmon’s “totalitarian democracy” and Sheldon S. Wolin’s “managed democracy.”

That is, a political system in which lawfully elected representatives rule a nation state whose citizens, although granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of government; a country where citizens are politically uninterested and submissive – and where elites are eager to keep them that way.

Thomas Jefferson feared that it would only be a matter of time before the American system of government degenerated into a form of “elective despotism” (1785), now fostered by corrupt politicians, enabled by wealthy special interests and facilitated by a compliant press.

“They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.”

Is it not true that members of Congress seek election, not to uphold the Constitution and serve the American people, but to obtain power, and to use that power to accrue professional and financial benefits for themselves and their major supporters?

Is it not true that all the traditional means for the American people to seek the redress of grievances have now been blocked by a self-absorbed permanent political-media elite unaccountable to the American people?

Is it not true that the current tenant in the White House leads a dishonest and lawless cabal of anti-American ideologues, who engage in activities and foster policies that risk the survival of the American republic, undermine the security of its citizens and abrogate their unalienable rights?

Is it not true that when the blatant and outrageous lies of the political-media establishment are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail liberty and oppress the people in order to remain in power?

Is it not true, as Thomas Jefferson predicted that corruption has seized the heads of our present-day government in a manner similar to that which sparked the American Revolution?
Ladies and gentlemen, we are now on our own.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at

10 13 11 flagbar

Constitution, Exposed Conspiracy To Subvert The American Republic Uncovered


11-27-2015 12-26-16 PM

*No Lawyers Allowed In Public Office*
TMR Editor’s Note:

The following investigative research project is of paramount importance. It is perhaps the most consequential ever undertaken regarding the foundational documents of the United States of America. Truly, it doesn’t get any more serious than the stunning revelations which have emerged from this clandestine plot to wrongfully alter the U.S. Constitution and subvert the American Republic.
Should this British conspiracy to subjugate the USA, which was directly responsible for the excising of the original 13th Amendment ever become common knowledge, virtually the entire U.S. Congress would be deemed illegitimate. In view of the current state of Congressional affairs, it’s no wonder that lawyers and attorneys could not be trusted to responsibly handle the people’s business. Their loyalties have always lied elsewhere.
It’s now a well-known fact of life that the legal class of the USA has degenerated into the most untrustworthy and treasonous, deceitful and dishonest. This certain eventuality was deeply feared by the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. It was for this very reason that the original 13th Amendment was carefully deliberated and legally ratified. However, it was then unlawfully removed from the U.S. Constitution “during the tumult of the Civil War” (after being completely ignored for decades). As follows:
*CAVEAT: It is because lawyers and attorneys formally registered with the BAR (British Accredited Registry) that they could not be trusted to hold public office in the fledgling United States of America. By implicitly pledging their allegience to an entity of a foreign government, they could not be trusted to act in the best interest of the American Republic or its citizens. This was particularly the case when the lawyers made their vows to the BAR of Great Britain, the USA’s only major enemy that threatened its very existence.
The Millennium Report
The Missing 13th Amendment:
*No Lawyers Allowed In Public Office*
13th Amendment — Missing

11-27-2015 12-29-56 PM

Written by David M. Dodge, Researcher
Date: 08/01/91
In the winter of 1983, archival research expert David Dodge, and former Baltimore police investigator Tom Dunn, were searching for evidence of government corruption in public records stored in the Belfast Library on the coast of Maine.
By chance, they discovered the library’s oldest authentic copy of the Constitution of the United States (printed in 1825). Both men were stunned to see this document included a 13th Amendment that no longer appears on current copies of the Constitution. Moreover, after studying the Amendment’s language and historical context, they realized the principle
intent of this “missing” 13th Amendment was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government. So began a seven year, nationwide search for the truth surrounding the most bizarre Constitutional puzzle in American history — the unlawful removal of a ratified Amendment from the Constitution of the United States.
Since 1983, Dodge and Dunn have uncovered additional copies of the Constitution with the “missing” 13th Amendment printed in at least eighteen separate publications by ten different states and territories over four decades from 1822 to 1860. In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from the U.S. Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today. The implications are

The story of this “missing” Amendment is complex and at times confusing because the political issues and vocabulary of the American Revolution were different from our own. However, there are essentially two issues: What does the Amendment mean? and, Was the Amendment ratified? Before we consider the issue of ratification, we should first understand the Amendment’s meaning and consequent current relevance.
MEANING of the 13th Amendment

The “missing” 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of

Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

At the first reading, the meaning of this 13th Amendment (also called the “title of nobility” Amendment) seems obscure; unimportant. The references to “nobility,” “honour,” “emperor,” “king,” and “prince,” lead us to dismiss this Amendment as a petty post-revolution act of spite directed against the British monarchy. The U.S. modern world of Lady Di and Prince Charles, make anti-royalist sentiments seem so archaic and quaint, that the Amendment can be ignored.

Not so. Consider some evidence of its historical significance: First, “titles of nobility” were prohibited in both Article VI of the Articles of Confederation (1777) and in Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution of the United States (1787);
Second, although already prohibited by the Constitution, an additional “title of nobility” amendment was proposed in 1789, again in 1810, and according to Dodge, finally ratified in 1819. Clearly, the founding fathers saw such a serious threat in “titles of nobility” and “honors” that anyone receiving them would forfeit their citizenship. Since the government prohibited “titles of nobility” several times over four decades, and went through the amending process (even though “titles of nobility” were already prohibited by the Constitution), it’s obvious that the Amendment carried much more significance for our founding fathers than is readily apparent today.


To understand the meaning of this “missing” 13th Amendment, we must understand its historical context — the era surrounding the American Revolution. We tend to regard the notion of “Democracy” as benign, harmless, and politically unremarkable. But at the time of the American Revolution, King George III and the other monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly ideological threat, every bit as dangerously radical as Communism was once regarded by modern Western nations. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies.

Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid

Mary, the principle source of radical democracy that was destroying monarchies around the world. The monarchies must have realized that if the principle source of that infection could be destroyed, the rest of the world might avoid the contagion and the monarchies would be saved. Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception — it was, perhaps, the first “cold war”. Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy’s counter- revolutionary efforts emanated
from English banks.

DON’T BANK ON IT (Modern Banking System)

The essence of banking was once explained by Sir Josiah Stamp, a former president of the Bank of England:”The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin… Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again… Take this great power away from them, or if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

The last great abuse of the U.S. banking system caused the depression of the 1930’s. Today’s abuses may cause another. Current S&L and bank scandals illustrate the on-going relationships between banks, lawyers, politicians, and government agencies (look at the current BCCI bank scandal, involving lawyer Clark Clifford, politician Jimmy Carter, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and even the CIA). These scandals are the direct result of years of law-breaking by an alliance of bankers and lawyers using their influence and money to corrupt the political process and rob the public. (Think you’re not being robbed? Guess who’s going to pay the bill for the excesses of the S&L’s, U.S.-taxpayer? You are.) The systematic robbery of productive individuals by parasitic bankers and lawyers is not a recent phenomenon. This abuse is a human tradition that predates the Bible and spread from Europe to America despite early colonial prohibitions.

When the first United States Bank was chartered by Congress in 1790, there were only three state banks in existence. At one time, banks were prohibited by law in most states because many of the early settlers were all too familiar with the practices of the European goldsmith banks. Goldsmith banks were safe-houses used to store client’s gold. In exchange for the deposited gold, customers were issued notes (paper money) which were redeemable in gold. The goldsmith bankers quickly succumbed to the temptation to issue “extra” notes, (unbacked by gold). Why? Because the “extra” notes enriched the bankers by allowing them to buy property with notes for gold that they did not own, gold that did not even exist. Colonists knew that bankers occasionally printed too much paper money, found themselves over-leveraged, and caused a “run on the bank”. If the bankers lacked sufficient gold to meet the demand, the paper money became worthless and common citizens left holding the paper were ruined. Although over-leveraged bankers were sometime hung, the bankers continued printing extra money to increase their fortunes at the expense of the productive
members of society. (The practice continues to this day, and offers “sweetheart” loans to bank insiders, and even provides the foundation for deficit spending and the U.S. Federal government’s unbridled growth.)


If the colonists forgot the lessons of goldsmith bankers, the American Revolution refreshed their memories. To finance the war, Congress authorized the printing of continental bills of credit in an amount not to exceed $200,000,000. The States issued another $200,000,000 in paper notes. Ultimately, the value of the paper money fell so low that they were soon traded on speculation from 5000 to 1000 paper bills for one coin. It’s often suggested that the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against a paper economy — “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in Payment of Debts” — was a tool of the wealthy to be worked to the disadvantage of all others. But only in a “paper” economy can money reproduce itself and increase the claims of the wealthy at the
expense of the productive.

“Paper money,” said Pelatiah Webster, “polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of U.S. country, and went far to destroy the morality of U.S. people.”


A few examples of the attempts by the monarchies and banks that almost succeeded in destroying the United States:
According to the Tennessee Laws (1715-1820, vol. II, p. 774), in the 1794 Jay Treaty, the United States agreed to pay 600,000 pounds sterling to King George III, as reparations for the American revolution. The Senate ratified the treaty in secret session and ordered that it not be published. When Benjamin Franklin’s grandson published it anyway, the exposure and resulting public uproar so angered the Congress that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) so federal judges could prosecute editors and publishers for reporting the truth about the government. Since we had won the Revolutionary War, why would U.S. Senators agree to pay reparations to the loser? And why would they agree to pay 600,000 pounds sterling, eleven years after the war ended? It doesn’t make sense, especially in light of Senate’s secrecy and later fury over being exposed, unless we assume U.S. Senators had been bribed to serve the British monarchy and betray the American people. That’s subversion.

The United States Bank had been opposed by the Jeffersonians from the beginning, but the Federalists (the pro-monarchy party) won out in its establishment. The initial capitalization was $10,000,000 — 80% of which would be owned by foreign bankers. Since the bank was authorized to lend up to $20,000,000 (double its paid in capital), it was a profitable deal for both the government and the bankers since they could lend, and collect interest on, $10,000,000 that didn’t exist.

However, the European bankers outfoxed the government and by 1796, the government owed the bank $6,200,000 and was forced to sell its shares. (By 1802, the U.S. government owned no stock in the United States Bank.) The sheer power of the banks and their ability to influence representative government by economic manipulation and outright bribery was exposed in 1811, when the people discovered that European banking interests owned 80% of the bank. Congress therefore refused to renew the bank’s charter. This led to the withdrawal of $7,000,000 in specie by European investors, which in turn, precipitated an economic recession, and the War of 1812. That’s destruction.

There are undoubtedly other examples of the monarchy’s efforts to subvert or destroy the United States; some are common knowledge, others remain to be disclosed to the public. For example, David Dodge discovered a book called “2 VA LAW” in the Library of Congress Law Library. According to Dodge, “This is an un-catalogued book in the rare book section that reveals a plan to overthrow the constitutional government by secret agreements engineered by the lawyers. That is one of the reasons why this Amendment was ratified by Virginia and the notification was lost in the mail. There is no public record that this book exists.” That may sound surprising, but according to The Gazette (5/10/91), “the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts.” There may be secrets buried in that mass of documents even more astonishing than a missing Constitutional Amendment.


In seeking to rule the world and destroy the United States, bankers committed many crimes. Foremost among these crimes were fraud, conversion, and plain old theft. To escape prosecution for their crimes, the bankers did the same thing any career criminal does. They hired and formed alliances with the best lawyers and judges money could buy. These alliances, originally forged in Europe (particularly in Great Britain), spread to the colonies, and later into the newly formed United States of America.

Despite their criminal foundation, these alliances generated wealth, and ultimately, respectability. Like any modern member of organized crime, English bankers and lawyers wanted to be admired as “legitimate businessmen”. As their criminal fortunes grew so did their usefulness, so the British monarchy legitimized these thieves by granting them “titles of nobility”.

Historically, the British peerage system referred to knights as “Squires” and to those who bore the knight’s shields as “Esquires”. As lances, shields, and physical violence gave way to the more civilized means of theft, the pen grew mightier (and more profitable) than the sword, and the clever wielders of those pens (bankers and lawyers) came to hold titles of nobility. The most common title was “Esquire” (used, even today, by some lawyers).


In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most held no “title of nobility” or “honor”. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen’s “counsel of choice” was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state or national bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquartered in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank “Esquire” — a “title of nobility”. “Esquire” was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States.

Why? Because the loyalty of “Esquire” lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an “Esquire” behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.
Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a “title of nobility” amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government.


The missing Amendment is referred to as the “title of nobility” Amendment, but the second prohibition against “honour” (honor), may be more significant.

According to David Dodge, Tom Dunn, and Webster’s Dictionary, the archaic definition of “honor” (as used when the 13th Amendment was ratified) meant anyone “obtaining or having an advantage or privilege over another”. A contemporary example of an “honor” granted to only a few Americans is the privilege of being a judge: Lawyers can be judges and exercise the attendant privileges and powers; non-lawyers cannot.

By prohibiting “honors”, the missing Amendment prohibits any advantage or privilege that would grant some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Therefore, the second meaning (intent) of the 13th Amendment was to ensure political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even government officials, from claiming or exercising a special privilege or power (an “honor”) over other citizens.
If this interpretation is correct, “honor” would be the key concept in the 13th Amendment. Why? Because, while “titles of nobility” may no longer apply in today’s political system, the concept of “honor” remains relevant. For example, anyone who had a specific “immunity” from lawsuits which were not afforded to all citizens, would be enjoying a separate privilege, an “honor”, and would therefore forfeit his right to vote or hold public office. Think of the “immunities” from lawsuits that U.S. judges, lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats currently enjoy. As another example, think of all the “special interest” legislation the U.S. government passes: “special interests” are simply euphemisms for “special privileges” (honors).

WHAT IF? (Implications if Restored)

If the missing 13th Amendment were restored, “special interests” and “immunities” might be rendered unconstitutional. The prohibition against “honors” (privileges) would compel the entire government to operate under the same laws as the citizens of this nation. Without their current personal immunities (honors), US judges and I.R.S. agents would be unable to abuse common citizens without fear of legal liability. If this 13th Amendment were restored, the entire U.S. Government would have to conduct itself according to the same standards of decency, respect, law, and liability as the rest of the nation. If this Amendment and the term “honor” were applied today, U.S. Government’s ability to systematically coerce and abuse the public would be all but eliminated.

Imagine! A government without special privileges or immunities. How could we describe it? It would be … almost like … a government … of the people … by the people … for the people! Imagine: a government … whose members were truly accountable to the public; a government that could not systematically exploit its own people! It’s unheard of … it’s never been done before. Not ever in the entire history of the world.

Bear in mind that Senator George Mitchell of Maine and the U.S. National Archives concede this 13th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. However, they explain that there were seventeen states when Congress proposed the “title of nobility” Amendment; that ratification required the thirteen states, but since only twelve states supported the Amendment, it was not ratified. The Government Printing Office agrees; it currently prints copies of the Constitution of the United States which include the “title of nobility” Amendment as proposed, but un-ratified.

Even if this 13th Amendment were never ratified, even if Dodge and Dunn’s research or reasoning is flawed or incomplete, it would still be an extraordinary story. Can you imagine, can you understand how close the US came to having a political paradise, right here on Earth? Do you realize what an extraordinary gift our forebears tried to bequeath us? And how close we came? One vote. One state’s vote.

The federal government concedes that twelve states voted to ratify this Amendment between 1810 and 1812. But they argue that ratification require thirteen states, so the Amendment lays stillborn in history, unratified for lack of a just one more state’s support. One vote. David Dodge, however, says one more state did ratify, and he claims he has the evidence to prove it.


In 1789, the House of Representatives compiled a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which would ultimately become our Bill of Rights. The House proposed seventeen; the Senate reduced the list to twelve. During this process that Senator Tristrain Dalton (Mass.) proposed an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “title of Nobility” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it wasn’t passed, this was the first time a “title of nobility” amendment was proposed.

Twenty years later, in January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed another “Title of Nobility” Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in the affirmative 87 to 3; and the following resolve was sent to the States for ratification:

“If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The Constitution requires three-quarters of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before it may be added to the Constitution. When Congress proposed the “Title of Nobility” Amendment in 1810, there were states, thirteen of which would have to ratify for the Amendment to be adopted. According to the National Archives, the following is a list of the twelve states that ratified, and their dates of ratification:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812

Before a thirteenth state could ratify, the War of 1812 broke out with England. By the time the war ended in 1814, the British had burned the Capitol, the Library of Congress, and most of the records of the first 38 years of government. Whether there was a connection between the proposed “title of nobility” amendment and the War of 1812 is not known. However, the momentum to ratify the proposed Amendment was lost in the tumult of war.

Then, four years later, on December 31, 1817, the House of Representatives resolved that President Monroe inquire into the status of this Amendment. In a letter dated February 6, 1818, President Monroe reported to the House that the Secretary of State Adams had written to the governors of Virginia, South Carolina and Connecticut to tell them that the proposed Amendment had been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76) (This, and other letters written by the President and the Secretary of State during the month of February, 1818, note only that the proposed Amendment had not yet been ratified. However, these letters would later become crucial because, in the absence of additional information they would be interpreted to mean the amendment was never ratified).

On February 28, 1818, Secretary of State Adams reported the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina. [House Doc. No. 129]. There are no further entries regarding the ratification of the 13th Amendment in the Journals of Congress; whether Virginia ratified is neither confirmed nor denied. Likewise, a search through the executive papers of Governor Preston of Virginia does not reveal any correspondence from Secretary of State Adams. (However, there is a journal entry in the Virginia House that the Governor presented the House with an official letter and documents from Washington within a time frame that conceivably includes receipt of Adams’ letter.) Again, no evidence of ratification; none of denial.

However, on March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, “misc.’ file, p. 299 for micro-film): “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto…” This act was the specific legislated instructions on what was, by law, to be included in the re-publication (a special edition) of the Virginia Civil Code. The Virginia Legislature had already agreed that all Acts were to go into effect on the same day — the day that the Act to re-publish the Civil Code was enacted. Therefore, the 13th Amendment’s official date of ratification would be the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819.

The Delegates knew Virginia was the last of the 13 States that were necessary for the ratification of the 13th Amendment. They also knew there were powerful forces allied against this ratification so they took extraordinary measures to make sure that it was published in sufficient quantity (4,000 copies were ordered, almost triple their usual order), and instructed the printer to send a copy to President James Monroe as well as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. (The printer, Thomas Ritchie, was bonded. He was required to be extremely accurate in his research and his printing, or he would forfeit his bond.)

In this fashion, Virginia announced the ratification: by publication and dissemination of the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or
communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right announce their own and the nation’s ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did.
Word of Virginia’s 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860. So far, David Dodge has identified eleven different states or territories that printed the Amendment in twenty separate publications over forty-one years. And more editions including this 13th Amendment are sure to be discovered. Clearly, Dodge is onto something.

You might be able to convince some of the people, or maybe even all of them, for a little while, that this 13th Amendment was never ratified. Maybe you can show them that the ten legislatures which ordered it published eighteen times we’ve discovered (so far) consisted of ignorant politicians who don’t know their amendments from their… ahh, articles. You might even be able to convince the public that our U.S. forefathers never meant to “outlaw” public servants who pushed people around, accepted bribes or special favors to “look the other way.” Maybe. But before you do, there’s an awful lot of evidence to be explained.


In 1829, the following note appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the New York Revised Statutes:
“In the edition of the Laws of the U.S. before referred to, there is an amendment printed as article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See Vol. IV of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th congress, No. 76.” In 1854, a similar note appeared in the Oregon Statutes. Both notes refer to the Laws of the United States, 1st vol. p. 73 (or 74).

It’s not yet clear whether the 13th Amendment was published in Laws of the United States, 1st Vol., prematurely, by accident, in anticipation of Virginia’s ratification, or as part of a plot to discredit the Amendment by making it appear that only twelve States had ratified. Whether the Laws of the United States Vol. 1 (carrying the 13th Amendment) was re-called or made-up is unknown. In fact, it’s not even clear that the specified volume was actually printed — the Law Library of the Library of Congress has no record of its existence.

However, because the noted authors reported no further references to the 13th Amendment after the Presidential letter of February, 1818, they apparently assumed the ratification process had ended in failure at that time. If so, they neglected to seek information on the Amendment after 1818, or at the state level, and therefore missed the evidence of Virginia’s ratification. This opinion — assuming that the Presidential letter of February, 1818, was the last word on the Amendment — has persisted to this day.

In 1849, Virginia decided to revise the 1819 Civil Code of Virginia (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). It was at that time that one of the code’s revisers (a lawyer named Patton) wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, William B. Preston, asking if this Amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston wrote to J. M. Clayton, the Secretary of State, who replied that this Amendment was not ratified by a sufficient number of States. This conclusion was based upon the information that Secretary of State John Quincy Adams had provided the House of Representatives in 1818, before Virginia’s ratification in 1819. (Even today, the Congressional Research Service tells anyone asking about this 13th Amendment this same story: that only twelve states, not the
requisite thirteen, had ratified.)

However, despite Clayton’s opinion, the Amendment continued to be published in various states and territories for at least another eleven years (the last known publication was in the Nebraska territory in 1860). Once again the 13th Amendment was caught in the riptides of American politics. South Carolina seceded from the Union in December of 1860, signaling the onset of the Civil War. In March, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated.
Later in 1861, another proposed amendment, also numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president.

That resolve to amend read: “ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states’ rights. Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. In the tumult of 1865, the original 13th Amendment was finally removed from the US Constitution. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states’ rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee’s surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the “new” 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment that had prohibited “titles of nobility” and “honors”.


To create the present oligarchy (rule by lawyers) which the U.S. now endures, the lawyers first had to remove the 13th “titles of nobility” Amendment that might otherwise have kept them in check. In fact, it was not until after the Civil War and after the disappearance of this 13th Amendment, that American bar associations began to appear and exercise political power.

Since the unlawful deletion of the 13th Amendment, the newly developing bar associations began working diligently to create a system wherein lawyers took on a title of privilege and nobility as “Esquires” and received the “honor” of offices and positions (like district attorney or judge) that only they could hold. By virtue of these titles, honors, and special privileges, lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the majority of U.S. citizens. Through these privileges, they have nearly established a two-tiered citizenship in this nation where a majority may vote, but only a minority (lawyers) may run for political office. This two-tiered citizenship is clearly contrary to Americans’ political interests, the nation’s economic welfare, and the Constitution’s egalitarian spirit.

The significance of this missing 13th Amendment and its deletion from the Constitution is this: Since the amendment was never lawfully nullified, it is still in full force and effect and is the Law of the land. If public support could be awakened, this missing Amendment might provide a legal basis to challenge many existing laws and court decisions previously made by lawyers who were unconstitutionally elected or appointed to their positions of power; it might even mean the removal of lawyers from the current US government system.

At the very least, this missing 13th Amendment demonstrates that two centuries ago, lawyers were recognized as enemies of the people and nation. Some things never change.

THOSE WHO CANNOT RECALL HISTORY …. Heed warnings of Founding Fathers In his farewell address, George Washington warned of “… change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” In 1788, Thomas Jefferson proposed that we have a Declaration of Rights similar to Virginia’s. Three of his suggestions were “freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by jury in all cases” and “no suspensions of the
habeas corpus.”

No doubt Washington’s warning and Jefferson’s ideas were dismissed as redundant by those who knew the law. Who would have dreamed the U.S. legal system would become a monopoly against freedom when that was one of the primary causes for the rebellion against King George III?

Yet, the denial of trial by jury is now commonplace in the U.S. courts, and habeas corpus, for crimes against the state, is suspended. (By crimes against the state, I refer to “political crimes” where there is no injured party and the corpus delicti [evidence] is equally imaginary.)

The authority to create monopolies was judge-made law by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, et al during the early 1800’s. Judges (and lawyers) granted to themselves the power to declare the acts of the People “un-Constitutional”, waited until their decision was grandfathered, and then granted themselves a monopoly by creating the bar associations. Although Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that executive orders and treaties are binding upon the states (“… and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”), the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw in “Notes on the State of Virginia”, Query 17, p. 161, 1784: “Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless… the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers
are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill.

It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”

We await the inevitable convulsion. Only two questions remain: Will we fight to revive our rights? Or, Will we meekly submit as our last remaining rights expire, surrendered to the courts, and perhaps to a “new world order”?


As we go to press, I’ve received information from a researcher in Indiana, and another in Dallas, who have found five more editions of statutes that include the Constitution and the missing 13th Amendment. These editions were printed by Ohio, 1819; Connecticut (one of the states that voted against ratifying the Amendment), 1835; Kansas, 1861; and the Colorado Territory, 1865 and 1867.

These finds are important because: They offer independent confirmation of Dodge’s claims; and They extend the known dates of publication from Nebraska 1860 (Dodge’s most recent find), to Colorado in 1867.

The most intriguing discovery was the 1867 Colorado Territory edition which includes both the “missing” 13th Amendment and the current 13th Amendment (freeing the slaves), on the same page. The current 13th Amendment is listed as the 14th Amendment in the 1867 Colorado edition. This investigation has followed a labyrinthine path that started with the questions about how the U.S. courts evolved from a temple of the Bill of Rights to the current star chamber and whether this situation had anything to do with retiring chief Justice Burger’s warning that we were “about to lose our Constitution”. My seven year investigation has been fruitful beyond belief; the information on the missing 13th Amendment is only a “drop in the bucket” of the information I have discovered. Still, the research continues, and by definition, is never truly complete.


Imagine a nation which prohibited at least some lawyers from serving in government. Imagine a government prohibited from writing laws granting “honors” (special privileges, immunities, or advantages) to individuals, groups, or government officials. Imagine a government that could only write laws that applied to everyone, even themselves, equally. It’s never been done before. Not once. But it has been tried: In 1810 the Congress of the United States proposed a 13th Amendment to the Constitution that might have given us just that sort of equality and political paradise. The story begins (again) in 1983, when David Dodge and Tom Dunn discovered an 1825 edition of the Maine Civil Code which contained the U.S. Constitution and a 13th Amendment which no longer appears on the Constitution: “If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” This Amendment would have restricted at least some lawyers from serving in government, and would prohibit legislators from passing any special interest legislation, tax breaks, or special immunities for anyone, not even themselves.

It might have guaranteed a level of political equality in this nation that most people can’t even imagine. Since 1983, researchers have uncovered evidence that: The 13th Amendment prohibiting “titles of nobility” and “honors” appeared in at least 30 editions of the Constitution of the United States which were printed by at least 14 states or territories between 1819 and 1867; and This amendment quietly disappeared from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War.
Either this Amendment was: Unratified and mistakenly published for almost 50 years; or Ratified in 1819, and then illegally removed from the Constitution by 1867.

If this 13th Amendment was unratified and mistakenly published, the story has remained unnoticed in American history for over a century. If so, it’s at least a good story — an extraordinary historical anecdote.
On the other hand, if Dodge is right and the Amendment was truly ratified, an Amendment has been subverted from our Constitution. If so, this “missing” Amendment would still be the Law, and this story could be one of the most important stories in American History. Whatever the answer, it’s certain that something extraordinary happened to our Constitution between 1819 and 1867.

PROS AND CONS (for Ratification)

Of course, there are two sides to this issue. David Dodge, the principal researcher, argues that this 13th Amendment was ratified in 1819 and then subverted from the Constitution near the end of the Civil War. U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine, and Mr. Dane Hartgrove (Acting Assistant Chief, Civil Reference Branch of the National Archives) have argued that the Amendment was never properly ratified and only published in error.

There is some agreement. Both sides agree the Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1810. Both sides also agree that the proposed Amendment required the support of at least thirteen states to be ratified. Both sides agree that between 1810 and 1812 twelve states voted to support ratification. The pivotal issue is whether Virginia ratified or rejected the proposed Amendment. Dodge contends Virginia voted to support the Amendment in 1819, and so the Amendment was truly ratified and should still be a part of our Constitution. Senator Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove disagree, arguing that Virginia did not ratify. Unfortunately, several decades of Virginia’s legislative journals were misplaced or destroyed (possibly during the Civil War; possibly during the 1930’s). Consequently, neither side has found absolute proof that the Virginia legislature voted for (or against) ratification. A series of letters exchanged in 1991 between David Dodge, Sen. Mitchell, and Mr. Hartgrove illuminate the various points of disagreement.

After Dodge’s initial report of a “missing” Amendment in the 1825 Maine Civil Code, Sen. Mitchell explained that this edition was a one-time publishing error: “The Maine Legislature mistakenly printed the proposed Amendment in the Maine Constitution as having been adopted. As you know, this was a mistake, as it was not ratified.”

Further, “All editions of the Maine Constitution printed after 1820 [sic] exclude the proposed amendment; only the originals contain this error.” Dodge dug deeper, found other editions (there are 30, to date) of state and territorial civil codes that contained the missing Amendment, and thereby demonstrated that the Maine publication was not a “one-time” publishing error.


After examining Dodge’s evidence of multiple publications of the “missing” Amendment, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove conceded the Amendment had been published by several states and was ratified by twelve of the seventeen states in the Union in 1810. However, because the Constitution requires that three-quarters of the states vote to ratify an Amendment. Mitchell and Hartgrove insisted that the 13th Amendment was published in error because it was passed by only twelve, not thirteen States. Dodge investigated which seventeen states were in the Union at the time the Amendment was proposed, which states had ratified, which states had rejected the amendment, and determined that the issue hung on whether one last state (Virginia) had or had not, voted to ratify.

After several years of searching the Virginia state archive, Dodge made a crucial discovery: In Spring of 1991, he found a misplaced copy of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code which included the “missing” 13th Amendment. Dodge notes that, curiously, “There is no public record that shows this book [the 1819 Virginia Civil Code] exists. It is not catalogued as a holding of the Library of Congress nor is it in the National Union Catalogue. Neither the state law library nor the law school in Portland were able to find any trace that this book exists in any of their computer programs.”

Dodge sent photo-copies of the 1819 Virginia Civil Code to Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove, and explained that, “Under legislative construction, it is considered prima facie evidence that what is published as the official acts of the legislature are the official acts.” By publishing the Amendment as ratified in an official publication, Virginia demonstrated that they: Knew they were the last state whose vote was necessary to ratify this 13th Amendment; Had voted to ratify the Amendment; and Were publishing the Amendment in a special edition of their Civil Code as an official notice to the world that the Amendment had indeed been ratified.

Dodge concluded, “Unless there is competing evidence to the contrary, it must be held that the Constitution of the United States was officially amended to exclude from its body of citizens any who accepted or claimed a title of nobility or accepted any special favors. Foremost in this category of ex-citizens are bankers and lawyers.”

RATIONALES (for Ratification)

Undeterred, Sen. Mitchell wrote that, “Article XIII did not receive the three-fourths vote required from the states within the time limit to be ratified.” (Although his language is imprecise, Sen. Mitchell seems to concede that although the Amendment had failed to satisfy the “time limit”, the required three-quarters of the states did vote to ratify.) Dodge replies: “Contrary to your assertion.., there was no time limit for amendment ratification in 1811. Any time limit is now established by Congress in the Resolves for proposed amendments.”

In fact, ratification time limits didn’t start until 1917, when Sect. 3 of the Eighteenth Amendment stated that, “This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified within seven years from the date of submission … to the States by Congress.” A similar time limit is now included on other proposed Amendments, but there was no specified time limit when the 13th Amendment was proposed in 1810 or ratified in 1819. Sen. Mitchell remained determined to find some rationale, somewhere, that would defeat Dodge’s persistence. Although Sen. Mitchell implicitly conceded that his “published by error” and “time limit” arguments were invalid, he continued to grope for reasons to dispute the ratification: “… regardless of whether the state of Virginia did ratify the proposed Thirteenth Amendment… on March 12, 1819, this approval would not have been sufficient to amend the Constitution.

In 1819, there were twenty-one states in the United States and any amendment would have required approval of sixteen states to amend the Constitution. According to your own research, Virginia would have only been the thirteenth state to approve the proposed amendment.” Dodge replies: “Article V [amendment procedures] of the Constitution is silent on the question of whether or not the framers meant three-fourths of the states at the time the proposed amendment is submitted to the states for ratification, or three-fourths of the states that exist at some future point in time. Since only the existing states were involved in the debate and vote of Congress on the Resolve proposing an Amendment, it is reasonable that ratification be limited to those States that took an active part in the Amendment process.”

Dodge demonstrated this rationale by pointing out that, “President Monroe had his Secretary of State… [ask the] governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut, in January, 1818, as to the status of the amendment in their respective states. The four new states (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the union between 1810 and 1818 were not even considered.”

From a modern perspective, it seems strange that not all states would be included in the ratification process. But bear in mind that this perspective is based on life in a stable nation that’s added only five new states in this century — about one every eighteen years. However, between 1803 and 1821 (when the 13th Amendment ratification drama unfolded), they added eight states — almost one new state every two years. This rapid national growth undoubtedly fostered national attitudes different from our own. The government had to be filled with the euphoria of a growing Republic that expected to quickly add new states all the way to the Pacific Ocean and the Isthmus of Panama. The government would not willingly compromise or complicate that growth potential with procedural obstacles; to involve every new state in each on-going ratification could inadvertently slow the nation’s growth.

For example, if a territory petitioned to join the Union while an Amendment was being considered, its access to statehood might depend on whether the territory expected to ratify or reject a proposed amendment. If the territory was expected to ratify the proposed Amendment government, officials who favored the Amendment might try to accelerate the territory’s entry into the Union. On the other hand, those opposed to the Amendment might try to slow or even deny a particular territory’s statehood. These complications could unnecessarily slow the entry of new states into the nation, or restrict the nation’s ability to pass new Amendments. Neither possibility could appeal to politicians. Whatever the reason, the House of Representatives resolved to ask only Connecticut, South Carolina, and Virginia for their decision on ratifying the 13th Amendment — they did not ask for the decisions of the four new states. Since the new states had Representatives in the House who did not protest when the resolve was passed, it’s apparent that even the new states agreed that they should not be included in the ratification process.

In 1818, the President, the House of Representatives, the Secretary of State, the four “new” states, and the seventeen “old” states, all clearly believed that the support of just thirteen states was required to ratify the 13th Amendment. That being so, Virginia’s vote to ratify was legally sufficient to ratify the “missing’ Amendment in 1819 (and would still be so today).


Apparently persuaded by Dodge’s various arguments and proofs that the “missing” 13th Amendment had satisfied the Constitutional requirements for ratification, Mr. Hartgrove (National Archives) wrote back that Virginia had nevertheless failed to satisfy the bureaucracy’s procedural requirements for ratification:

“Under current legal provisions, the Archivist of the United States is empowered to certify that he has in his custody the correct number of state certificates of ratification of a proposed Constitutional amendment to constitute its ratification by the United States of America as a whole. In the nineteenth century, that function was performed by the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Secretary of State never received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is why that amendment failed to become the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

This is an extraordinary admission. Mr. Hartgrove implicitly concedes that the 13th Amendment was ratified by Virginia and satisfied the Constitution’s ratification requirements. However, Hartgrove then insists that the ratification was nevertheless justly denied because the Secretary of State was not properly notified with a “certificate of ratification”. In other words, the government’s last, best argument that the 13th Amendment was not ratified boils down to this: Though the Amendment satisfied Constitutional requirement for ratification, it is nonetheless missing from our Constitution simply because a single, official sheet of paper is missing in Washington. Mr. Hartgrove implies that despite the fact that three-quarters of the States in the Union voted to ratify an Amendment, the will of the legislators and the people of this nation should be denied because somebody screwed up and lost a single “certificate of ratification”. This “certificate” may be missing because either: Virginia failed to file a proper notice; or The notice was “lost in the mail”; or The notice was lost, unrecorded, misplaced, or intentionally destroyed, by some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. This final excuse insults every American’s political rights, but Mr. Hartgrove nevertheless offers a glimmer of hope: If the National Archives “received a certificate of ratification of the title of nobility amendment from the Commonwealth of Virginia, we would inform Congress and await further developments.” In other words, the issue of whether this 13th Amendment was ratified and is, or is not, a legitimate Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is not merely a historical curiosity — the ratification issue is still alive.

But most importantly, Hartgrove implies that the only remaining argument against the 13th Amendment’s ratification is a procedural error involving the absence of a “certificate of ratification”.

Dodge countered Hartgrove’s procedure argument by citing some of the ratification procedures recorded for other states when the 13th Amendment was being considered. He notes that according to the Journal of the House of Representatives. 11th Congress, 2nd Session, at p. 241, a “letter” (not a “certificate of ratification”) from the Governor of Ohio announcing Ohio’s ratification was submitted not to the Secretary of State but rather to the House of Representatives where it “was read and ordered to lie on the table.” Likewise, “The Kentucky ratification was also returned to the House, while Maryland’s earlier ratification is not listed as having been
returned to Congress.”

The House Journal implies that since Ohio and Kentucky were not required to notify the Secretary of State of their ratification decisions, there was likewise no requirement that Virginia file a “certificate of ratification” with the Secretary of State. Again, despite arguments to the contrary, it appears that the “missing” Amendment was Constitutionally ratified and should not be denied because of some possible procedural error.


Each of Sen. Mitchell’s and Mr. Hartgrove’s arguments against Ratification have been overcome or badly weakened. Still, some of the evidence supporting ratification is inferential; some of the conclusions are only implied. But it’s no wonder that there’s such an austere sprinkling of hard evidence surrounding this 13th Amendment: According to The Gazette (5/10/91), the Library of Congress has 349,402 un-catalogued rare books and 13.9 million un-catalogued rare manuscripts. The evidence of ratification seems tantalizingly close but remains buried in those masses of un-catalogued documents, waiting to be found. It will take some luck and some volunteers to uncover the final proof.

We have an Amendment that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. But because we have been unable to find the eggshell from which it hatched in 1819, Sen. Mitchell and Mr. Hartgrove insist we can’t … quite … absolutely prove it’s a duck, and therefore, the government is under no obligation to concede it’s a duck. Maybe so. But if we can’t prove it’s a duck, they can’t prove it’s not. If the proof of ratification is not quite conclusive, the evidence against ratification is almost nonexistent, largely a function of the government’s refusal to acknowledge the proof. We are left in the peculiar position of boys facing bullies in the schoolyard. We show them proof that they should again include the “missing” 13th Amendment on the Constitution; they sneer and jeer and taunt us with cries of “make us”. Perhaps we shall.

It’s worth noting that Rick Donaldson, another researcher, uncovered certified copies of the 1865 and 1867 editions of the Colorado Civil Codes which also contain the missing Amendment. Although these editions were stored in the Colorado state archive, their existence was previously un-catalogued and unknown to the Colorado archivists.
This raises a fantastic possibility. If there’s insufficient evidence that Virginia did ratify in 1819, there is no evidence that Virginia did not. Therefore, since there was no time limit specified when the Amendment was proposed, and since the government clearly believed only Virginia’s vote remained to be counted in the ratification issue, the current state legislature of Virginia could theoretically vote to ratify the Amendment, send the necessary certificates to Washington, and thereby add the Amendment to the Constitution.

Was it ratified? There is a lot of evidence that it was. Could all of the following publications have been in error?
The following states and/or territories have published the Titles of Nobility amendment in their official publications as a ratified amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Colorado1861, 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868
Connecticut1821, 1824, 1835, 1839
[?] Dakota1862, 1863, 1867
Florida1823, 1825, 1838
Georgia1819, 1822, 1837, 1846
Illinois1823, 1825, 1827, 1833, 1839, dis. 1845
Indiana1824, 1831, 1838
Iowa1839, 1842, 1843
Kansas1855, 1861, 1862, 1868
Louisiana1825, 1838/1838 [two separate publications]
Maine1825, 1831
Michigan1827, 1833
Mississippi1823, 1824, 1839
Missouri1825, 1835, 1840, 1841, 1845*
Nebraska1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1873
North Carolina1819, 1828
Northwestern Territories1833
Ohio1819, 1824, 1831, 1833, 1835, 1848
Pennsylvania1818, 1824, 1831
Rhode Island1822
Wyoming1869, 1876
Totals:24 States in 78 separate official government publications.Note: “Pimsleur’s”, a checklist of legal publications, does not list many of the above volumes.

* This volume was published twice in 1845. The first published the “Titles of Nobility” amendment, the second was published right after Congress set the requirements for Missouri’s admission as a State. The “Titles of Nobility” amendment was replaced with a notation that this amendment was printed in error in 1835.


“The History of the World”
Samuel Maunder, Harper, New York, 1850, vol. 2, p.462. Republished by
Wm. Burtis, Baltimore, 1856, vol. 2, p.462.
“The Rights of an American Citizen”
Benj. Oliver, Counsellor at Law, Boston, 1832, p. 89.
“Laws of the United States of America”
Bioren and Duane, Philadelphia & Washington, 1815, vol. 1, p.74. [See:
“The American Politician”
M. Sears, Boston, 1842, p.27.
“Constitution of the United States”
C.A. Cummings, Lynn, Massachusetts, not dated, p.35.
Political Text Book Containing the Declaration of Independence”
Edward Currier, Blake, Holliston, Mass. 1841, p.129.
“Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States for the use
of Common Schools”
John S. Hart, A.M. (Principal of Philadelphia High School and Professor
of Moral Mental and Political Science), Butler and Co., Philadelphia,
1850, p.100.
“Potter’s Justice”
H. Potter, U.S. District Court Judge, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1828,
p.404, 2nd Edition [the 1st Ed., 1816, does not have “Titles of Nobility”].

Note: The “Laws of the United States” was published by John Duane. Without doubt, Duane was aware of Virginia’s plan to ratify this amendment which targeted, amongst other things, the emolument of banking and the agents of foreign banking interests, the attorneys. Currency manipulation led to the failure of numerous banks and in turn to many a personal bankruptcy, including that of Thomas Jefferson. The allegiance of attorneys** has always been with the money state, whether pharaoh, caesar, monarch or corporate monopoly.

** See: “Acts of Virginia”, Feb. 20, 1812, p.143.

The Court, in “Horst v. Moses”, 48 Alabama 129, 142 (1872) gave the following description of a title of nobility:
To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it rises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. These components are forbidden separately in the terms “privilege”, “honor”, and “emoluments”, as they are collectively in the term “title of nobility”. The prohibition is not affected by any consideration paid or rendered for the grant.

“Bouvier’s Law Dictionary”, 15th Edition, vol. 1 (1885) lists the due process amendments as 5 and 15 [15 was re-numbered to 14] on p.571. The prohibition of titles of nobility stops the claim of eminent domain through fictions of law. Eminent domain is the legal euphemism for expropriation, and unreasonable seizure given sanction by the targets of this amendment.

The debate goes on. The mystery continues to unfold. The answer lies buried in the archives. If you are close to a state archive or large library anywhere in the USA, please search for editions of the U.S. Constitution printed between 1819 and 1870.

If you will, please check your state’s archives and libraries to review any copies of the Constitution printed prior to the Civil War, or any books containing prints of the Constitution before 1870. If you locate anything related to this project we would appreciate hearing from you so we may properly fulfill this effort of research.
If you find more evidence of the “missing” 13th Amendment please contact:
David Dodge
POB 985
Taos, New Mexico, 87571

This version of this research text by David Dodge was edited for clarity, and hand-coded in HTML on July 4, A.D. 2002, by The Lawful Path,, and was adapted from a prior version placed on the web by Barefoot Bob, May 5, 1996.

10 13 11 flagbar

How Do You Prepare a Child for Life in the American Police State?


By John W. Whitehead

“Fear isn’t so difficult to understand. After all, weren’t we all frightened as children? Nothing has changed since Little Red Riding Hood faced the big bad wolf. What frightens us today is exactly the same sort of thing that frightened us yesterday. It’s just a different wolf.” ― Alfred Hitchcock

In an age dominated with news of school shootings, school lockdowns, police shootings of unarmed citizens (including children), SWAT team raids gone awry (leaving children devastated and damaged), reports of school resource officers tasering and shackling unruly students, and public schools undergoing lockdowns and active drills, I find myself wrestling with the question: how do you prepare a child for life in the American police state?

Every parent lives with a fear of the dangers that prey on young children: the predators who lurk at bus stops and playgrounds, the traffickers who make a living by selling young bodies, the peddlers who push drugs that ensnare and addict, the gangs that deal in violence and bullets, the drunk drivers, the school bullies, the madmen with guns, the diseases that can end a life before it’s truly begun, the cynicism of a modern age that can tarnish innocence, and the greed of a corporate age that makes its living by trading on young consumers.

It’s difficult enough raising a child in a world ravaged by war, disease, poverty and hate, but when you add the police state into the mix—with its battlefield mindset, weaponry, rigidity, surveillance, fascism, indoctrination, violence, etc.—it becomes near impossible to guard against the toxic stress of police shootings, SWAT team raids, students being tasered and shackled, lockdown drills, and a growing unease that some of the monsters of our age come dressed in government uniforms.

Children are taught from an early age that there are consequences for their actions. Hurt somebody, lie, steal, cheat, etc., and you will get punished. But how do you explain to a child that a police officer can shoot someone who was doing nothing wrong and get away with it? That a cop can lie, steal, cheat, or kill and still not be punished?

Kids understand accidents: sometimes drinks get spilled, dishes get broken, people slip and fall and hurt themselves, or you bump into someone without meaning to, and they get hurt. As long as it wasn’t intentional and done with malice, you forgive them and you move on. Police shootings of unarmed people—of children and old people and disabled people—can’t just be shrugged off as accidents, however.

Tamir Rice was no accident. Cleveland police shot and killed the 12-year-old, who was seen playing on a playground with a pellet gun. Surveillance footage shows police shooting the boy two seconds after getting out of a moving patrol car. Incredibly, the shooting was deemed “reasonable” and “justified” by two law enforcement experts who concluded that the police use of force “did not violate Tamir’s constitutional rights.”

Aiyana Jones was also no accident. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren’t even in the right apartment. Ironically, on the same day that President Obama refused to stop equipping police with the very same kinds of military weapons and gear used to raid Aiyana’s home, it was reported that the police officer who shot and killed the little girl would not face involuntary manslaughter charges.

Obama insists that $263 million to purchase body cameras for police will prevent any further erosions of trust, but a body camera would not have prevented Aiyana from being shot in the head. Indeed, the entire sorry affair was captured on camera: a TV crew was filming the raid for an episode of The First 48, a true-crime reality show in which homicide detectives have 48 hours to crack a case.
While that $263 million will make Taser International, the manufacturer of the body cameras, a whole lot richer, it’s doubtful it would have prevented a SWAT team from shooting 14-month-old Sincere in the shoulder and hand and killing his mother.
No body camera could have stopped a Georgia SWAT team from launching a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.

No body camera could have prevented 10-year-old Dakota Corbitt from being shot by a Georgia police officer who tried to shoot an inquisitive dog, missed, and hit the young boy, instead.

When police shot 4-year-old Ava Ellis in the leg, shattering the bone, it actually was an accident, but it was an accident that could have been prevented. Police reported to Ava’s house after being told that Ava’s mother, who had cut her arm, was in need of a paramedic. Cops claimed that the family pet charged the officer who was approaching the house, causing him to fire his gun and hit the little girl.

Alberto Sepulveda, 11, died from one “accidental” shotgun round to the back, after a SWAT team raided his parents’ home. Thirteen-year-old Andy Lopez Cruz was shot 7 times in 10 seconds by a California police officer who mistook the boy’s toy gun for an assault rifle. Christopher Roupe, 17, was shot and killed after opening the door to a police officer. The officer, mistaking the Wii remote control in Roupe’s hand for a gun, shot him in the chest.

These children are more than grim statistics on a police blotter. They are the heartbreaking casualties of the government’s endless, deadly wars on terror, on drugs, and on the American people themselves.

Not even the children who survive their encounters with police escape unscathed. Increasingly, their lives are daily lessons in compliance and terror, meted out with every SWAT team raid, roadside strip search, and school drill.
Who is calculating the damage being done to the young people forced to watch as their homes are trashed and their dogs are shot during SWAT team raids? A Minnesota SWAT team actually burst into one family’s house, shot the family’s dog, handcuffed the children and forced them to “sit next to the carcass of their dead and bloody pet for more than an hour.” They later claimed it was the wrong house.

More than 80% of American communities have their own SWAT teams, with more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually some small amount of drugs.

What are we to tell our nation’s children about the role of police in their lives? Do you parrot the government line that police officers are community helpers who are to be trusted and obeyed at all times? Do you caution them to steer clear of a police officer, warning them that any interactions could have disastrous consequences? Or is there some happy medium between the two that, while being neither fairy tale nor horror story, can serve as a cautionary tale for young people who will encounter police at virtually every turn?

No matter what you say, there can be no avoiding the hands-on lessons being taught in the schools about the role of police in our lives, ranging from active shooter drills and school-wide lockdowns to incidents in which children engaging in typically childlike behavior are suspended (for shooting an imaginary “arrow” at a fellow classmate), handcuffed (for being disruptive at school), arrested (for throwing water balloons as part of a school prank), and even tasered (for not obeying instructions).

For example, a middle school in Washington State went on lockdown after a student brought a toy gun to class. A Boston high school went into lockdown for four hours after a bullet was discovered in a classroom. A North Carolina elementary school locked down and called in police after a fifth grader reported seeing an unfamiliar man in the school (it turned out to be a parent).

Better safe than sorry is the rationale offered to those who worry that these drills are terrorizing and traumatizing young children. As journalist Dahlia Lithwick points out: “I don’t recall any serious national public dialogue about lockdown protocols or how they became the norm. It seems simply to have begun, modeling itself on the lockdowns that occur during prison riots, and then spread until school lockdowns and lockdown drills are as common for our children as fire drills, and as routine as duck-and-cover drills were in the 1950s.”
These drills have, indeed, become routine.

As the New York Times reports: “Most states have passed laws requiring schools to devise safety plans, and several states, including Michigan, Kentucky and North Dakota, specifically require lockdown drills. Some drills are as simple as a principal making an announcement and students sitting quietly in a darkened classroom. At other schools, police officers and school officials playact a shooting, stalking through the halls like gunmen and testing whether doors have been locked.”

Police officers at a Florida middle school carried out an active shooter drill in an effort to educate students about how to respond in the event of an actual shooting crisis. Two armed officers, guns loaded and drawn, burst into classrooms, terrorizing the students and placing the school into lockdown mode.
What is particularly chilling is how effective these lessons in compliance are in indoctrinating young people to accept their role in the police state, either as criminals or prison guards. If these exercises are intended to instill fear and compliance into young people, they’re working.

Sociologist Alice Goffman understands how far-reaching the impact of such “exercises” can be on young people. For six years, Goffman lived in a low-income urban neighborhood, documenting the impact such an environment—a microcosm of the police state—on its residents. Her account of neighborhood children playing cops and robbers speaks volumes about how constant exposure to pat downs, strip searches, surveillance and arrests can result in a populace that meekly allows itself to be prodded, poked and stripped.

As journalist Malcolm Gladwell writing for the New Yorker reports:
Goffman sometimes saw young children playing the age-old game of cops and robbers in the street, only the child acting the part of the robber wouldn’t even bother to run away: I saw children give up running and simply stick their hands behind their back, as if in handcuffs; push their body up against a car without being asked; or lie flat on the ground and put their hands over their head. The children yelled, “I’m going to lock you up! I’m going to lock you up, and you ain’t never coming home!” I once saw a six-year-old pull another child’s pants down to do a “cavity search.”

Clearly, our children are getting the message, but it’s not the message that was intended by those who fomented a revolution and wrote our founding documents. Their philosophy was that the police work for us, and “we the people” are the masters, and they are to be our servants. Now that has been turned on its head, fueled by our fears (some legitimate, some hyped along by the government and its media mouthpieces) about the terrors and terrorists that lurk among us.

It’s getting harder by the day to tell young people that we live in a nation that values freedom and which is governed by the rule of law without feeling like a teller of tall tales. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, unless something changes and soon for the young people growing up, there will be nothing left of freedom as we have known it but a fairy tale without a happy ending.

10 13 11 flagbar

Please! Let all be aware that there is a huge war going on.


By Anna von Reitz

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 1900 articles. Please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the bottom on that page. The above link!
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Please, let all be aware, that there is a huge war going on. Please note that this is an IMPORTANT Announcement — one that everyone on Earth should read and understand. Superficially, it addresses the action of Dr. Henderson, Ad Hoc Judge of the World Court, abolishing 501 (c) 3 corporations. More explicitly, it addresses the nature of the Evil we are confronting.

Please, let all be aware, that there is a war going on.

Those involved are of two groups—- men allied with the Creator versus men allied with the Created.

This is one way to explain it— men allied with Life and the Living versus men allied with things other men created—- money and corporations.

It is a battle, quite literally, between the Living and the Dead.

Thus we have the Book of Life and the Book of the Dead….. and people will be hard-tested to prove where they stand.

We have a choice between all that is truly valuable— life, health, family, food, homes, communities—- and the illusion of corporations, money and stocks and bonds and all else that substitutes itself for what is actual.

For thousands of years, Mankind has been living in an illusion, half-asleep, unconscious, manipulated, abused.

It’s time to wake up and hear the birds sing.

This past week an attempt was made to bring a claim of abandonment against our entire nation. The rats attempted to do to our entire country what they have done against us as individuals. They have attempted to claim to the UN that we are not a sovereign nation because their own service corporation doing business as the “United States, Inc.” is bankrupted and no successor to contract has been appointed. They also mounted a claim saying that we are not a sovereign nation because we allegedly have no currency in circulation.

We had to rebut and rebuke them before the UN Security Council. That is how bad it is.

This new action by Dr. Henderson outlaws NGO’s and other forms of “non-profit corporations” and prevents them from being used to launder money and for other nefarious purposes while allowing the operators to claim that they are “non-profit corporations”, a status that has long shielded them from prosecution and accountability.

Organizations like “Planned Parenthood” and “American Bar Association” will either have to abide by the rules of the World Trust— which has very strict accountability requirements—-or function in private association capacity, in which case, they are 100% liable for their actions and enjoy no protection as a public franchise.

This automatically puts a kabosh on there being any advantage to using non-profits for institutionalized money laundering, slave trafficking, drug transport, etc., and allows means to shut down and hold accountable any organization that indulges in this sort of criminality whether it is a hospital, a mosque, a glee club, or a sewing circle.

Some people— especially bankers and politicians—- will claim that this is an attack on the churches and other religious and charitable organizations. I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as a return to true religious freedom and the accountability that goes with it.

One of the most profoundly disturbing aspects of the research and investigations we have conducted is that religious and non-profit corporations have been widely used as “storefronts” for the most vile sorts of criminality imaginable. This is no doubt partially a result of the desire of the perpetrators to hide their activities from public view. They have specifically targeted churches and charities for bases of operation, and then, when caught, have claimed protection of their assets as non-profit corporations.

Those days are at an end.

It would be good to pause a moment and review something that has long been misunderstood by American Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, etc. These organizations have established themselves as “non-profit corporations” in order to secure what they believed to be tax exempt status. In truth, they were never subject to any kind of tax to begin with. They were always naturally tax exempt as long as they remained private associations of believers.

It was the act of incorporating that made them subject to taxation in the first place and it was then claiming to be a “non-profit” that allowed them to escape taxation—-but bear in mind—-that secondary “exemption” was granted as a privilege by Congress and it could just as easily be removed by Congress.

This circumstance gave the governmental services corporations leverage over the churches and granted administrative capacities to them, all designed to coercively threaten and control these and other religious institutions. If the non-profits didn’t do what the “government” wanted, they were threatened with loss of their tax exempt status and various other punishments.

So much for religious freedom in America.

Churches and other religious institutions and non-profit organizations can now enjoy their natural tax-free status without interference or coercion. At the same time, they will be fully accountable for what they do. If they preach violence and crime and make money selling drugs and under-age porn on the side, they will be shut down. Those responsible will be prosecuted as criminals and their own assets will be forfeit along with the assets of any such institution.

Freedom of religion like all freedoms comes at a price— responsibility for our actions and their impact on the lives of others.

This marks the beginning of an effort by many nations to clean up this mess. Get out your sponges, mops, and buckets, realizing that this is just the beginning of a process of restoration on a worldwide basis. It’s not “just” America that got off-track. Virtually all the nations that were ever part of the British Empire including Britain, Scotland, Ireland, United States of America and India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, plus the nations of Western Europe, and Japan—have all been impacted by the same evils, and those have then adversely affected the entire Earth.

Our world is a physical body. When one organ is afflicted, the entire body suffers. In this case many “organs”—- many nations— have been infected with the equivalent of a disease. That disease is a very ancient system of predation and enslavement that was first organized in the Kingdom of Ancient Summer, migrated to Babylon and Persia, then to the Levant and North Africa, then following the Punic Wars it traveled from Carthage to Rome and the British Isles.

This disease known as “idolatry” is the by-product of a sea-faring religion that was spread worldwide by the Phoenicians many centuries ago. The Phoenicians were sailors and they worshiped the god of the sea the Greeks called “Poseidon”. We more commonly know this “one-eyed god” as Satan. If you recall statues and representations of Poseidon in Greek temples you will see the familiar horns, scaly tail, cloven feet on land, and trident we now (and still) associate with the Devil. This religion was known as Druidism in the British Isles and Satanism elsewhere, but it is always characterized by the same things: worship in “sacred groves”, infanticide, sex as a sacrament, dualistic “either/or” thinking patterns, the use of two “goads” to drive public opinion and control people (think of the Democratic and Republican political parties), pretending to “be” one’s enemies— called “mirroring” (think of the Federal United States pretending to be the Continental United States), sacrifices of burned flesh (think of 9/11), endless fraud schemes, and lies.

This is literally the “religion” of all pirates and criminals, and it is tied inextricably to the Sea. Thus, we are told that the “Great Serpent” was cast down into the Sea.

We must all be aware that with one exception, Natural Law, all forms of law come from religion. It should not surprise anyone, then, that Mosaic Law and Christian Canon has given rise to the Law of the Land, while Satanism and the infamous “Jewish-but-not Jewish” Talmud, is the basis of the Law of the Sea.

The Talmud is specifically the “law” of the sea-going Tribe of Dan, whose tribal banner has always prominently displayed the serpent emblem. This is the “synagogue of Satan” that Christ referred to, and anyone who has ever read the Talmud will agree that it is one of the most vile, diabolical, profane, evil, and hate-filled documents ever produced by the hand of man. Unfortunately for all of us, it continues to exercise its influence on the Law of the Sea—that is, international law including commercial law— until the current day. It’s grand temple on land is located in the separate international city-state of Westminster, known as the Inner City of London, and is known as the Crown Temple. The Bar Associations and banks are all allied with the Crown Temple and many elite bankers and lawyers secretively worship Satan, Mammon, and Semiramis, aka, the Mother of Harlots and all Abominations, Ashtoreth, Cybele, Isis, —and here in America, the Statue of Liberty. Remember that “liberty” comes from the same root word as “libertine” and is what British sailors receive when they reach a port of call—-it has nothing to do with freedom.

This infamous religion has been suppressed for many generations, but has continued on in the practices and beliefs of many so-called Secret Societies, especially in certain sects of the Freemasons and the Roman Cult within the Catholic Church. Just as the Tribe of Dan represents only one-thirteenth of the Tribes, less than ten percent of the membership of the Freemasons and Roman Catholic Church have been initiated into the profane practices of these ancient pagan belief systems— so don’t get out the pitchforks and start poking people who merely belong to a Masonic Lodge or a Catholic Church. It’s also worth noting that other churches and fraternal organizations have also been involved. I am only citing two of the main sources of mental, spiritual, and emotional miasma.

The vicious and perverted nature of this peculiar religion has made it powerful but not popular, and its practitioners have long presented it as knowledge possessed only by the “elites” and have forbidden their members to speak of it on pain of death. However, we may speak of it, because we were never initiated into their Death Cult, never took a Bar Oath, have no obligation to them, and have our knowledge of it from completely different sources. Please note that both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were Freemasons. So were many high-ranking SS officers.

All this is necessary prelude to understanding what is going on in the world and why Americans must be on their toes, watchful, and determined to leave Babylon behind. This basic knowledge about religion and law is also the foundation needed to understand that the entire concept of money is based on the idolatry practiced by this ancient, foreign, and profane religion. Money, whether stamped gold coins or printed paper credit chits— is an idol, literally a graven image, and those who chase after it are worshipers of Mammon — the god of money and all such vain illusions.

This is why it is written that you cannot serve both the True God and Mammon. You can’t honor Truth and Falsehood in the same breath. And money by definition is a falsehood— a fraud— because it presents itself as a substitute for other things that it is not: labor and commodities.

The object of money used as a substitute “representing” labor and commodities is to cheat and chisel a portion of both from the process of trading goods and services. The purveyors of “money” are manufacturers of idols, no less than Ishmael, the Idol Maker of Tabriz. Nations under the Cain-anite spell then “value” their money and compete in terms of which idol is greater, more powerful, more popular—-and therefore, perceived to be more valuable. This results in the daily betting game known as “international exchange rates”. Note the words “perceived” and “value” —- no form of money has any very great actual value attached to it, not even gold. You can be sure that if any form of money had actual value equal to its perceived value, it would quickly disappear, because those manufacturing such “money” could not possibly make a profit otherwise.

It may be disturbing for men of many faiths to realize, but we have been worshiping graven images—idols—all along, no different than it was in ancient Babylon.

The further object of the religion of Babylon was to enslave men for the enrichment of the so-called “elites”. This is what Abraham was fleeing when he left Ur. This is what Moses was leaving behind when he led his people out of Egypt. This is what Jesus was objecting to when he drove out the Moneychangers.

By fraud and deceit, the practitioners of these ancient and profane religious cults have endeavored to take over the whole world and establish a “Kingdom of the Dead” in the midst of the living. They have very nearly accomplished their ends by obtaining misrepresented commercial contracts and licenses and pretending that their victims have knowingly and willingly agreed to give up their status as living men and women and to function as dead “things”—- as corporations, estate trusts, cooperatives, foundations, even transmitting utilities, all defined as “franchises” belonging to parent trusts and corporations owned and operated by the perpetrators of these fiduciary trust fraud schemes.

The essence of the coercive identity theft that takes place while we are still babes in our cradles has been explained elsewhere. I note only that the perpetrators have gone so far as to try to pull the same fraud against the whole Continental United States and to seize our assets as “abandoned property”. This necessitated raising an objection and filing both a renewed Declaration of Joint Sovereignty and Sovereign Letters Patent. Original copies of the attached documents were filed as of Friday, November 6. Additional copies are being forwarded to additional recipients.
Please keep copies of the attached documents in safe places throughout America and post this information as widely as possible, being especially sure to inform your religious leaders. This is your proof that a claim was entered in your behalf asserting that We, the People, are alive and well, that we object to any presumption of civil death, bankruptcy, or other false claim, that we have repudiated the odious debts fabricated and charged against us and every other American, and that we have duly informed the UN Trust Committee– North America, the UN Security Council, and the Principal Contracting Powers involved.

Here are the actual documents:

10 13 11 flagbar


http://15 Why the Fed Will Crash the Economy If It Hikes Rates In Three Charts

11-25-2015 10-35-58 AM

By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 28, 2015
If you’ve been scratching your head since the middle of last year as consumer confidence surveys depicted an optimistic, eager to spend consumer while other hard economic data was showing a sputtering economy, we’re here to put your mind to rest. You’re not crazy. The U.S. economy is dramatically diverging from where most consumers think it is and we have three charts to prove it.
Most Americans have never heard of the Labor Force Participation Rate. Consumers judge the availability of jobs, or lack of them, by the Unemployment Rate that is fed to them in newspaper headlines and TV sound bites monthly. The Unemployment Rate has been coming down nicely and fueling positive vibes among consumers.

Unfortunately, the Labor Force Participation Rate, which measures the number of people who are either employed or actively looking for a job has been hitting historic low numbers, suggesting far more slack in the labor market than captured by the official Unemployment Rate.

On February 4, Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO of Gallup, told a stunned interviewer at CNBC that he was concerned he might “suddenly disappear” and not make it home that evening if he disputed the reliability of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed workers. Clifton’s concerns are essentially based on the fact that consumer confidence and Fed jawboning on when it’s going to hike interest rates to slow down this “strong” U.S. economy before it overheats is about all the U.S. has left in its monetary arsenal.
Clifton had penned an opinion piece on the company’s web site which punctured the rosy spin on the improving jobs market. Clifton wrote:

“Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is ‘down’ to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

“None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed…Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed…

“There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

“Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.” (Read the full article here.)

What Americans don’t know about the real labor market is captured in the chart above showing a massive divergence between the growing number of Americans not in the labor force versus consumer confidence.
Then there is the divergence between consumer confidence and spending on big ticket items, i.e., durable goods, items expected to last for three or more years. A healthy consumer should be committing to buying refrigerators, washing machines, computers, etc. But check out the chart below showing the dramatic divergence between consumer confidence and durable goods orders.

11-25-2015 10-37-10 AM

Finally, there is the capacity utilization rate’s dramatic divergence from consumer confidence readings. Our capacity utilization chart below measures the percentage at which total industry in the United States is operating. A falling percentage rate means there is growing slack in the economy. If business is running at 78.4 percent of its capacity that means there is room to grow 21.6 percent before there is need to build a new plant. Clearly, a declining level of capacity utilization is nothing to cheer about for consumers who are actually paying attention.

11-25-2015 10-39-29 AM

There is anecdotal evidence that the typical consumer is heavily influenced by the media. If you look at our first chart above, you will see a stark plunge in consumer confidence in the latter part of 2011. That plunge coincides with media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests and occupation of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan between September 17, 2011 and November 15, 2011. The protestors focused Americans’ attention on how Wall Street got “bailed out” and the rest of us got “sold out,” and the vast income and wealth inequality between the 1 percent versus the 99 percent. That kind of talk was clearly not good for consumer confidence and it was brutally eradicated in a vicious raid by police in the early morning hours of November 15. We wrote about the specifics of the brutality against both protesters and the press in this report.

The bottom line of all of this is that the typical consumer in America is tethered to snippets of information emanating from newspaper headlines and television. If you genuinely want to know what’s coming down the pike in this economy, forget the consumer confidence readings and look at the hard data.


It seems clear to me that the average American is completely blind to reality. They are completely uninterested in anything that does not make them laugh in the first sentence, or provoke an overpowering urge to experience some pleasure. In other words, they are completely self centered, and when the SHTF they are going to scream for the government to solve their problem. They cannot accept that their government is their enemy!

10 13 11 flagbar

The War On Terror is the Hoax Foundation of the Police Spy State


11-23-2015 8-51-46 AM

By Paul Craig Roberts

The “war on terror” was a hoax. Americans were deceived by policymakers, who are pursuing a hegemonic agenda. The American people were too trusting and too gullible and, consequently, Americans were easily betrayed by Washington and by the presstitute media.

The consequences of the deceit, gullibility, and betrayal are horrendous for Americans, for millions of peoples in the Middle East, Africa, Ukraine, and for Washington’s European vassals.

The consequences for Americans are an aborted Constitution, a police/spy state and rising resentment and hatred of America around the world.

The consequences for peoples in Somolia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, Palestine, and Ukraine have been massive deaths and dislocations, infrastructure destruction, internal conflicts, birth defects, invasions, bombings, drones.

Millions of peoples have been murdered by Washington’s pursuit of hegemony, and millions have been turned into refugees.

The consequences for Washington’s European vassals is that the millions of refugees from Washington’s wars are now overrunning Europe, causing social and political discord and threatening the European political parties that enabled, and participated in, Washington’s massive war crimes in eight countries.

The populations of the eight countries and Washington’s vassals are stuck with the consequences of Washington’s evil, vicious, and illegal actions. And Americans are stuck with the police/spy state and militarized police who murder three Americans each day and brutalize countless others.

The countries we have destroyed have no recourse to restitution.

Our European vassals will have to provide from their own pockets for the refugees that Washington’s wars are sending to them.

As for Americans, they seem to have settled into acquiescence to the brutal police/spy state that has crowded out freedom and democracy.

But Americans could do something about it.

It is a proven fact that the police/spy state rests on a foundation of lies and deceptions, and these lies and deceptions are now known. Even George W. Bush has admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

Thousands of independent experts consisting of physicists, nano-chemists, structural engineers, high-rise architects, fire fighters and first responders, and military and civilian pilots have provided the detailed explanations of September 11, 2001, that Washington failed to provide.

Today not even an idiot believes the official explanation. The corrupt neoconservative Bush regime created a false reality and sold it to a trusting population that was anxious to prove its patriotism.

The American electorate knew that the Bush/Cheney regime had deceived them about many things, and the people, believing Obama’s promises of change, put him in office to rectify the situation. Instead, Obama protected the criminal Bush/Cheney regime and continued with the neoconservatives agenda.

We don’t have to stand for this. We can turn off Fox “News,” CNN, NPR and all the rest of the presstitutes who lie for a living. We can cease purchasing the useless newspapers. We can demand that the police/spy state that was created entirely on the basis of lies and deceptions be rolled back.
Who can possibly believe that the massive PATRIOT Act was written so quickly in the aftermath of 9/11? It is not possible that every member of Congress and the staff does not know that such a massive document was sitting on the shelf waiting its opportunity.

Who can possibly believe that a handful of Saudi Arabians acting without the support of any state and any intelligence service could outwit the entire apparatus of the American National Security State and inflict a humiliating defeat on the world’s only superpower?

9/11 is the worst national security failure in world history. Who can possibly believe that not a single one of the national security officials who so totally failed in their responsibilities was held accountable for their failures that brought total humiliation to the proud United States?

Who can possibly believe that the Bush regime’s invasion and destruction of Iraq was a response to 9/11 when Bush’s Treasury Secretary publicly stated that the invasion of Iraq was the topic of the Bush regime’s first cabinet meeting long prior to 9/11?

Are the American people really such washed-up sheeple, such cowards, that they acquiesce to a police/spy state, the foundation of which consists of nothing but lies told by criminals and repeated endlessly by whores pretending to be journalists?

If so, the American people are not a people who any longer matter, and they will continue to be treated by Washington and by their local police as people who do not matter.

About the author: Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.


What’s the big deal here Paul, what else would you expect from a government that can change the definition of the word Citizen to Subject?
And when are you going to learn that America is a corporation totally under the control of the International Banking Cartel? Corporations are only interested in producing PROFITS not protecting A Constitution! As a matter of fact the U.S. Corporation has it’s own Constitution, and it sure as hell does not protect the People! Let’s all get on the same page Paul. It is past time for the internet Patriots to wake up to the truth, learn it, and revise their commentary to fight it with all their might. This means educate the sheep non stop until they are as outraged as we all should be. We need to get this information out to a hundred million people ASAP. Why would an entire Nation accept a Corporation for a government? There is only one way for things to change for the better, and that is for a hundred million people to read this: You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause (Paperback) by Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher

10 13 11 flagbar

Candidates Ready to Trash Constitution to Fight ISIS: Time To Put Life Ahead of Civil Liberties?


11-21-2015 2-55-34 PM

By Mac Slavo
Never mind who poked at the hive and stirred up an angry storm. Those are lessons of blowback for those with memory and perspective.

Right now the reactionary fervor is all that matters. Indeed, it is difficult to focus on much else.
In hindsight, the nation became sick and tired of the wars and the fear over terrorism under the reign of Bush 43. But in the moment, people embraced it – and that’s the danger again.
There is no clear or rational thought under fear of attack.

Under the auspices of retribution for 9/11, George W. Bush and his neo-con advisors launched a roaming War on Terror that brought conflict to entire regions, and didn’t blink at bending the rules or trampling on constitutional rights. Spying, surveillance, intimidation, snitching, data-basing, airport pat-downs, stop and frisk on the streets and more were all tolerated and even embraced. It was rule by fear.
The narrative didn’t add up, but that didn’t matter until later for most. People began to regret the powers granted via the PATRIOT Act to the NSA and to the executive branch to indefinitely detain anyone they declared an enemy combatant. The slide down the slippery slope was accelerating at a queasy pace.

Today, new threats from ISIS are dragging the United States dangerously close to this point again.
The one-man show that is Donald Trump, who quickly made a mockery of the GOP primary, is calling for databases and surveillance of all Muslim immigrants. Other GOP candidates are making similar proposals, eager to look toughest on this unfortunate issue. RT reports:

Donald Trump, running high in polls, proposes cataloging all Muslims living in the United States to ensure they are under constant surveillance.

“I would certainly implement that [keeping a register of Muslims]…absolutely,” Trump told NBC, adding that there are “a lot of systems, beyond databases” that could be implemented. “We should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it,” Trump said, clearly with nod in the direction of the National Security Agency (NSA) and its unprecedented surveillance capabilities.

And though the policies of opening the doors to these “refugees” is deeply flawed – and indeed invites attack from jihadists or foreign enemies – the destruction of civil rights for this group will soon harm those of every American.

It seems that someone, from one party or another, is eager to finish what Bush started, and Obama has quietly continued.

Hillary Clinton is now the only real nominee for the Democratic nomination; she has already sounded off on her plans for tougher policies and new strikes on ISIS and other targets overseas.
Now, one of her top donors, billionaire Haim Saban, has gone on the offensive, literally calling to curb civil liberties in order to meet the perceived threat of attack from ISIS. Mind you, this time, the country hasn’t even been attacked yet:

Billionaire entertainment mogul and major party donor Haim Saban, who donated a seven-digit sum to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, telling news website The Wrap it is high time to reconsider values and put life ahead of civil liberties.
Saban referred to those members of the Hollywood community who are fervently liberal and appear to value civil freedoms more than they value life.
“I disagree with that [liberal view]. You want to be free and dead? I’d rather be not free and alive,” Saban said, adding that at ‘a time of war’, interviewing Muslim refugees and migrants in a more intense way than Christians is acceptable, as well as “listening in on anyone and everybody who looks suspicious.”
If war-hawks are pouring millions (and billions) into the Clinton campaign, you can imagine that they probably want a return for their money. None of this bodes well for the next four years … or any foreseeable time afterwards.

If the ‘terrorists hated us for our freedoms’ then, they should have little reason to target us now…
It is no exaggeration to say that the response by the U.S. government to the acts of terrorism, including those on September 11, have done far more destruction to its system of freedom and prosperity than bin Laden, 19 hijackers with box cutters, or drama queens from ISIS ever could.
Brandon Smith of Alt-Market has a great perspective on this – the bait and switch to convince Americans to sell their own birthright and volunteer for their own servitude.

Today, the people of the U.S. are less prosperous in real wealth, in income and in opportunities than at any other time in history. Nearly half of the country is directly dependent on the federal government benefits for day-to-day survival, and the disaster of foreign policy continues to eviscerate the Constitution and bring decline to the American empire – all while the population lives in fear and abject terror of what may come tomorrow.
A new darkness could be closing in.

No jobs, no independence, no freedom, no future – but if the government doesn’t get more power … well, conventional wisdom says it would be better to be enslaved than dead. Others know the wisdom and the strength of Liberty or death.


There is no way in hell that I will live under total tyranny!

Give me liberty or give me death is not just some fancy words from history!

10 13 11 flagbar



By: Devvy
The world was shocked, again. Savage Muslims executed a well coordinated terrorist attack in six separate locations in Paris. Dead bodies piled up in a concert hall swimming in blood (Warning: photos graphic). Soft targets: 4 diners/cafes, stadium and concert hall. Heartbreaking pictures. A woman hanging out of a window screaming, “Help, help, I’m pregnant”. Eye witness accounts of killers just standing there opening fire without regard to anything but carrying out their madness.

Barbarians armed with Kalashnikovs and grenades. Satan’s Soldiers doing their dastardly, inhumane acts of violence. Gunmen shout ‘Allah Akbar’ and ‘It’s for Syria’. They were sent by ISIS. One of them we know came through Greece as a Syrian ‘refugee’ and into France. A country with open borders. Like America’s virtually open southern border. After the slaughter, President Francois Hollande declared a national state of emergency and immediately implemented border control checks at all crossings and entry points – after 135 of her citizens are murdered.

135 confirmed dead and 350 injured; hospitals overwhelmed by the number of injured. Chaos. Crying. People wandering around in shock. How horrible it must have been during those three hours. How much more horrible it must have been when the sun came up the next morning and one would see the carnage in the light of day. When families and loved ones have to identify human remains and deal with their loss forever.
Everyone was so surprised. According to reports intelligence from both the U.S. and Great Britain indicated there was no chatter, no warning despite their most sophisticated spying tools. Unlike the U.S. and 911:
On July 10, 2001, Bush, JR, was informed by the CIA during an emergency meeting a ‘spectacular’ attack was imminent here on U.S. soil. The much over rated former NSA Director, Condi Rice, passed along to former president Bush that Al Qaeda was planning major attacks in the coming weeks or months.

‘ The Attacks Will Be Spectacular’ – An exclusive look at how the Bush administration ignored this warning from the CIA months before 9/11, along with others that were far more detailed than previously revealed, November 12, 2015

“By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, “it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.” “There were real plots being manifested,” Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years. “The world felt like it was on the edge of eruption. In this time period of June and July, the threat continues to rise. Terrorists were disappearing [as if in hiding, in preparation for an attack]. Camps were closing. Threat reportings on the rise.” The crisis came to a head on July 10. The critical meeting that took place that day was first reported by Bob Woodward in 2006. Tenet also wrote about it in general terms in his 2007 memoir At the Center of the Storm.

“But neither he nor Black has spoken about it publicly in such detail until now¬or been so emphatic about how specific and pressing their warnings really were. Over the past eight months, in more than a hundred hours of interviews, my partners Jules and Gedeon Naudet and I talked with Tenet and the 11 other living former CIA directors for The Spymasters, a documentary set to air this month on Showtime.

“Tenet vividly recalls the White House meeting with Rice and her team. (George W. Bush was on a trip to Boston.) “Rich [Blee] started by saying, ‘There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al Qaeda’s intention is the destruction of the United States.’” [Condi said:] ‘What do you think we need to do?’ Black responded by slamming his fist on the table, and saying, ‘We need to go on a wartime footing now!’”

“What happened?” I ask Cofer Black. “Yeah. What did happen?” he replies. “To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone.” (I recommend reading the rest of that article)
On Saturday following the attacks, Hollande promised a “merciless” response. He said the attack was an ‘Act of War’. Suddenly, some eyes are finally opened to the reality of what has been unleashed on Europe by their own foolish policies:

France promises ‘merciless’ response to attacks
“This comes as a blow to Angela Merkel and other European leaders who allowed a flood of hundreds of thousands of migrants despite the potential threat from ISIS to infiltrate the west. Merkel responded to the massacre by calling for people to express “tolerance” towards the migrants and respect for “the right of everyone to seek his fortune and live.”

“We believe in the right of everyone to seek his fortune and live, to the respect for the other and tolerance,” said Merkel. “We know that our free life is stronger than any terrorist. Let’s give the terrorists the answer by living our values confidently. And as we affirm these values throughout Europe. Now more than ever.” Numerous experts have warned “that rolling out the red carpet to migrants from the Middle East would substantially heighten the risk of terrorists being able to cross into Europe, although such concerns were dismissed by many at the time as fear mongering,” noted InfoWars.”

Merkel is a damn fool, always has been. She of a dowdy appearance on par with a ‘char’ worshipping at the altar of political correctness and blind stupidity about Islam.
Returning to the article above:

“Far-right National Front party leader Marine Le Pen issued a call for “urgent action” on Saturday, saying, “Islamist fundamentalism must be annihilated, France must ban Islamist organizations, close radical mosques and expel foreigners who preach hatred in our country as well as illegal migrants who have nothing to do here.”
“It is absolutely necessary that France regains control of its borders,” she said – a message likely to resonate with French voters worried over the recent massive influx of Muslim migrants. In a little-noticed story from a German newspaper, Bavaria’s state premier Horst Seehofer told a party conference there was “reason to believe” that a 51-year-old man arrested last week with several weapons in southern Germany was linked to the Paris attack.”

Naturally talk of stopping ISIS, Satan’s Soldiers, has cranked up again. I would ask where was Germany, Britain and France in 2014 when ISIS went on the rampage against innocents, the Yazidi people?
ISIS’s ideology of rape

“There is a scene early in Rukmini Callimachi’s deeply reported New York Times story on ISIS’s “theology of rape” in which an ISIS fighter binds, gags, and violently rapes a sobbing 12-year-old child. Even after a year of reading about one ISIS atrocity after another, this was a special kind of horror that left my palms clammy and my stomach lurching. I suspect I was not alone.

“What Callimachi describes is a vast infrastructure of sexual violence and slavery. Victim after victim told her of being kidnapped, enslaved, and sold by ISIS, always for the express purpose of religiously sanctioned rape:
“Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray,” said F, a 15-year-old girl who was captured on the shoulder of Mount Sinjar one year ago and was sold to an Iraqi fighter in his 20s. Like some others interviewed by The New York Times, she wanted to be identified only by her first initial because of the shame associated with rape. “He kept telling me this is ibadah,” she said, using a term from Islamic scripture meaning worship.
“ISIS’s systematic enslavement and rape of Yazidi women, Callimachi reports, now has not just a theological justification but “a persistent infrastructure,” as well. That includes “a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.”

I would remind everyone ISIS is in the back yard of Germany, Britain and France; go look at this map. Those three countries all have major military capability, not to mention nearby Russia. As soon as ISIS stuck its grotesque head up and showed the world what they were doing, those countries should have gone and sent them to Hell where they belong. An all out massive bombing day in and day out based on intelligence on the ground and from satellites until they were wiped out like the foul vermin they are. No, instead, it’s ‘tolerance’ of ‘moderate’ Muslims while making little whimpering noises at such violence taking place in Iraq.
Iraq, the land George Bush, Jr., was going to liberate.
Giving Thanks Today For War, Killing, Destruction, Murder

“Iraq was destined to be picked off a long time ago. The way to do it was to convince the American people Iraq was a threat to America and when that didn’t work, resort to justifying invasion as a “war of liberation.”
“March 20, 2004: President justifies U.S. war of ‘liberation.’ “There are still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq, and we’re dealing with them,” Bush said. “But no one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces. Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long- awaited liberation?”

“Really? 5.1 MILLION Iraq’s are now displaced in their own country or are refugees abroad. Estimates are more than one million dead since the yippy-kay-yay cowboy, George Bush, Jr., decided to invade that country. Recall the vomit spewed by former SOS, Mad Madeleine Albright during a 60 Minute interview with Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

“Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.” Somehow I doubt the parents of those children think it was worth it. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan don’t hate us because of our freedom, they hate us for invading their countries and the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children who have nothing to do with foreign policy or terrorism.
“Long awaited liberation,” Mr. Bush? After killing a million or more human beings and destroying their countries, the US has liberated their population? Let me provide a bit of history here: Seven times the U.S. government has engaged in unconstitutional nation building – Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor and Liberia. EVERY time it’s been a monumental failure just as Iraq and Afghanistan will be down the road. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to steal from the people’s treasury to reconstruct or rebuild any foreign country.

From author Jeri Lynn Ball, a superb writer and thorough researcher who wrote long ago:
“In Stalin’s Russia, notes Mikhail Heller, enemies were blamed for everything; they were used to justify the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, and so on. The Soviet Communists were thus able to manipulate Soviet citizens into supporting government hunts for “terrorists,” “traitors,” and spies, for “liberation wars” for humanity.

“Using Marxist-Leninist strategies, the Russian, Chinese, and U.S. ruling elites have sought to frighten Americans and other populations with the specter of ruthless mass terror. They have created enemies and blamed them for everything including terrorist acts. They have used them …to manipulate Americans into supporting government hunts for “traitors,” “terrorists,” and these never ending “wars of national liberation.” Their aim is to manipulate whole populations into supporting “wars of national liberation” and achieving not only the Sovietization of “liberated” underdeveloped countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but also the full altruization and Sovietization of the United States and other Western nations.”

“Our government created and groomed “terrorists” like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. When the time came, “our” government turned the tables and went after them with the might of our military while feeding the masses reprehensible lie after lie after lie.”

A most outstanding piece, which is normal for the very gifted writer and thinker, Mark Steyn, laid it all out: The Barbarians Are Inside, And There Are No Gates
“Visiting the Bataclan, M Hollande declared that “nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable”: We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.

“Does he mean it? Or is he just killing time until Obama and Cameron and Merkel and Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull fly in and they can all get back to talking about sea levels in the Maldives in the 22nd century? By which time France and Germany and Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands will have been long washed away. Among his other coy evasions, President Obama described tonight’s events as “an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share”.

“But that’s not true, is it? He’s right that it’s an attack not just on Paris or France. What it is an attack on the west, on the civilization that built the modern world – an attack on one portion of “humanity” by those who claim to speak for another portion of “humanity”. And these are not “universal values” but values that spring from a relatively narrow segment of humanity. They were kinda sorta “universal” when the great powers were willing to enforce them around the world and the colonial subjects of ramshackle backwaters such as Aden, Sudan and the North-West Frontier Province were at least obliged to pay lip service to them. But the European empires retreated from the world, and those “universal values” are utterly alien to large parts of the map today.
“And then Europe decided to invite millions of Muslims to settle in their countries. Most of those people don’t want to participate actively in bringing about the death of diners and concertgoers and soccer fans, but at a certain level most of them either wish or are indifferent to the death of the societies in which they live – modern, pluralist, western societies and those “universal values” of which Barack Obama bleats. So, if you are either an active ISIS recruit or just a guy who’s been fired up by social media, you have a very large comfort zone in which to swim, and which the authorities find almost impossible to penetrate.

“And all Chancellor Merkel and the EU want to do is make that large comfort zone even larger by letting millions more “Syrian” “refugees” walk into the Continent and settle wherever they want. As I wrote after the Copenhagen attacks in February:” (Do read the rest)

Now we come around to home here in the U.S. What did I say in my column, States MUST refuse to take any more refugees, September 21, 2015, citing an article by Seumas Milne, “What’s clear is that Isis and its monstrosities won’t be defeated by the same powers that brought it to Iraq and Syria in the first place, or whose open and covert war-making has fostered it in the years since. Endless western military interventions in the Middle East have brought only destruction and division. It’s the people of the region who can cure this disease – not those who incubated the virus.”

One can only pray France, Germany, Great Britain join with Russia and go after Satan’s Soldiers with every bit of firepower they possess. Our military fired a rocket from a drone last week after months of planning and watching which took out ‘Jihadi John’, a ruthless murderer who has now gone to Hell where he belongs for eternity. Those countries have the capability and they should begin to eradicate the cancer now.

I also said in my column: “Unless we the people stand up and demand our states refuse those refugees don’t start crying about your next tax bill or when a football stadium, mall or big hospital is blown to smithereens.” There is good news on that front which you should let your mayor, city council, your state rep and senator and governor know:

U.S. state draws line in sand against Islamization, November 12, 2015, WND
“A third South Carolina county has barred the door to any Third World refugees being resettled in their community, and at least two others are considering the same move. The Berkeley County Council unanimously passed a resolution Monday that bars any refugee funds from flowing into that county. The resolution calls for “all South Carolina public officials to immediately cease and desist” from helping to resettle Middle Eastern refugees anywhere in the state until the legislature can act on the issue and pass legislation reflecting the will of the people.”

“Anderson and Pickens counties already passed similar resolutions. Two more counties – Greenville and York – are expected to vote soon on similar resolutions. South Carolina is the only state that gives local governments the option of rejecting, not necessarily the refugees, but the state and federal tax dollars that flow to their aid when they are resettled in a city.”

Gov. Nikki Haley in the article above says she trusts the vetting of refugees pouring into her state. Another damn fool in a skirt just like Merkel. The criminal impostor in the White House has managed to get 500,000 Muslims into this country since he usurped the office of president. Thousands of Syrian and Afghani refugees are flooding cities across this country because of our foreign policies. Not only are stupid politicians like Haley taking a chance terrorists are among those refugees – like one of them in Paris and who knows about the others – those hordes are going on federal welfare (unconstitutional) which you and I will be raped in taxes to pay for. It’s not just young, healthy males between the ages of 18 – 30. One of those terrorists in Paris was a female.
Predictably, the anti-gun extremists were ready with their thread worn shout-outs. However, Presidential hopeful Donald Trump had the right response: Unarmed people are sitting ducks. An armed population defend themselves.

There is bad trouble brewing in this country. Yes, we are heavily armed, but not organized. How anyone can deny at this point there are terrorist cells in this country? The ones who are so brain washed they can’t see the barrel of a gun pointed right at them. But, make no mistake: Paris is coming to American cities and when it happens, the same thing we saw in Paris we will see here unless state legislatures man up and reconstitute the constitutional militia.

For those ignorant charlatans in the ‘mainstream’ media and cable news networks who routinely either dismiss the word militia as something akin to malaria, you people are a major part of the problem. Not only do you have zero understanding of the Second Amendment, you also have zero understanding of warfare. But, what can one expect from a bunch of sissies who sit around with their latte’s and laptops?
We constantly hear gutless weenie politicians and media slugs say Americans don’t need semi-automatic weapons. Really? What did those murderers in Paris use to mow down 87 people inside that concert hall? AK-47 Kalashnikov-series assault rifles. What do you think a couple of them could do inside the National Cathedral Christmas eve or inside an airport the day before Thanksgiving? TSA is useless. Airport security should be turned over to the private sector and we’ll see how cowardly terrorists fare up against retired military or law enforcement on duty.

I firmly believe one of the reasons we haven’t seen more hits on ‘soft’ targets here in the U.S. is because we’re armed. But, a few of those killers in Paris blew themselves up believing they were going to Allah’s heaven to be with 72 virgins or some other such crap. There’s not enough police, sheriffs or other law enforcement in any one place to either stop Muslim killers or at least minimize the killing by killing them. You don’t do that with a .22 pea shooter.

Now, either we get serious about defending our own or, tragically, like all those who died in Paris, we’re sitting ducks. Just like the shooting in October 2015 at Umpqua Community College in Oregon where nine Americans lost their lives.

There is a difference between militias operating in this country and the constitutional militia as mandated IN the Second Amendment. I have covered this in many columns as has Dr. Edwin Vieira since 2005. So far only one state, Arizona, passed a state militia bill that was signed into law. While it is sorely lacking, I highly advise Arizona to put the infrastructure into place and provide the funding to activate trained militia under state guidelines.

I have said so many times and I’ll say it again: Militia groups operating in this country are doing a great job training to be prepared for natural disasters like Katrina and tornadoes that wipe out whole towns. But, they have no legal authority behind them and therein lies the problem. All those existing militia will be of great value once a state reconstitutes the constitutional militia – before Americans by the hundreds are mowed down like what happened in France.
Where do you begin?

I put a few of Dr. Edwin Vieira’s very precise historical and legal columns regarding the Second Amendment and the constitutional militia on a CD. You can download it to some electronic gadget or listen to it as you sit in commute traffic, around town or long haul truckers as they bring food and goods to our stores or at home. Do as I did several years ago and give a copy to your county sheriff.

When I first put out that CD, I shipped (for a grand total of $2 bux each) 18,000 of them across this country. There was no money made; I did it to help Americans understand the issue as I did not until I began reading Edwin’s thoroughly researched columns and books.

I don’t know how many times that CD has been downloaded, but now it’s time for you to help get the truth out to our fellow Americans. Top of the list is your state rep, senator and governor. Okay, we know the reality of states like California, New York and others who are too damn stupid to understand how to save themselves much less their citizens. But, it still doesn’t hurt to get a copy to state reps and senators in your legislature that profess to be supporters of the Second Amendment. Like all our other battles, it takes boots on the ground and educating anyone who is interested in saving our country and either stopping or minimizing the next terrorist attack because there will be one, mark my words. We’re dealing with zealots who have no regard whatsoever for human life.

Read this very important 3-part series so you know: True vs. False Militia and Why The Difference Matters
And, third, take the time to also read (hey – do it at lunch time or on the weekend when the weather is howling out there) two books. One is slightly over 100 pages: Thirteen Words. “Dr. Vieira has managed to break the Second Amendment down to its bare minimum. As Dr. Vieira has stated, if one cannot bother to read, and understand thirteen words, there is little hope for saving our republic. Fortunately, the good doctor makes it easy to understand the historic background of this Amendment. Moreover, he manages to illuminate the importance of the entire Constitution, Bill of Rights, and even the basis for these documents as provided by the great Declaration. This is a great work in a small package.”

Another reviewer wrote: “Through the years we have been fooled by miseducation into not understanding the Second Amendment. This book makes it clear just how important the militia is. Without the militia we cannot be free.” How very true.

The second book is a bit longer, but vitally important: Constitutional Homeland Security : The Nation in Arms. “Homeland security” is the most serious issue challenging Americans today. How they deal with this problem will determine whether the United States will preserve individual liberty and economic prosperity, or degenerate into a centralized bureaucratic police state. This book explains why “the Militia of the several States” are the only establishments the Constitution explicitly empowers to provide the crucial elements of homeland security. And it describes the practical steps Americans should take to revitalize the constitutional Militia in each of the States.”

Do we wait until after Paris comes to American cities or do we act now?
Do we send a clear message to terrorists already here in the U.S. they will die first?
Do we send a clear message to scum coming out of the Middle East or do we sit back and hope “it doesn’t happen here”?

Open Range is an excellent film with a message: A man has the right to protect what’s his which is why the media hated it. At one hour eight minutes into the film, Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall are talking with a man in the saloon. He tells Costner and Duvall how one big bad ass land owner owns the sheriff and has terrorized the entire town. The man talking with Costner says it’s a shame what their town has come to. Costner says they can do something about it. The man responds with what can they do, after all, he’s just a freighter? Costner replies: You’re men, ain’t you? The man replies he didn’t raise his sons just to get killed. Costner then replies: You may not know this, but there are things that gnaw on a man worse than dying.

10 13 11 flagbar

Witness Says Paris Attackers Were Clean Shaven White Men In A New Mercedes-Benz


By John Vibes
November 18, 2015
According to witness testimony that has been mostly overlooked by the international media, the attackers were described as clean-shaven white men who were driving a brand-new black Mercedes-Benz.
According to the UK’s Mirror, an eyewitness by the name of Mahoud Admo said that he witnessed the initial drive by shooting, and saw the attackers without masks as they passed by in Mercedes-Benz calmly firing machine guns into the crowd.

Admo described the attack, saying:
“At about 9.30pm a new looking black Mercedes pulled up outside with dark tinted windows at the back and the passenger and driver windows down. I could clearly see the passenger’s face as he was not ¬wearing a hat or mask. As soon as the car stopped he quietly opened the door and got out in front of the restaurant. That is when I saw he was ¬holding a machine gun that was resting on his hip. I could not take in what I was witnessing. People outside spotted the shooter approaching with his gun and tried to run inside but he shot them down in the doorway. Then people inside moved ¬forward to see what was happening and he sprayed more bullets into them. I was trying to catch them on my camera phone but the gunman saw the light on my mobile and I ducked down behind the wall as they fired at my hotel. The gunman calmly reloaded his weapon several times. He then shot up at the windows in the street to make sure nobody was filming anything or taking photographs. It lasted over six minutes. He fired lots of bullets. He was white, clean shaven and had dark hair neatly trimmed. He was dressed all in black accept for a red scarf.

The shooter was aged about 35 and had an extremely muscular build, which you could tell from the size of his arms. He looked like a weightlifter. He was not wearing gloves and his face was expressionless as he walked towards the bar. The driver had opened his door shortly before the shooting began and stood up with his arm and a machine gun rested on the roof of the car. He stood there with his foot up in the door acting as a lookout. I would describe him as tall, with dark hair and also quite muscular. They looked like soldiers or mercenaries and carried the whole thing out like a military operation. It was clear that they were both very heavily armed and the gunman was carrying several magazines on him. They both then coolly sat back in the car and sped off in the direction of the Bataclan Theatre.”

The fact that Admo was not able to get footage is entirely understandable, but it is certainly odd that with how public of an attack this was that there was not an abundance of cell phone a security camera footage. Even without video evidence, witness reports suggest that the attackers do not meet the stereotypical description of a “terrorist” that is depicted in the media. This was also indicated by the fact that all of the terrorists who were named so far were actually EU citizens.

The eyewitness testimony also reveals the highly organized training and funding that was involved in the attack. Dozens of people from various different countries were able to carry out the attack with seemingly limitless resources and a wide support network.

As with most of the terrorist attacks that have taken place in the past several decades, these events have left more questions than answers, with both governments and mainstream media organizations jumping to conclusions in an attempt to make the events fit their own agenda — much like 9/11 was used to justify war in Iraq, even though most of the attackers were Saudi Arabian.

John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can purchase his books, or get your own book published at his website


Follow the money folks! It takes money to hire and equip the killers. It starts with the Banking Cartels control over governments and corporations, so why not kill the Banking Cartel? In the field of battle if you take out the top officers and the grunts will fade away. Let’s start at the top. All it would take is one general with the courage to support his country instead of his chicken shit president. We have some of the best warriors in the world, set them free to do their job.

10 13 11 flagbar

Jim Willie: The Fed, Yellen, U. S. Dollar, and Negative Interest Are a Joke!



Don’t be a dumb-ass, read every article linked below!

11-18-2015 10-05-06 AM

(Before It’s News)
In the following video, Jim Willie talks about how the U.S. capital is under attack specifically because of the Fed’s policies. He declares, “The U.S. economy and the U.S. Dollar are a total joke.” Anyone who is saying the Fed is seriously contemplating a “hike” (BTW: hike is defined these days as 1/4 of 1%) in interest rates at December’s Fed meeting, is just another Kool-Aid drinker listening to the talking heads, and repeating what they are told to repeat. There is NO chance the Fed will raise rates. Did Janet Yellen say after the last meeting that rates might go up in December? Yes. She also said, “Rates Could Stay at Zero Forever,” and furthermore, she also said if the economy worsens significantly, that “potentially anything, including negative interest rates are on the table.” Those that latched on to her statement that rates “could” go up are living in fantasy land. You know what? Barack Obama “could” do us all a favor and resign today too. Enough said?

Jim says that Yellen’s comments about potential negative interest rates represent the fact that Fed policy, which is not supposed to be political in anyway, but is 100% political under the Obama administration (go figure), is a TOTAL failure. That means that what we call money, and what we value, has been turned into an international joke (like Obama; go figure!). We are printing money like Zimbabwe to cover the national debt these days, and does anyone remember how this policy of printing money worked out for Zimbabwe, or the Weimar Republic, which led to the rise of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany? Liberals might know if they read history books in college instead of organizing “Million Student Marches” for free stuff.



Why would ANY bank offer negative interest rates? Right now there are 21 central banks (owned by the Rothschild’s incidentally) that are doing just that! Here in the U.S., once the most powerful economy on Earth, Jim explains that working capital is forced to hide. It’s hiding in banks. In other words, so much money is coming into banks for safe haven because of the horrendous economic policy by this administration, that banks cannot make enough money anywhere to support the level of assets on their books. Normally that money would be lent out to businesses looking to grow and invest in capital, but this administration has strangled businesses to death, so the very few businesses that even meet the credit worthiness standards attempt to borrow money. Willie says the Fed is like a ship without a rudder, and the U.S. has lost all concept of what capitalism and liberty mean. We are a country that has TOTALLY lost its way.
So, when Janet Yellen says negative interest rates are on the table if the economy significantly worsens, she’s already lying because the economy has significantly worsened every year under Barack Obama. Conveniently, Jim explains, the government manages to hide a -4% growth rate by LYING (Obama? Really?) about what the REAL inflation rate is. Listen to Jim’s analysis on what we are TOLD the growth rate is vs. what the growth has REALLY been, and that’s just the first half of the video. The second half Jim eviscerates the Fed’s highly politicized monetary policy even more!

11-18-2015 10-12-44 AM

With the Economy in Shambles, More Americans Turn to Squatting
Peter Schiff: Did the Fed’s Luck Run Out On Friday the 13th?
Peter Schiff: Take a Good Look at the “New” American Dream!
Jim Willie Explains U.S. Nuclear War Threats to China and Russia Over Challenging Dollar Supremacy
Peter Schiff and “The 4 Harbingers Of Stock Market Doom”
Peter Schiff: Warning! Economic Storm Clouds Ready to Rain
Peter Schiff: It’s All About the Benjamins, And US Currency is Creeping on Broke
Peter Schiff and Reagan Advisor: Complete Economic Collapse Immediately Ahead
Jim Willie: What Will It Mean If the Yuan Gets Reserve-Currency Status?
Jim Willie and 20 Reasons Why Quitting Prepping After September Was Wrong
Disaster: Will EU Become a New Enemy to the U.S. After Refugees Collapse EU?
Peter Schiff: “The Fed Admits Rates Could Stay at Zero Forever”
Peter Schiff with Mr. “I Have No Fear Of an Economic or Stock Market Collapse”
Peter Schiff Explains Why Financial Bubbles Are Ready to Pop
Peter Schiff: Everybody Is Preparing for Wrong Outcome in US Economy
The Elite Have Prepared For the Coming Economic Collapse – Have You?
China Warns Washington It’s Been Liquidating U.S. Treasuries
2 Day Crash That Was Larger Than Any 1 Day Market Crash In U.S. History
10 Horrifying Realities Americans Find Too Awful To Face
Gerald Celente: Massive Market and Trade Instability Will Cause WW III
China Knocking on the Door of Reserve-Currency; World Teeters on Collapse
Peter Schiff: Greece Was a Sideshow. Americans Need to Worry About Starving
Gerald Celente Predicts Economic Collapse Means World War III (Video)
Can You Imagine Empty Grocery Stores?

10 13 11 flagbar

To France from a Post 9/11 America: Lessons We Learned Too Late


By John W. Whitehead

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”—Hermann Goering, German military commander and Hitler’s designated successor

For those who remember when the first towers fell on 9/11, there is an unnerving feeling of déjà vu about the Paris attacks.

Once again, there is that same sense of shock. The same shocking images of carnage and grief dominating the news. The same disbelief that anyone could be so hateful, so monstrous, so evil as to do this to another human being. The same outpourings of support and unity from around the world. The same shared fear that this could easily have happened to us or our loved ones.

Now the drums of war are sounding. French fighter jets have carried out a series of “symbolic” air strikes on Syrian targets. France’s borders have been closed, Paris has been locked down and military personnel are patrolling its streets.

What remains to be seen is whether France, standing where the United States did 14 years ago, will follow in America’s footsteps as she grapples with the best way to shore up her defenses, where to draw the delicate line in balancing security with liberty, and what it means to secure justice for those whose lives were taken.

Here are some of the lessons we in the United States learned too late about allowing our freedoms to be eviscerated in exchange for the phantom promise of security.

Beware of mammoth legislation that expands the government’s powers at the citizenry’s expense. Rushed through Congress a mere 45 days after the 9/11 attacks, the USA Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, undermined civil liberties, expanded the government’s powers and opened the door to far-reaching surveillance by the government on American citizens.

Pre-emptive strikes will only lead to further blowback. Not content to wage war against Afghanistan, which served as the base for Osama bin Laden, the U.S. embarked on a pre-emptive war against Iraq in order to “stop any adversary challenging America’s military superiority and adopt a strike-first policy against terrorist threats ‘before they’re fully formed.’” We are still suffering the consequences of this failed policy, which has resulted in lives lost, taxpayer dollars wasted, the fomenting of hatred against the U.S. and the further radicalization of terrorist cells.

War is costly. There are many reasons to go to war, but those who have advocated that the U.S. remain at war, year after year, are the very entities that have profited most from these endless military occupations and exercises. Thus far, the U.S. taxpayer has been made to shell out more than $1.6 trillion on “military operations, the training of security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, weapons maintenance, base support, reconstruction, embassy maintenance, foreign aid, and veterans’ medical care, as well as war-related intelligence operations not tracked by the Pentagon” since 2001. Other estimates that account for war-related spending, veterans’ benefits and various promissory notes place that figure closer to $4.4 trillion. That also does not include the more than 210,000 civilians killed so far, or the 7.6 million refugees displaced from their homes as a result of the endless drone strikes and violence.

Advocating torture makes you no better than terrorists. The horrors that took place at Abu Ghraib, the American-run prison in Iraq, continue to shock those with any decency. Photographs leaked to the media depicted “US military personnel humiliating, hurting and abusing Iraqi prisoners in a myriad of perverse ways. While American servicemen and women smiled and gave thumbs up, naked men were threatened by dogs, or were hooded, forced into sexual positions, placed standing with wires attached to their bodies, or left bleeding on prison floors.” Adding to the descent into moral depravity, the United States government legalized the use of torture, including waterboarding, in violation of international law and continues to sanction human rights violations in the pursuit of national security. The ramifications have been far-reaching, with local police now employing similar torture tactics at secret locations such as Homan Square in Chicago.

Allowing the government to spy on the citizenry will not reduce acts of terrorism, but it will result in a watched, submissive, surveillance society. A byproduct of this post 9/11-age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers such as Google that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere. We are all becoming data collected in government files. The chilling effect of this endless surveillance is a more anxious and submissive citizenry.

Don’t become so distracted by the news cycle that you lose sight of what the government is doing. The average American has a hard time keeping up with and remembering all of the “events,” manufactured or otherwise, which occur like clockwork and keep us distracted, deluded, amused, and insulated from the reality of the American police state. Whether these events are critical or unimportant, when we’re being bombarded with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days, it’s difficult to stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this. In this way, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions that keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles also keep them tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on their freedoms.

If you stop holding the government accountable to the rule of law, the only laws it abides by will be the ones used to clamp down on the citizenry. Having failed to hold government officials accountable to abiding by the rule of law, the American people have found themselves saddled with a government that skirts, flouts and violates the Constitution with little consequence. Overcriminalization, asset forfeiture schemes, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, warrantless surveillance, SWAT team raids, indefinite detentions, covert agencies, and secret courts are just a few of the egregious practices carried out by a government that operates beyond the reach of the law.

Do not turn your country into a battlefield, your citizens into enemy combatants, and your law enforcement officers into extensions of the military. A standing army—something that propelled the early colonists into revolution—strips the citizenry of any vestige of freedom. How can there be any semblance of freedom when there are tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, Blackhawk helicopters and armed drones patrolling overhead? It was for this reason that those who established America vested control of the military in a civilian government, with a civilian commander-in-chief. They did not want a military government, ruled by force. Rather, they opted for a republic bound by the rule of law: the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, we in America now find ourselves struggling to retain some semblance of freedom in the face of police and law enforcement agencies that look and act like the military and have just as little regard for the Fourth Amendment, laws such as the NDAA that allow the military to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens, and military drills that acclimate the American people to the sight of armored tanks in the streets, military encampments in cities, and combat aircraft patrolling overhead.

As long as you remain fearful and distrustful of each other, you will be incapable of standing united against any threats posed by a power-hungry government. Early on, U.S. officials solved the problem of how to implement their authoritarian policies without incurring a citizen uprising: fear. The powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our control (terrorists, shooters, bombers). They want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized armies for our safety and well-being. Most of all, they want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at each other’s throats.

If you trade your freedom for security, the terrorists win. We’ve walked a strange and harrowing road since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state. And in so doing, we have proven Osama Bin Laden right. He warned that “freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”

To sum things up, the destruction that began with the 9/11 terror attacks has expanded into an all-out campaign of terror, trauma, acclimation and indoctrination aimed at getting Americans used to life in the American Police State. The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time, but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security has transitioned us to life in a society where government agents routinely practice violence on the citizens while, in conjunction with the Corporate State, spying on the most intimate details of our personal lives.

The lesson learned, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is simply this: once you start down the road towards a police state, it will be very difficult to turn back.


It would be easy to turn back if American’s would grow a set and get off their dead ass, do some research, throw OBUMA and the rest of the liars out on their ass and build a new Republic like we were promised. But that would mean they would have to give up their uh-dick-shun to entertainment!

10 13 11 flagbar

Judge Anna on Second Amendment


• Judge Anna on Second Amendment
• An Open Letter to General Dunford and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
• This morning we begin at the beginning.
• For Marge About NLA – Judge Anna

You are in the right place to find out about what is really going on behind the scenes in the patriot movement in America, including solutions from Oathkeepers, Anna Von Reitz, Constitutional Sheriffs, Richard Mack, and many more people who are leading the charge to restore America to freedom and peace. Please search on the right for over 1900 articles. Please comment by clicking the title of the article and scrolling to the bottom on that page.

Over the past month or so I have been demonized as a lot of things, but the strangest accusation of them all is that I am against the Second Amendment.
Let’s get this straight— as far as I read it, The Constitution not only guarantees the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, it infers the responsibility to do so. “Federal United States Citizens” are not afforded any such rights or responsibilities, since “Congress” acting as the plenary oligarchy in charge of the District of Columbia rules their lives, but for Americans, it’s different.

I believe that those who DON’T keep and bear arms and who DON’T step up to the responsibility to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their country, are avoiding their duty. Clearly, the shooters in this most recent violence in Paris yesterday stood around for long periods of time, just shooting innocent people, reloading, shooting some more…. if the majority of people in that theater had had guns and fired back, none of that would have been possible. The would-be shooters would have been blasted to where they were going anyway, and a lot of lives would have been saved.

We, Americans, had to carry guns in the Wild West, and it is coming back to that. There is no way for the police to be everywhere, all the time. We have to be responsible for our own safety, and as much as possible, the safety of others around us. My response is to sign myself and my family up for a refresher Gun Safety and Home Security Course, thank you, very much.

I have a lot of guns by some standards. Texans would probably laugh at my mini-arsenal and say I was short on ammo, but I have guns and I carry guns and I keep guns for a variety of situations. I have small guns to prevent carjacking and personal assaults. I have medium-size guns to prevent attacks from people and animals like dogs. I have great big honking elephant-type guns for Grizzly Bears, large caliber rifles for Moose hunting, shot guns for home security…..yes, folks, I have quite a number of guns.

That said, I am NOT in favor of forcing people to have a gun via legislation. This is supposed to be a free country. I am not here to force my morals on anybody else.
Yessir, anyone who feels that they are too unstable or inept or unable to use a gun or feel morally opposed to having a gun, should not be forced to own one. Any politician who feels the need to turn in their guns is invited to do so at the nearest police station so far as I am in concerned, and ditto all those who are afraid of guns or who are silly enough to believe in “No Gun Zones”—-obviously, they are not in touch with reality, and shouldn’t be trusted with a firearm.

One of my favorite stories comes from New Hampshire, where, not so many years ago, a member of the State Legislature proposed a tax on people who don’t keep and bear arms. His reasoning on the matter is similar to mine. We are all obligated to protect each other and those who don’t take on the responsibility to carry a weapon are impairing their ability to protect themselves and other innocent people.
Virtually everyone in Switzerland is required to have and be able to shoot a gun. The Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the world as a result, which always reminds me of another favorite story. The German Nazi Commander was threatening the Swiss Ambassador with invasion of Switzerland during World War II. What would happen, he mused, if he sent five million German troops over the Swiss border? Without blinking, the Swiss Ambassador replied— every Swiss would shoot five times and go home.

If we want peace and safety for ourselves, our communities, our states, our nation, and our world– we must be similarly prepared and committed to enforcing the peace, because criminals, madmen, and misled religious zealots won’t have it any other way.

An Open Letter to General Dunford and the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Posted: 14 Nov 2015 10:26 PM PST

by Anna Von Reitz

November 12, 2015
The Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Dunford, Chief of Staff
9999 Joint Staff
Washington, DC 20318-9999
Dear General Dunford and Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Today, it is our sad duty to reiterate the facts. Our nation has been all but overrun by British-backed inland pirates making “war” upon innocent civilian non-combatants who are owed the Good Faith and Service of both the British Monarch who is supposed to act as our Trustee on the “High Seas and Inland Waterways” and the City-State of Westminster aka Inner City of London, which promised us “amity in perpetuity” under the Treaty of Westminster 1794.
These Breaches of Trust and Treaty by declared “friends and allies” and the criminality involved in their secretive execution of agreements revealed by the Secret Treaty of Verona (1845) led to the issuance of private privateer’s “licenses” to Bar Association Members including Members of the American Bar Association.
It should also be clear that the resulting theft of our resources and labor and the abuse of our Armed Forces has occurred on the watch of your predecessors, all of whom have taken their paychecks from our treasury while turning a blind eye to the corruption in which they have participated and benefitted from.
The jig, Sirs, is up.
Your duty is clearly to the American People and failure to perform will not be excused.

The false legal proceedings which have allowed the criminals responsible to “redefine” freeborn Americans as debt slaves belonging to the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation and to falsify the probate court records is now fully exposed and has been published worldwide. Similar mechanisms of fraud simulating legal process have been employed throughout Great Britain, the Commonwealth, Western Europe, and Japan.
A popular press article entitled “So What Does All This Mean?” elucidating the legal fraud mechanism and documenting the way in which it was put in place is attached. An original wet-ink signed copy of the referenced “Declaration of Joint Sovereignty” and “Sovereign Letters Patent” submitted to the UN Trust Committee-North America and to the UN Security Council is attached, as is an original wet-ink signed copy of our published, printed, and bound affidavit of probable cause, “You Know Something Is Wrong When…..An American Affidavit of Probable Cause”.

Your offices are already in receipt of the General Civil Orders issued by the American People acting under the Last Man Standing Rule of our Lawful Constitution.
Your duty and the duty of the International Trustees to protect us and to protect our assets both public and private has been clearly enunciated along with our intention to live our lives in peace and our determination to stop this criminality in its tracks.

It’s our credit that has been abused to pay your salaries and buy your “toys” and it is our sons and daughters who fill your ranks and give your offices meaning. You will obey us and you will perform your duty to protect our currency and protect our national trust or we will fire you and hire someone else.
We are the lawful beneficiaries and inheritors of the American National Trust(s) and we are speaking in that capacity as Beneficiaries making demand upon the Trustees to act in our favor and according to our direct instructions.

No presumption that any incorporated entity other than our long-established States of America “represents” us may be maintained and no claim presented by any Member of the American Bar Association may be deemed credible. These con men have been waging a form of commercial war against innocent Third Parties, entrapping and entangling innocent non-combatant civilians in their private abusive bankruptcies.

Not all lawyers and bankers are bad people and many have participated unknowingly in this rape and pillaging of America. Those that have known and have willfully participated in these nefarious acts have operated as Undeclared Foreign Agents and have committed capital crimes including press-ganging, inland piracy, conspiracy against The Constitution, and unlawful conversion of National Trust assets. They are Public Enemies of the highest order, as they have abused positions of Public Trust in order to carry out their actions. They have also committed numerous lesser crimes including personage, barratry, impersonating elected officials, simulating legal process, reverse and secondary trust fraud, fraud by semantic deceit, and constructive fraud.

If your Oath means anything to you, if your country means anything to you, these crimes and those committing them must be brought to a stop. This continuing criminality is our Number One National Security issue.
______________________________________________Anna Maria Riezinger, all rights reserved.
______________________________________________James Clinton Belcher, all rights reserved.
Contact: c/o Box 520994, Big Lake, Alaska RFD 99652 and as previously shared. Enclosed: Wet-ink bound copy of affidavit of probable cause, wet-ink copy of Declaration of Joint Sovereignty and Sovereign Letters Patent, copy of editorial, “So What Does All This Mean?”

This morning we begin at the beginning.

Posted: 14 Nov 2015 05:56 PM PST

by Anna Von Reitz

This information is so important, so fundamental to everything else, that it should be read first in all efforts to educate oneself or anyone else about the condition of our world:

The Fundamental Problem—An Urgent Message For All Americans, All Jews, All Muslims From Judge Anna
Recorded history begins at Sumer–the most ancient advanced civilization of the Fertile Crescent—and the history of Sumer begins with the history of a goddess, a beautiful woman named Semiramis.

Semiramis is depicted in stone carvings found throughout the Mideast as a woman with rays of light coming from her head, just like the Statue of Liberty. She is known by many names: Semiramis, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Cybele, or the Egyptian version— Isis, and she is described in the Bible and elsewhere as “The Mother of Harlots and all Abominations of the Earth” and as the “Mother of Idolatry”.

She was – and is – worshiped along with a pantheon of gods that include her husband, known as Poseidon to the Greeks, Satan to the Hebrews, and plain old Devil to Americans. He is described as “the Father of All Lies”.
The worship of these profane deities spread from Babylon to ancient Canaan, and from there, was carried by the Phoenicians to Carthage and throughout the known world at that time. After the Punic Wars, the religion associated with Semiramis came to Rome from Carthage and again, in the second century BC, from Asia Minor, when the cult of Cybele—another name for Semiramis– became popular in Rome.

The priests of Cybele wore black robes and bleached their hair white; they castrated themselves in honor of their goddess, and collected taxes for the Roman government. Please note that British Barristers (lawyers) still wear black robes, white wigs, and collect taxes for the government.

One of the Tribes of Israel, Dan—the only seafaring tribe– whose banner carries the emblem of the serpent, was seduced by this ancient religion practiced by the Cain-anites. The Tribe of Dan popularized the worship of Semiramis and Satan in every port city of the ancient Mediterranean. They also wrote the Talmud, one of the most vicious and profane works in human history, which became –together with the Law of Hammurabi—the basis of the Law of the Sea and international commerce.

So the Tribe of Dan is “Jewish” in a sense, but they haven’t worshiped their Creator in a hundred generations. They’ve worshiped Satan and Semiramis, instead, and given all the other Tribes of Israel a bad name because of it.

They present themselves in the modern world as “Jews” but they are literally the “Synagogue of Satan” spoken of by Jesus, and again, we find the link to the Pharisees and Scribes– the lawyers and moneychangers of His day. They were the ones who accused Him of being a Necromancer before the Sanhedrin because He raised Lazarus from the dead.

They did this in direct retaliation for being driven from the Temple, then having falsely accused Him of their own sins before the Sanhedrin, they turned around and lied to the Romans and presented Jesus as a political leader in competition with Roman rule, so that Pilate tried him as “the King of the Jews” and crucified Him.

This ancient and secretive religion is known as Satanism throughout much of the world and as Druidism in the British Isles. It has always been associated with snakes, the Sea, the use of sex as a sacrament, vampirism, infanticide—especially burning babies alive, sacred groves, astrology, prostitution, the use of mind-altering and aphrodisiac drugs, either/or thinking patterns, the use of two “goads”— right and left, black and white, Republican and Democrat, Muslim and Jew—to control people, elitism and the enslavement of people to serve the elites, and most of all, lies, fraud, and what is called “mirroring”.

The followers of Satan and Semiramis deliberately pretend to be their enemies.
They run about doing all sorts of hideous things “in the name of” their enemies, wear their enemies clothes, take up their enemies religious emblems and holy books, and to the whole world appear to be their enemies as they carry on their ancient atrocities.

So ask yourselves why a supposedly “Muslim Terrorist Group” is named
after “Isis” — the Egyptian form of Semiramis?

Do you know any followers of Islam in their right minds who would join a group named after an ancient Egyptian fertility goddess—in blatant disrespect of Allah? A goddess who predates Father Abraham by at least 2,000 years?

This is a message to all followers of Islam— you are being given a bad rap by Satanists pretending to be Muslim. Isis, obviously, isn’t a Muslim organization. Oh, there may be some deluded Muslims involved who think they are serving Allah, but no, the truth is plain to see. If you don’t speak up and start tracking down these false brothers and exposing them for what they are, who will?

This message is also to all Jews who worship your Creator— you have been given a bad rap by the Tribe of Dan for over 2000 years. Isn’t it time for an open repudiation of these false brothers, these “Sons of Cain”, who have caused so much misery and destruction for the Jewish people and the rest of the world? What have they ever done for you, except give the Nazis a good excuse?

This message is to all Americans and to the rest of the world— the government of the District of Columbia has been taken over by these criminals. A Satanic Cult known as the “Roman Cult” has long been part of the Roman Catholic Church and also part of the Freemason movement—and as you can see, we have Semiramis standing in New York Harbor, disguised as the “Statue of Liberty”—complete with rays of light coming out of her head.

Let there now be rays of light coming out of your heads.
Ask yourselves— what is liberty? It has the same root word as “libertine”. It’s what British sailors get in ports of call. It’s the worship of Semiramis. It has nothing to do with freedom. It has nothing to do with America.
It is an evil that has been imported to our shores by French Freemasons and the British Crown Corporation and the British Monarch who is supposed to be the Trustee of Americans and American shipping on the “High Seas and Navigable Inland Waterways” and who has instead allowed these attacks against us and all that we stand for.

This is the true “Enemy Within” and this evil religion has been the chosen religion of elitists, bankers, and lawyers since history began. Why? Because Semiramis invented idolatry—money—the use of graven images to “stand for” and “represent” other things.

In addition to the Statue of Liberty honoring Semiramis, we have the Washington Monument— a giant stone penis, also donated by Freemasons, and we have the idol Molloch— a giant effigy of an owl, which in the bad old days used to be heated up red hot and served a lunch of innocent crying babies—squatting in the Bohemian Grove in California.

It’s the emblem of the Bohemian Club, whose members are all elite bankers, corporate CEO’s, lawyers, and even members of the clergy. If you look very closely you can find Molloch’s owl emblem perched in the corner of every Federal Reserve Note.

The worldwide center of this ancient and profane religion is the Crown Temple in the Inner City of London, where bankers and lawyers worship their evil goddess to this day.

We can only hope that they continue to castrate themselves in her honor.
Just as these followers of the Devil, the Father of All Lies, have misrepresented themselves as Jews and as Muslims, they have misrepresented themselves as Americans, too. The Federal United States has presented itself to the rest of the world as if it were the Continental United States and it is well past time for everyone to know that it is not.

These evil, scheming, licentious, duplicitous, greedy, dishonorable men who dominate the District of Columbia have nothing in common with Americans, do not represent us, and are not authorized to act in our names, control our nation, issue our laws, or interfere with us in any way.

We have been asleep, lulled by a false sense of security, believing that men of wisdom and integrity would safeguard our nation in perpetuity; instead, a horde of pirates and vermin in nice suits —international bankers and members of the Bar Associations—have compromised our borders, pretended to be us and to “represent” us, as an actor represents a character on the stage—and have worked iniquity in our names throughout the world.

It is time for this to be recognized for what it is and stopped. Anyone who wishes to remain asleep, anyone who refuses to help clean up this mess, is part of the problem.

The worship of Semiramis and Satan has plagued mankind for eight thousand years. It is time for the worship of idols—be they rock stars or bank notes— to end.
Money must be put back in its place as a simple tool to expedite trade, for like a gun, money is just that— a simple tool which has been abused and misused by evil and deluded men for destructive purposes.

For Marge About NLA – Judge Anna

Posted: 15 Nov 2015 04:09 AM PST

by Anna von Reitz

For Marge About NLA:
Marje– they are far behind the curve. The United Nations and its agency, the IMF, have been in control of the District of Columbia Municipal Government since 1944 and the District of Columbia Municipal Government has been in control of America since 1864, as has been proven by the records that came to light in the Lufkin Case in Texas recently.

There’s no way to avoid dealing with the UN. If they don’t believe me, they should ask Rod Class. He will tell them that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act and the International Organizations Immunity Act released ALL state law and all state offices to the UN back in 1976!

If they don’t believe me and won’t believe Rod Class, they can jolly well read it for themselves!
Pope Benedict repented and Pope Francis has tried to address the criminality. That is where it stands. Both have fallen far short of the honesty and directness that the people are owed.

That is why we have spoken out now. It has been five years since Benedict promised reform and almost three years since Francis first took meaningful action, and the ignorance worldwide about these topics is still so thick you could cut it with a knife.

And you will note, that ignorance is still being used to pit brother against brother, black against white, Jew against Muslim, and yes, uninformed patriots against informed patriots.

The Truth always wins out in the end, Marje. We are all known by our deeds. I am content to be known by mine. Any prejudiced person who locks their mind and puts on their blinkers can only stumble and fall and be taken advantage of, but until they wake up and start looking at the situation from a different perspective I can’t save them. It is the old saying– you can lead a horse to water, but….

My relationship with the Pope? I griped about the Holy See’s culpability. I griped about the Breach of Trust against the Americans shown by the 1845 Treaty of Verona. I griped about the failure of the Holy See to honor its agreements. I griped about their failure to monitor and discipline the Vatican Bank. I griped about the consequences of tolerating the Roman Cult and all its perversions of the Church.

I did what any decent, logical being would do. I went straight to the source and confronted the CEO.

I literally ate my way up the food chain of the Roman Catholic Church along with several others and at the end of the day, Benedict repented— when caught red-handed and forced to look at the situation.

So he turned to his accusers and repented and asked for our help to straighten things out.
Specifically, he asked for us to document the crimes and misadministration of the public trusts and courts, and he asked us to help return American property to Americans by any peaceful means we could find.
That is what we have been doing for five going on six years.

We gave Notice and Due Process resulting in the Final Judgment of Commercial and Administrative Default published in the book Disclosure 101.

We followed it up with our illustrated affidavit of probable cause, “You Know Something Is Wrong When….An American Affidavit of Probable Cause”.

Now we have followed up by defending the attacks against the Continental United States in the UN.
When I spoke to Mr. Jolly all he could say was that he wasn’t going to be fooled by me.
All I could say is that I am the one informing him that he is fooled by his own stubborn ignorance.
And so I let it be.

NLA has yet to learn about the court system it is heir to and the true function and power of the Common Law Grand Jury and the Article VII Courts.
It’s right there in front of them in Article VII of the Constitution. We owe ourselves a whole Common Law Court System to back up the Common Law Grand Juries–which the “federal” government is not authorized to provide.

The Common Law Grand Jury is enabled to hand down presentments against living people and unincorporated businesses, and indictments against corporations and other “federal citizens” for a reason.
That reason is that the Common Law Grand Jury is designed to sit like a lynch pin between the Continental Common Law Citizens and their Court System on one side and the Federal Court System which is only administrative (to deal with the in-house business of the United States, Inc.) and international in nature–admiralty and maritime venues only.

It is plain as the nose on your face from reading the Constitution that we are owed Common Law Courts. It is also clear we are supposed to have Common Law Grand Juries. It is also clear to any lawyer that the present court system from county to state to US DISTRICT is all functioning either as administrative courts or in Admiralty/Maritime.
Where are the rocket scientists among us?

We are supposed to be self-governing. Is it too much to expect that we should be operating our own Common Law Courts?
There is a U.S. Supreme Court Case from 1866 that explains the circumstance very well– Milligan Ex Parte.
In it the Supreme Court says that as long as American (that is, Common Law Courts) are functioning, there is no excuse for the use of martial law.

Our failure to run our own Article VII court system is their excuse to continue operating under martial law which they call “Special Admiralty” and which they use to bilk and harass and falsely imprison Americans.
And that, dear Marje, is why I operate an Article VII Common Law Court in Alaska– to deny the rats any excuse for continuing their improper conduct and operations on our soil.

I told Mr. Jolly the gist of what I have just shared with you and as you know I provided NLA with a wet-ink copy of our affidavit, which they have not acted upon.

As my Mother says, you can teach a fool, but a blankety-blank mule, is a mule until he dies.
I trust that this completely explains my relationship with the Pope and the NLA.
You are welcome to share this reply with whomever you please and I will try to post it on my website and FB page later.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

The IRS A Private Corporation



By JeffAnderson
The second plank of Karl Marx’s communist manifesto calls for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax. This identical immoral and illegal tax structure plagues our country today. We now have socialist and communist politicians who masquerade as Democrats or Republicans. Is there any wonder why so many campaign promises are never kept? Here are some facts concerning this terrorist organization.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a private Corporation, incorporated in Delaware in 1933, and operates under international treaty. (See Public Law 94-564 Reorganization Plan #26)
The IRS (the corporation) is acting as Agent under contract to “the bank” (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) and “the Fund” (The International Monetary Fund) a.k.a. the Treasury.

The IRS is acting as the Agent of a Foreign Principal (Federal Reserve) under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is a Foreign Principal. It is admittedly a private corporation, privately held by 12 families (one American and 11 foreign). THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL

Those who rule the world under this umbrella are the Illuminati, the Bilderberger group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission.

IRS agents are directed and controlled by the corporate governor of “the Bank” and “the Fund” a.k.a. Secretary of the Treasury IRS, Puerto Rico (See Public Law 94-564, U.S. Government Manual 190/1991 & Treasury Delegation Order 150-10).

IRS personnel are trained under the direction of the “Division of Human Resources” of the United Nations and the Commissioner (International), by the “Office of Personnel Management” which is under the direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations (Treasury Delegation Order #92) (Executive Order 10422).

The IRS is also an Agency of the International Criminal Police Organization, and solicits and collects information for 150 Foreign Powers ( 22 U.S.C.263a).

The IRS is directly engaged in the solicitation and gathering legally protected information of a private and personal nature on everyone contained in their files of records, and does distribute that information to the other member agencies throughout the world without the knowledge or consent of the parties involved (22U.S.C.A. 611 (c) (II)).

The Internal Revenue Service (International) lacks proper authority to act  as a Foreign Agents Registration statement ( 22 U.S.C.A. 612) and ( 18 U.S.C.A.219 & 951).
The IRS as a paramilitary organization may not impose military authority into civil affairs ( D.O.A. 27100-70).

The IRS acting as the Agent of a Foreign Principal, “the Bank” and “the Fund” under the United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 7 prohibits the U.N. and its Administrative Agencies from “intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”.

The IRS comes before the courts only as the non- registered Agent of a Foreign Principal, acting in the person of its own corporate capacity.

Acting in its corporate capacity the IRS is engaged in commerce as a collection agency under contract. None of the money that you pay in goes to any program or compelled benefit like you think it does. Almost all of the income tax goes to pay the interest on the so-called “debt” to the Federal Reserve (for illegal fiat money conceived by our bureaucrats, and large corporations), not into the U.S. Treasury.

John F. Kennedy warned the people of this fraud and issued executive order # 11.110 on June 4, 1963, and the Treasury started to issue United States notes that looked like our familiar Federal Reserve Notes but only cost the people the cost of paper, ink and printing. Within months he was dead.

Then Lyndon Johnson inactivated the executive order, and U.S. notes were withdrawn and replaced once again with Federal Reserve notes. Look on the back of any check you have written to the IRS. It will say, “Pay to any branch of the Federal Reserve Bank”.

This is an illegal conversion of funds.

All government sponsored programs and compelled benefits come from money continuously borrowed from the Federal Reserve. This is why our paper money is now described as a ‘note’ instead of a ‘silver certificate’. It is illegally loaned in to existence, and has no value except for the faith the American people put in it.

A note for a thing is not the real thing. When you use Federal Reserve Notes instead of real money (silver certificates, silver or gold), you are simply making a promise to pay, not actually paying. Since the dollar is a unit of measurement, just like a ‘pound’ of coffee or a ‘quart’ of milk, and there is nothing of hard value backing the dollar, what is it a dollar of?

Sure, you buy goods and products with Federal Reserve Notes, but that which you have of appreciable value could be taken from you without due process of law, simply because you never owned the money in the first place.

Look it up.

Every time we spend a dollar, we are re-circulating a dollar that was loaned in to existence. It is because of this debt structure that our nation has a multi trillion-dollar deficit that can never be paid.
Your government has your property listed as collateral against the Federal Reserve Notes (promises to pay) they continuously borrow. The only thing that keeps homeowners from being on the street is the Federal Reserve not calling their note due. When they do call their note due, every man, woman and child will then be their slave.

Thomas Jefferson said, “ If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered”.

The IRS acts on the presumption that assigned foundational agreement/instrument exists between the United States and the citizen/franchisee knowing that very few citizens/non citizens have the knowledge or the courage to resist their extortion.

The IRS leadership has departmentalized the functions of tax collection to purposely limit and discourage the exchange of information and/or the lack of authority, between the departments to prevent low level employees from discovering the true nature of their assignments and thus prevent disclosure and whistle blowing.

IRS references made to any authority for collection proceedings under Title 26 CFR, Subtitle A, are made under color of law as there is no collection authority authorized within Title 26, only penalties for failure to perform a given function.

All Collection authority is found in Title 27 CFR, Part 70 and pertains only to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (Stamp taxes or duties).

Many IRS agents often use alias names and are paid commissions, written to their real name, on what ever they steal from you.

The IRS is unable to provide documented proof of the authorization that enables the IRS
to operate outside the District of Columbia, and insular possessions of the United States, such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Philippines, and American Samoa, as required by Title 4, U.S.C., Section 72.

The IRS uses false documents and presentments that have no legal authority behind them, i.e. 1040 form, Notice of Levy, etc., to solicit and extort money from you using the United States Postal Service. They also falsely represent themselves on the outside of their envelopes, to be an agency of the United States department of Treasury. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Service is guilty of the crime of Mail Fraud and False Representation.

The IRS agents have no legal authority to demand anything from you, if there are no 3rd party informational documents sent to them with your name on it.

They unlawfully and unconstitutionally misapply the revenue laws in an effort to compel you to supply them with confidential information when in fact, their own IRC, 6103, Section (h) and (j) says that they could use this information against you in a criminal proceeding. This is a gross violation of 4th and 5th amendment rights, which are legally protected by the U.S. Constitution. This is pure extortion. You have the lawful right to correct informational documents, such as W2’s, and 1099’s, and demand that they recognize you as one “who does not enjoy the privilege of federally connected employment”.

When are the American people going to wake up and realize that our so-called leaders are co-conspirators with the most evil organization ever contrived?

This is the vilest fraud ever perpetuated on a free people. People in this country need to ask themselves if they were created for the purposes of the IRS and those who conspire with them, or were they created for the Glory of God. Are we going to continue giving to these ungodly, corrupt, and spiritually wicked people the power that belongs to God?

In the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve gave us the first example of the consequences of ‘obedience without question’ to someone other than Almighty God. The result was separation from God, and His fellowship. If it is not of God, it is of the devil.

This is a very simple truth that will never change.


Simple Facts

Fact 1: “The income tax is both legal and constitutional.”

Fact 2. The income tax is an indirect excise tax.

Fact 3: “Income” has the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress.
Fact 4: “The income tax utilizes words of art.”

Fact 5: The only lawful objects of the “income” tax are for activities for which you are paid by the federal government or a federal agency that are connected with the performance of the functions of a public office, a federal instrumentality, federally chartered state worker, or paid officer of a federal corporation…whew!

Fact 6: Filling out a Form W-4 or W-9 does not make you liable to any tax on income, but it can help to create prima facie evidence that is PRESUMED correct by the IRS until you rebut it.

Please note: While the IRS does provide legal means to correct erroneous information returns, they will resist your corrections, in many cases, for as long as possible simply because they believe they can get away with it. Once you introduce credible evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof shifts to the IRS. A signed affidavit of your truth is credible evidence until the Secretary can provide his own, first-hand knowledge of your participation in a taxable activity.

Fact 7: “…the general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code…” ~US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Ballard (1976) (why would the IRS try to hide something from you?)

Fact 8: earnings from an occupation of common right are not the subject of an excise tax.
“An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax…The legislature may declare as ‘privileged’ and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a ‘privilege’ and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right.”[Simms v. Ahrens,
271 SW 720 ]

Fact 10:
“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. . . “United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

Fact 11 We are PRIVATE-SECTOR CITIZENS NOT EMPLOYEES as noted in Sec. 3401, 3121 and others. We do not receive “WAGES” but do receive “Earnings” for our Labor.

Fact 13: “.. the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.

The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.” TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401. Definitions Paraphrased: for income tax purposes, the term “employee” means someone working for the United States.

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. . . . The individual’s rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.” Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)“

Fact 14:
The Supreme Court has declared the meaning of “income” to be fixed and confined to objects proper to an excise. Objects proper to an “income” excise are privileges– which is to say, activities not of common right– and even then only to the extent that such activities are profitable and properly fall under the taxing authority’s jurisdiction.

Fact 15:
The only lawful objects of the “income” tax are activities for which one is paid by the federal government or a federal agency or instrumentality; activities effectively connected with the performance of the functions of a public office; activities as a federal, federal instrumentality, or a federally chartered “State” worker’ or activities as a paid officer of a federal corporation.

Fact 16:
Sec. 7701. – Definitions: (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof – (26)Trade or business – The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

Fact 17:
Section 6041A(d) Applications to governmental units (1) Treated as persons – The term “person” includes any governmental unit (and any agency or instrumentality thereof).

Fact 18: The statutory definition of a term excludes unstated meanings of that term. (in other words, a term created by Congress has a custom statutory meaning and its regular, common meaning is stripped away). That’s right from Meese v. Keene.
See also the doctrines of: Noscitur a sociis (a word is known by its associates, or a word is known by the company it keeps); ejusdem generis (the specific governs the general); Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one thing is the implied exclusion
of the alternative)

Fact 19: Not every receipt is “income” within the meaning of the term “gross income.” As such, not all payments are ‘reportable payments

Fact 20: Payers who issue invalid information returns are subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Fact 21: Title 26 is not positive law. It is only prima facia evidence of law.

Fact 22: The 16th Amendment did not eliminate the requirement of “apportionment”
for direct taxes in the Constitution.

Article 1, sec. 2, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States which may be included in this union, according to their respective Numbers…” and also in Article 1, sec. 9, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration
herein before directed to be taken.”

Fact 23: “withholding” (advance payments to the government) is done to both taxpayers as well as non-taxpayers. And humans can make mistakes/misinterpret law.

Fact #24: Withholdings are in fact “Employment taxes” imposed upon “employees” [as such term is defined at IRC 3401(c) embracing an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, or an officer of a corporation]. To wit:

Fact #25: The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable, New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U. S. 308, 300 U. S. 313-314; Hale v. State Board, 302 U. S. 95, 302 U. S. 108; Helvering

Fact # 26 The IRS LIES…
A READER – in his own words.. said this ( these questions make sense )

Call your Sec of State and ask if the IRS is licensed, bonded, & insured to do any type of business within your State- also THEY need to BE licensed to carry fire arms, also why are search warrants issued to a private corp ?

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Has the Pentagon gone rogue?


By Preston James, Ph.D
Instead of protecting us and preventing the attack on America on 9-11-01, the Pentagon was deeply involved and now continues to support Terror in the Mideast. Is it time for Americans to take back control of the Pentagon and stop its illegal, un-Constitutional rogue operations?

11-13-2015 11-48-36 AM

Is there a major faction in the Pentagon that is run by PNACers and Top NeoCons that has gone rogue?
Was the Pentagon’s top control structure hijacked by Rumsfeld and Cheney during Bush2’s presidency and do they still maintain control through their high positions in the Secret Shadow Government?

Is JSOC now a rogue operation? For years some insiders have claimed that Richard Cheney took complete control over JSOC, turning it into his private assassination squad while VP, and never relinquished control.
Is there any substance to the rumors that Cheney’s health is excellent and the so-called heart problems and transplant are all a ruse to get the heat off him for all the war crimes and crimes against humanity he is responsible for?

11-13-2015 11-51-12 AM

Many believe that Cheney and Rumsfeld were both deeply involved in the operations behind the attack on America on 9-11-01 and that Cheney ran the FAA, the US Military and NORAD stand-down, permitting the Mossad to run this Gladio-style False-flag attack targeting NYC and the Pentagon.
It was allegedly Rumsfeld that called a special meeting of the Able Danger Task Force to meet in the Pentagon on 9-11-01 in the exact location targeted to be there at the exact time. Why would he do such a thing?
The most reasonable answer to this question is that Able Danger was tracking the Mossad group and the nuclear warheads they stole from Pantex in Amarillo, Texas. It was this group that stored the nukes near the Twin Towers and then deployed them in the Twin Towers using Mossad front company Urban Movers.
If most members of this task force had not been present in the targeted area of the Pentagon that morning on 9-11-01 and murdered, they would have quickly been able to connect the dots of who was responsible for nuking the Twin Trade Towers.
Those that missed this meeting and survived have been too afraid to ever speak out about what they discovered and know that they are likely being closely surveilled and believe they will be severely sanctioned by a “with prejudice” final judgment if they speak out.

Who has allowed the Pentagon’s top control structure to go renegade? The answer is that a lot of powerful USG officials that should have done their jobs and stopped this hijacking of the American military by the World’s largest Organized Crime Syndicate. This syndicate is also the World’s largest Opium Cartel, the World’s private “bloodline” Money-changers who run almost every monetary creation and lending system. And their top leaders are known to be secret Baal worshipers continuing the same anti-human evil occult practices all the way back to ancient Babylonia. These practices include infant and child sacrifice and mass-sacrifices of thousands and millions innocents using wars. These parasites believe they get supernatural powers from shedding the blood of innocents and sacrificing them to Baal (Lucifer).

We now know for certain that the main espionage group responsible for the inability and unwillingness of Congress to protect We The People as their Oath of Office requires has been AIPAC, which we now know for certain is an Israeli espionage front inside America that funnels massive campaign funds and other perks to Members of Congress and top USG Officials. Anyone doubting this can study the testimony provided by great American Hero and former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.

So far it is apparent that every single sitting member of the US Congress except one, Representative Walter Jones signed the AIPAC Loyalty Oath to place Israel first even before America. This is a clear violation of ones Oath of Office and is Treason too.

Why is this Treason? Because we now have incontrovertible clear-cut evidence that Israel covertly attacked America on 9-11-01 and is therefore an enemy of the USA. The perps never thought they would be exposed for this but thanks to the Worldwide Internet, the New Gutenberg Press, the truth is now known to many and the evidence that has emerged is overwhelming.
The Pentagon has been used to foment terror in order to psyop the American masses to draw Americans into illegal, un-Constitutional foreign wars of aggression for war profits for the Military Industrial Complex.

Because much of the Pentagon has been hijacked and gone rogue, it can be easily used by the PNACers and Top NeoCons to create and support terror anywhere desired in America, the Middle East, Africa or anywhere. This engineered, staged terror can then be used as an excuse to justify the deployment of the American Military machine to counter that False-flag terror.

The result: the Military Defense Complex is able to generate billions of dollars of war profits for the Banksters and their associated international defense contractors. But the human cost is so great it is beyond normal human imagination. Being responsible for millions of deaths of innocent humans beings and thousand of deaths and disabilities of good American Soldiers is nothing to these soulless criminal monsters who walk among us and pretend they are normal.

11-13-2015 11-58-57 AM

But perhaps one of the worst scandals the Pentagon has ever become involved in is its secret role in trafficking huge amounts of opium from Afghanistan, using remote piloted Global Hawks to transport it into America and some other countries. So we have a situation where the US Army protects the opium crop in Afghanistan and uses it to provide massive amounts of “off the books” money for black operations. But the US Military is also in Afghanistan to provide easy, cheap, protected harvesting of Lithium needed for high tech batteries.

Of course this is nothing new for the USG because we now know for certain that the CIA trafficked in massive amounts of opium from the Golden Triangle during the Vietnam war, often stuffing drugs in the body cavities of American Soldiers killed in Action in an illegal, un-Constitutional war that should never have been allowed by any honest US Congress. Any soldier who found out about this and reported it to their base commander usually ended up dead in a strange jeep accident.

Instead of being used to defend America the Pentagon has gone rogue and has been assisting the CIA in trafficking illegal narcotics and creating and deploying Terror to justify sending in the American War Machine run out of the Pentagon.

For years the CIA has been illegally deployed inside the continental USA, spying on Americans, running operations to abuse, harass and even murder dissidents and whistle-blowers for the Bush Crime Cabal. But it has also been a major trafficker of illegal narcotics for the large Opium Cartel associated with the Rothschild *Khazarian Mafia (RKM Banksters working out of the City of London) which is believed to be the true force that hijacked the Pentagon and still runs it using Israeli Likudists and stateside PNACers and Top NeoCons.

Numerous insiders have claimed that it was Bush1 that hijacked the CIA and who was the main controller of the JFK Assassination, being present in Dealey Plaza that day November 22, 1963, watching it happen.

Has the whole Pentagon gone rogue? Apparently the US Navy is still under control of the US President even though there may be good reason to suspect that the USAF went rogue right before the JFK Assassination with its association with the now defunct but formerly quite powerful E-Systems of Fort Worth.
It is interesting to note that the US Navy has withdrawn its last carrier group from the Mideast. That decision makes sense and would have to have come from the US President. The reason it makes sense is that there have been numerous credible reports that the new Russian anti-ship missile systems cannot be stopped by the Aegis Radar operated defense system or anything else the US Navy has.

11-13-2015 12-01-43 PM

The USS Donald Cook incident in April 2014 is a strong reminder of what some of the new Russian electronic warfare capabilities are, and they are extremely effective. According to reports Russian aircraft doing a flyby on that day shut down the American Aegis system and other electronics, rendering the USS Donald Cook defenseless, a sitting duck in the water.

And now we have news reports that America is sending some USAF F-15 fighter aircraft to fight ISIS in Syria. But they have not been officially invited by Syria as the Russians were, who are a major long term ally of Syria. Some are concerned that this constitutes a ploy to draw America into a major war with Russia in the Mideast, a war that could escalate to a large scale nuclear exchange involving America, Russia, Europe and the Mideast.

Did Obama order this deployment of F-15s or was he informed it was going to be made and just went along because he knew he couldn’t stop it?

It is important to note that we now have Senator John McCain as head of the Senate Armed Services Committee and many expect him to be around into the next Administration, while Obama has only a little over a year left in office. Senator McCain is the only American charged with Treason during the Vietnam War because his fellow officers reported how he collaborated with the enemy while a POW.

McCain’s betrayal resulted in numerous deaths of American Pilots.
McCain was granted immunity because blanket immunity was granted to all POWS to provide cover for his betrayal. And Senator McCain played a central role in blocking any real investigation and rescue of the MIA’s left behind by Henry Kissinger and President Nixon at the end of the war. But this should come as no surprise since his father a Navy Admiral was an important player in the cover-up of the Israeli False-flag attack on the USS Liberty Ship.

This alone may make it easy for some top Pentagon Officials to cooperate closely and maintain loyalty to Senator McCain and other Top NeoCons rather than to Obama.

How interesting it is that Obama has so far refused to send the American military into a full air and ground war in Syria, Iraq and Iran as the PNACers and Top NeoCons have been coercing him to do. he has been apparently willing to send special ops to train Syrians rebels fighting against Assad and also to train ISIS. Or did he? Or were these rogue Pentagon operations done without Obama’s approval?

11-13-2015 12-04-31 PM

America has worked covertly with Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to create, train, supply and pay ISIS which is nothing more than a paid mercenary force with deep support from the CIA and the Pentagon and all at US taxpayers expense without their knowledge or permission.

And now the Russian Federation at the request of its long term ally Syria has completely checkmated this Israeli-American Terror Machine in Syria. This checkmate has exposed all the lies about ISIS that the USG has been feeding to the American people through a crooked, lying Controlled major Mass Media illegal News Cartel.

And Obama and former US Generals have even admitted that the USG was supporting ISIS and used Terrorists to attain goals.

Insiders call this rogue group that has hijacked much of the pentagon, the Israeli-American Terror machine. We know now for certain that it plays an important role Psyopping the American Masses to motivate them to support illegal, un-Constitutional, undeclared, unwinnable wars of aggression in the Mideast.

Former President George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush1) just published a biography characterizing Cheney and Rumsfeld as too hawkish and blaming them for hurting the administration of his son George W. Bush (Bush2). Has Bush1 made a serious effort to extricate son Jeb from any guilt by association between his brother Bush2 to Cheney and Rumsfeld who hijacked the Pentagon and JSOC and were deeply involved in the Israeli attack on America of 9-11-01?

Is this a signal that the top few folks that really run things behind the dark curtain have decided to cut Cheney and Rumsfeld loose along with the rest of the top NeoCons and the Israeli-American “Israeli-first” Dual Citizen PNACers?

Does this mean that the ADL, AIPAC, DHS and the like will soon be finished as an espionage fronts for Israel and the RKM in America? Does it mean that Israel will also be cut loose to be dealt with by the rest of the World and the American masses for the 9-11-01 attack on America and Apartheid, tyranny, massive land theft and genocide against Palestinians?

And is this an omen that it has already been decided that the RKM stranglehold on the American monetary creation and distribution system with the fraudulent, criminal, un-Constitutional Federal Reserve System is going to end soon? Sure seems that way.

Does this mean that Hillary Clinton was right when she confided and griped to a group of insiders that “we are losing the information war”? Yes, it is now becoming quite obvious that thanks to the Worldwide Internet, the New Gutenberg Press, We The People and the citizens of the World are beginning to win the information war. It’s been a long, slow, disheartening process, but serious progress has been made and is now accelerating noticeably.

It’s time for America to take back control of the Pentagon, the CIA and the US Military before the PNACers and Top NeoCon Traitors seduce America into more illegal, un-Constitutional unwinnable wars of aggression to make big profits for the Military Industrial complex. We know that the Pentagon hijackers are the RKM Banksters which run the World’s largest Opium Cartel and the principals of this cartel are the same few individuals who have hijacked the Pentagon. This is why the Pentagon and the CIA have become as addicted to drug revenues for black ops as any mainlining heroin addict.

But in order to drive these World’s largest organized crime moguls away from Pentagon control it is probably going to be necessary to expose the true perps who attacked America on 9-11-01 with nukes. These folks are the same individuals who hijacked the Pentagon, run the drugs and also run the CIA as a deniable source of international Terror used to start proxy wars for Israel and the RKM.

And in order to do that it is going to be necessary to either break up the CMMM News Cartel, an illegal news monopoly, or at least reach a point where the majority of Americans no longer believe any of its lies which is most of what it broadcasts and publishes.


Everyday more and more US Special Operations warriors become more and more disillusioned and distrustful of the Pentagon’s command structure. They know that the Seal Team Six members involved in the fake assassination of Osama bin Laden (aka Colonel Tim Osman, his CIA tradecraft name) who died in late 2001 of Marfan’s Syndrome were all murdered to keep them from talking. Many of the surviving families know this too and are very angry and want payback.

But murdering America’s most brave and heroic soldiers who have served their nation diligently is nothing new. Eleven of the Twelve spooky Teams in South America were murdered to keep them from talking about the CIA’s involvement in illegal narcotics trafficking into America.
In fact in the last 20 years most US Special Ops have been murdered or disabled at the hands of the USG.

This is a disgusting betrayal of loyalty and trust. It is getting to the point where no special ops will trust any higher command anymore.

Right now there is major dissatisfaction growing inside the Pentagon and perhaps especially among the USN “Greybeards” who know that the Naval Intel offices were targeted by the USAF on 9-11-01 in a long term secret war between the USAF and the USN.

And to make matters even worse, many Americans are just now starting to understand that not only has the RKM been able to use their main action agent the Israelis to hijack Congress, the CIA and most of the Pentagon, but they have been able to consolidate all American Law Enforcement and the Alphabets into one centralized agency, Homeland Security (DHS) run by them.

How sick and twisted it is it for our Traitors in Congress and our Administration to allow a foreign based espionage group of perverts who are secret Baal worshiper to consolidate all American law Enforcement into their own secret police and run it as an extension of the Israeli IDF anti-terror forces? Can you say “enemy within our gates”.

And if you doubt how malignant a development this is to have a foreign operated RKM/Israeli secret police organization running our Law Enforcement, just consider how much damage the ADL has been doing to Americans by training and militarizing the police. American Police have been receiving military grade heavy weaponry from the Pentagon and are now being trained and mind-kontrolled by the ADL to view average Americans as domestic terrorists to be shot down at a minor lack of compliance to verbal orders. What a creative way to oppress, tyrannize and eliminate even more American Goyim. Not as good as fighting Israel’s wars to establish a greater Israeli based new Mideast and then a whole RKM NWO however.

Right now it looks as if the RKM Globalist Plan for their NWO system based on a greater Israel and the transformation of America into GAZA II with American Goyim the New Palestinians is checkmated thanks to Putin and the Russian Federation.

If we continue to keep the pressure on and getting the facts out about how Israel and our USG Traitors attacked America on 9-11-01 and started and have been suporting ISIS and all the other so-called terror groups, we can break their back and dis-empower them.
Be certain of this. There are many good Americans in the Pentagon and the US Military at all levels. because they have been fed continual lies for many years that are now being exposed in spades thanks to the Internet’s alternative news and the Russian Federation’s checkmate of the Israeli-American Terror Machine in Syria.

Every day more and more of the big lies, false-narratives and propaganda of the PNACers and Top NeoCons that hijacked the Pentagon are being exposed and even driven into the Controlled Major Mass Media (CMMM) peripherally. All secrecy is ending. Who can we thank for this exposure of almost every secret that has been kept behind the evil curtain and used to oppress us and the many good changes which have happened lately?

Yes, as you probably guessed, it’s the Intel cowboys. Some of you know who they are and many are inside at the highest levels and you will never find out who they are. These magnificent Intel Cowboys are not just from America but are from all over the World and many nations you would never expect.

These unspoken heroes of America and many other nations are folks who now fully understand what and who the Khazarian Mafia is and will no longer put up with all their perpetual, unwinnable their wars for profit and mass death and incalculable human suffering and loss. Stay tuned because things are going to get interesting fast.

It’s not over until the fat lady sings and despite the great malignant seemingly overwhelming evil we all face and must fight and defeat together, we must not think it’s hopeless. Americans from all walks of life and every occupation are now finally waking up and ready to create serious change and put an end to the Khazarian Mafia’s occupation. Every day more and more Americans are realizing that the PNACers and the Top NeoCons have been working hard to asset strip America and transform it into a political province of Israel and the RKM Banksters.

We must all work together to stop allowing them to asset strip us and so much of the World of their hard earned income. We must no longer allow them to function as the World’s largest parasite and War Machine, earning endless profits ie. the process of mass-murdering and disabling millions and destroying whole nations.

The Khazarian Mafia is an abbreviation to represent the organized crime group that later morphed into the Rothschild Khazarian Mafia. VT Financial Editor Mike Harris coined the term “Khazarian Mafia”. His VT radio, “The Short End of the Stick” show is on Tuesdays and Thursdays 7-9 PM CST. Mike Harris started using this descriptive term Khazarian Mafia after extensively researching the true but hidden history of the nation of Khazaria and its connection to Rothschild World Zionism now centered in the City of London. He also discovered the long held hatred that the RKM has harbored since about 1020 AD for the non-Khazarian Russians that is still a major motive for the Khazarian Mafia today in its quest to destroy Persia (Iran) and then encircle and once again destroy Russia. Their goal? To steal all Russia’s assets like in 1917, and mass-murdering any non-Khazarian Russians remaining alive, as a replay of their Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Social Security The Long Slow Default


Kirby R. Cundiff

When an investor buys an annuity or another retirement product from an insurance or mutual fund company, the contract is constant and enforceable through the United States court system. When a United States taxpayer is forced to pay for a government backed retirement system such as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program (OASDI) — also known as Social Security — the “contract” can be, and is, changed on a regular basis by the United States government, and those changes are generally not to the benefit of the taxpayer.

Participation in the Social Security system became compulsory in 1935 and the first monthly retirement checks were issued in 1940. The first monthly check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. She had paid approximately $25 into the Social Security system and received over $22,000 in benefits from the system due to living to 100 years of age. The other early retirees of the Social Security system on average also did very well. Retirees in 1977 are estimated to have received seven times what they paid into the Social Security system. Retirees entering the program as recipients today will probably receive a negative return on their “investment.”

The “Primary Insurance Amount”

The way that Social Security benefits are calculated is complicated, and can, of course, be modified at any time.

The amount of monthly income a Social Security enrollee receives is called the Primary Insurance Amount. The current Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) benefit formula was created in 1979 and is based on two “bend points.”

For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2015, his PIA will be the sum of:

(a) 90 percent of the first $826 of his average indexed monthly earnings (AIME), plus,
(b) 32 percent of his average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) over $826 and through $4,980, plus,
(c) 15 percent of his average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) over $4,980,

where the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) is currently the average of the Social Security recipients top thirty-five years of income during his lifetime divided by 12.

Significantly, each year’s monthly income is expressed in 2015 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Benefit Cuts Since the 1970s

By the late 1970s, it became obvious that the Social Security system was going to have significant solvency problems since the ratio of workers to retirees decreased from around 40-to-1 in 1945 to around 3-to-1 in 1980, and most of the money paid into the system had been spent on other government programs.

Payroll taxes were therefore increased, and a series of changes were made to the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) payment formula to cut the benefits that Social Security enrollees would receive.

The PIA formula before 1979 was even more complicated than the one used in 2015. It had ten bend points, but gave more credit to high income workers. According to Robert J. Myers in his book Social Security, the changes in the benefit formula in 1979 resulted in, on average, a 7 percent reduction in monthly Social Security payments for new retirees. Under that current benefit formula, if a Social Security enrollee has a life-time income over $2 million, he will very likely have a negative return on his investment. For lifetime incomes between $0.5 million and $2 million, the enrollee has a chance to break even. Enrollees with a lifetime income less than $0.5 million have a good chance of still benefiting from the Social Security system. The number of years included in the earnings base (the number of years of income averaged to determine the monthly benefit payment) was gradually increased from twenty-three years, for people born in 1917, to twenty-nine years for people born in 1923 to thirty-five years, for people retiring in 2015.

For mothers who took time off from their career, people who spent a long time in graduate school, and people whose income was much larger during later parts of their life, this resulted in a significant decrease in benefits. (See The Social Security Book by Jack and Erwin Gaumnitz.)

Using the CPI to Keep Payments Down

Since the 1970s, the AIME used to determine the PIA has been indexed using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). So the higher the CPI, the larger a recipient’s monthly Social Security benefits will be. Social Security benefits for current retirees are also increased annually by the CPI. This means that one way the government can lower benefit payments is by under-estimating the inflation rate. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has redefined how the CPI is calculated several times since the 1980s, lowering the CPI in each case. According to economists at Shadow Government Statistics, the CPI currently underestimates the inflation rate by at least 4 percent per year. If this is the case, Social Security recipients receive a 4 percent reduction in their buying power each year.

“Mini-Defaults” in the Social Security System

The US government knows it cannot keep up its end of the original Social Security bargain. So, to address its insolvency issue, the federal government simply responds by reducing benefits while increasing taxes. Increasing the retirement age, for example, is an easy way to reduce benefits.

The retirement age was increased from sixty-five for those born in 1937 or before to sixty-seven for those born in 1960 or after. Since enrollees do not get maximum benefits until age seventy, it could be argued that seventy is really the current full retirement age.

The taxable earnings base (the maximum income that is subject to Social Security taxes) and Social Security tax rates have increased drastically since the system was first created. The taxable earnings base was $3,000 in 1937, $25,900 in 1980, and $118,500 in 2015. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) tax was 2 percent in 1937, 9.04 percent in 1980, and 10.98 percent in 2015. This number includes both the employer and employee portion. When the 1.42 percent Disability Insurance tax and the 2.9 percent Medicare tax is added, the total payroll tax is currently 15.3 percent.

In 1983, legislation was passed to tax Social Security benefits for the first time. Currently, if a taxpayer’s provisional income is more than $25,000 on a single return or $32,000 on a joint return, their Social Security benefits will be taxed at between 50 percent and 85 percent of their normal tax rate.

Further Tax Increases and Benefits Cuts are Likely in the Near Future

According to the Social Security Administration, by 2033 future payroll taxes will only cover around 77 percent of estimated benefits. It is therefore likely that even further benefit cuts and tax increases will occur in the near future. Increasing Social Security tax rates from 12.4 percent to 15.5 percent and eliminating the taxable maximum (i.e., making all income subject to Social Security taxes) is currently being considered. Other tax increases being proposed include taxing contributions to flexible spending accounts and creating a national Value Added Tax (VAT).

Further cuts to Social Security benefits are also on the table. Proposals to cut benefits include increasing the retirement age from sixty-seven to seventy years, increasing the number of years included in the earnings base from thirty-give to thirty-eight or forty, and increasing the percentage of Social Security benefits that are subject to income taxes. Redefining the CPI index to further underestimate the inflation rate is also on the table.

Social Security has long been sold to the public on the notion that what a worker will receive back is what he or she pays into the system. For decades, however, the government has been changing the terms of this “agreement” as part of an effort to avoid outright default. This long, slow method of piecemeal default, however, is likely to continue.


A man is a fool who trusts his rights to lawyer, his soul to a preacher, his health to a doctor, his wealth to a banker, and his happiness and security to a government.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


The Irrational War On Carbon: Toward The 2015 Climate Change Summit in Paris


11-11-2015 10-53-47 AM

Written By: Patrick Wood

The core stakeholders who will orchestrate the Paris 2015 Climate Change Summit are out in full force to froth the brew of anti-carbon rhetoric.

There is no better example of what will be said than what has already been said by the Carbon Tracker Initiative based in London. First, they call for a “carbon bubble deflation” where the excessive production of fossil fuel carbon will be methodically reduced to zero thanks to financial pressure and asset realignment. Comparing carbon to a financial bubble serves to create an urgent avoidance, but the analogy is deeply flawed.

According to this approach, “smart” utilities and other fossil fuel users are told that they should divest themselves of assets related to coal, oil and their derivatives. Carbon Tracker then reminds the company that if management winds up with “abandoned assets” in their portfolio, they will have failed their shareholders.
Christiana Figueres, the United Nations’ climate head, loves this approach and is backing it 100 percent. She stated in May 2014,

“Governments have agreed to limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius. Governments have also agreed to put in place the pathways to deliver this with a new and universal agreement in Paris towards the end of 2015. In order to reach this goal, large amounts of coal and oil will have to stay in the ground, unburnt. Carbon Tracker’s new [oil and coal cost] ‘Curves’ report indicates where in respect to the oil industry some of those stranded assets and some of those red lines will lie.”
Will The Carbon Tracker Initiative have an impact at the Paris 2015 Climate Change Summit? They believe they will:

“We have the technical knowledge, connections and reach to get inside the mind-set of the global financial community and effect change on a global scale. We are a non-profit, independent organisation, free from the commercial constraints of mainstream analysts and able to set our own research agenda.”
Secondly, they have the full support of the United Nations.

The ultimate goal (by 2030) is nothing less than to completely stop all production of coal and oil.
Let’s analyze this a bit. When Carbon Tracker Initiative calls for “carbon deflation”, any rational economist would perceive that this will also cause economic deflation as well. Why? Because energy is required for all economic activity and currently carbon provides the bulk of that energy. Secondly, there are no substitutes offered to make up the difference in those deflated resources.

Will wind and solar power be sufficient to completely replace the loss of coal and oil? Hardly. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 67 percent of America’s electricity is currently derived from these resources. If you add in nuclear and hydropower, the total rises to 92 percent. By comparison, all sources of renewables combined (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal) only produce 7 percent.

There is no concrete plan on the table anywhere that could begin to replace the missing energy if coal and oil are summarily eliminated. The lack of solutions is underscored by Bill Gates’ recent plea for a huge increase in research funds to explore new technologies. In the end, Gates says he is hoping for a miracle.
The bottom line is that the United Nations and Carbon Tracker Initiative want to kill the only major source of energy today, while hoping against hope that some unforeseen miracle will bail them out later.
It doesn’t take a PhD to realize that this is a formula for economic disaster.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM





(This is a verified plain statement of fact)
Date: OCTOBER 15, 2015
1. All men and women know that the foundation of law and commerce exists in the telling of the truth, and nothing but the truth.
2. Truth, as a valid statement of reality, is sovereign in commerce.
3. An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.

4. An un-rebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.
5. Guaranteed- All men shall have a remedy by the due course of law. If a remedy does not exist, or if the remedy has been subverted, then one may create a remedy for them selves – and endow it with credibility by expressing it in their affidavit.
6. Ignorance of the law might be an excuse, but it is not a valid reason for the commission of a crime when the law is easily and readily available to anyone making a reasonable effort to study the law.
7. All corporate government is based upon Commercial Affidavits, Commercial Contracts, Commercial Liens and Commercial Distresses. Hence, governments cannot exercise the power to expunge commercial processes. The Legitimate Political Power of a corporate entity is absolutely dependent upon its possession of commercial Bonds against Public Hazard.
No Bond means no responsibility, means no power of Official signature, means no real corporate political power and means no privilege to operate statutes as the corporate vehicle
8. The Corporate Legal Power is secondary to Commercial Guarantors. Case law is not a responsible substitute for a Bond.
9. Municipal corporations, which include cities, counties, states and national governments, have no commercial reality without bonding of the entity, its vehicle (statutes), and its effects (the execution of its rulings).
10. In commerce, it is a felony for the Officer/Public Office to not receive and report a Claim to its Bonding Company – and it is a felony for the agent of a Bonding Company to not pay the Claim.
11. If a bonding Company does not get a malfeasant public official prosecuted for criminal malpractice within (60) days, then it must pay the full face value of a defaulted Lien process at (90) days.
12. Except for a Jury, it is also a fatal offence for any person, even a Judge, to impair or to expunge, without a Counter-Affidavit, any Affidavit or any commercial process based upon an Affidavit.
13. Judicial non-jury commercial judgments and orders originate from a limited liability entity called a municipal corporation – hence must be reinforced by a Commercial Affidavit and a Commercial Liability Bond.

14. A foreclosure by a summary judgment (non-jury) without a commercial bond is a violation of commercial law.
15. Governments cannot make unbounded rulings or statutes which control commerce, free-enterprise citizens, or sole proprietorships without suspending commerce by a general declaration of martial law.
16. It is tax fraud to use Courts to settle a dispute/ controversy which could be settled peacefully, outside of or without the Court.
17. An official (officer of the court, policeman, etc.) must demonstrate that he/she is individually bonded in order to use a summary process.
18. An official who impairs, debauches, voids or abridges an obligation of contract, or the effect of a commercial lien without proper cause, becomes a lien debtor – and his/her property becomes forfeited as the pledge to secure the lien. Pound breach (breach of impoundment) and rescue is a felony.
19. It is against the law for a Judge to summarily remove, dismiss, dissolve or diminish a Commercial Lien. Only the Lien Claimant or a Jury can dissolve a Commercial Lien.
20. Notice to agent is notice to principal; notice to principal is notice to agent.
21. PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENT: All officials are required by Federal, State and Municipal Law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and malpractice bonding company, the policy number of the bond and if required, a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance.

Failure to provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prim-a-facie evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official, personally, to secure their public oath and service of office.
22. This International Commercial Obligation Lien is, in part, supported & prefaced on UCC-9/102 (Agricultural Liens); UCC 9/607-610 (Secured Party’s Right to take possession after default), with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Lien Claimants:

1. Steven Duane Curry; (as a Witness, a Crime Victim, an Injured, Individual, Living Being, Representing All (Listed/ Unlisted/Unknown/Multiple) Crime Victims, Injured parties, Individuals, Living Beings, and Inhabitants in the Territory known as Colorado, America, and elsewhere on all Tribal Lands).
21250 Dave Wood Road Montrose, Colorado [81403]


2. Anna Maria Riezinger
c/o Box 520994 Rural Route 99652 Big Lake, Alaska

3. James Clinton Belcher
c/o Box 520994 Rural Route 99652 Big Lake, Alaska

4. Sandra Lee Tyler
21250 Dave Wood Road Montrose, Colorado [81403]
(970) 249-8879

James A. Porter
P.O. Box 531
Ridgway, Colorado [81432]

5. James Robert
c/o North Carolina,
c/o 217 Paragon Parkway, #103, Clyde
near [28721]

6. Rocky-Lee:Hutson
525 1/2 32 1/8 Road
Clifton, Colorado [81520-9998]
970) 589-2336

7. gary-dean: darby
C/o General Post-Office Private mailbox 1290 Board shanty Rd
Grants Pass, Oregon Nation Near [97527-9998]
Non domestic 541-862-2074

8. Stephen Michael Keno
1020 Hurt dr.
Pagosa Springs, Co. 81147 970-731-9729

9. David Lynn Coffelt
10. Marcia Ann Coffelt
2000 W 92nd Avenue – Lot 85 Federal Heights, CO 80260 303-853-9914 Res
720-206-8717 Cell

11. Connie Joy Bedwell
7042 Sprig Dr.
Sacramento, California 95842 (916) 532-2801

12. Aaliyah Sky Bedwell
(Authorizing agent: Connie Joy Bedwell) 7042 Sprig Dr.
Sacramento, California 95842 (916) 532-2801

13. Timothy Brock Bedwell (Authorizing agent: Connie Joy Bedwell)
7042 Sprig Dr.
Sacramento, California 95842 (916)532-2801

14. Rob Driskell
P.O. Box 26012
Colorado Springs, Colorado [80936] 719-201-5392

15. Michael Driskell
4990 Decatur St.
Denver, Colorado [80221]

16. Troy W Brown
6351 W Brittany Place Littleton Colorado 720 561-1800

17. Greg Giehl
PO Box 5817
Pagosa Springs, Colorado Landline# 970-264-0055,

18. Esther Jean Williams 1024 East Ash Street Pueblo, CO 81001
(719) 544-5362

19. Janis Blease

20. Johnny Bernarld Mikel, the man,
109 South Independence Avenue Dearing, Kansas 67340-9998 non domestic outside U.S.A.

21. John Guarneri
P.O. Box 152253
Cape Coral, Florida. 33904 (239)850-4408

22. Mike Makuh
c/o 109 Gordon Creek rd, Boulder, Colorado [80302]

23. Susan Beth Ysmael-Hulsebus
4501 Pheasant Lane
Rocklin, CA [95865], 209-217-4948

24. Erin Elizabeth Hale 1627 Sixth Street Woodland CA 95695 (916) 899-1580

25. Gregory Alan Johnson
c/o P.O. 1322
Colorado Springs, Colorado Non-Domestic, w/o US

26. Virginia Noel Nye
311 Rainbow Lane Vineland NJ [08360] (856) 974-3932

27. Anastasia Victoria Hartnett

PO Box 595
Crystal Bay, NV 89402 530.448.6014

28. Rebecca Sarah Montoya
PO BOX 55 Serafina, NM 87569 505.426.5048

29. Barbara A. Monroe 6718 S. Dewberry Boise Idaho 83709 707-396-2908

30. Marry Ingram
P.O. Box 662
Aurora, Missouri [65605]
417 2299782
31. Susan A Whitney
3629 Lasick Ct Antelope, CA 95843
(916) 316-0474
32. Jessica Jacobs 2608 Kokanee way Sacramento California [95826] 415-385-4012

33. Tracy Lee Silva W5448 Shady Lane Rd. Mauston WI 53948 (414)803-2345

34. chris-harold: house of cave
c/o Post local box 43692
near Las Vegas, Nevada [99999]

35. Dominick Guarneri
171 Lombardy Lane

Banning, California 92220
714 747 4477

36. Frank Schneider
13816 Cornishcrest Road
Whittier, California 90605

37. Robert J. Intlekofer 4625 east county rd.#54 Fort Collins, Colorado 970-214-8754’am

38. Edward George Novotny
39. Etta Beulah Novotny 917 Brookside Dr. Cortez, Colorado [81321 (970) 565-8353

41. Nelson Diaz Scott
P.O. Box 1114
Delta, Colorado [81416]

42. Jakob Hunter Kreycik
P.O. Box 87
Paonia, Colorado [81428]

43. David V. Graham
12 Little Brook Circle Fredericksburg Va. 22405 540-288-6333

44. Teriann Colleen Davis 1403 Eagle St Murfreesboro, TN 37130

45. Fred Syndergaard
3199 S. 540 E.

Salt lake city, Utah 84106

46. richard: house of ertle 4195 Douglas Ave. #517 Sedalia, Colorado [80135-0517] 720 401 6340

47. Sheryl Taylor
PO Box 897
Memphis, Tennessee 38101

48. Bruce Doucette 2862 W Centennial Dr Littleton Colorado 720-338-0394

49. stephen-john: nalty c/o Post Office Box 11724 Denver, Colorado
Zip code exempt DMM 602 § 1.3 e (2) 720.362.1213

50. Dennis Schuelke 218 Bluegrass Drive Hendersonville, TN 37075 615-824-5982

51. Jina Yvonne Keller James Howard Keller 1712 Sickle St.
Monte Vista, Colorado 81144

52. Jared Dominick Keller
Joshua James Keller 1712 Sickle St.
Monte Vista, Colorado 81144

Additional Lien Claimants: (Add your Name)

Address/Contact Info:
Address/Contact Info:
Address/Contact Info:
Address/Contact Info:
Address/Contact Info:

Lien Debtors:

321 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 Phone: 312-988-5000 Fax: 312-988-5677

TEL: +44 (0)20 7842 0090
FAX: =44 (0)20 7842 0091

Executive Office for United States Attorneys
United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Individual Executives, Officers, Directors, Board of Governors, Commission on Governance, Committee Members, as of October 6, 2015, including, but NOT limited to;


A.B.A.: Paulette Brown, Esquire; President, 2015-2016
Patricia Lee Refo, Esquire; Chair, House of Delegates, 2014-2016
Lina A. Klein, Esquire; President Elect, 2015-2016
Mary T. Torres, Esquire; Secretary, 2014-2015
G. Nicholas Casey, Jr., Esquire; Treasurer, 2014-2017 Jack L. Rives, Esquire; Executive Director, 2010-Present Kenneth Widelka, Esquire; Chief Financial Officer
Carl Cooper Esquire; Member of President’s Counsel on Diversity Nathaniel L. Doliner J.D, Esquire.; Chairman of the Business Law Section
Alicia L. Downey, Esquire; Member of Antitrust Law Council
Jorge R. Gutierrez, Esquire; CPA
Stephen N. Zack, Esquire; Boies, Schilier & Flexner LLP Timothy W. Bouch, Esquire; American Bar Association William C. Hubbard, Esquire; American Bar Association Dennis B. Drapkin, Esquire; American Bar Association
Susan P. Serota, Esquire J.D.: Pillsbury Withrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Commission on Governance:
CO-CHAIR: Roberta D. Liebenberg, Philadelphia, PA; CO-CHAIR: James Dimos, Indianapolis; IN MEMBERS: William R. Bay, Saint Louis, MO; Michelle A. Behnke, Madison, WI; Deborah Enix-Ross, New York, NY; Ellen J. Flannery, Washington, DC; James S. Hill, Bismarck, ND; Kay H. Hodge, Boston, MA; Tommy Preston Jr.
Columbia, SC; Beverly J. Quail, Denver, CO; Carlos A. Rodriguez- Vidal, San Juan, PR; Neal R. Sonnett, Miami, FL; Palmer Gene Vance II, Lexington, KY; Robert N. Weiner, Washington, D.C.; H. Thomas Wells Jr., Birmingham, AL; James A. Wynn Jr., Raleigh, NC; BOARD OF GOVERNORS LIASIONS: Laura V. Farber, Pasadena, CA;
Michael E. Flowers, Columbus, OH; STAFF: Marina B. Jacks, Alpha
M. Brady; Rochelle E. Evans;

I.B.A: Mark Ellis, Esquire; Executive Director
Talia Dove; Executive Assistant
Elaine Owen; Head of BIC/Assistant to President

Tim Hughes; Deputy Executive Director Donna Canty; Human Resources Director Joe Bell; Operations Director
Glynn Davies; Head of Finance
Additional Lien Debtors:
1. The AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, the INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION, and the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, are commercial derivations & subsidiaries of the Crown Templar, or Temple Crown, whose Corporate Headquarters is located in the City of London, England. Is this correct? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

2. In 2007, William C. Hubbard, Esquire, received the American Inns of Court Professionalism Award for the Fourth Circuit. In 2015, he was called to the bench as an Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple in London. Is this correct? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

3. The A.B.A. was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. The I.B.A., established in 1947, now has over 55,000 individuals and 195 bar associations and law societies, and its organization continues to grow. Is this correct? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

4. The first President of the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION was it’s inceptor, creator, and implementor, James O. Broadhead. Representatives of 34 national bar associations gathered in New York, NY on 17 February 1947 to create the I.B.A.. Was this NOT an act of sediton, treason, and “Piracy on Land,” pursuant 18 USC #1651-1661? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

5. Initial membership was limited to bar associations and law societies, but in 1970, I.B.A. membership was opened to individual lawyers. Members of the legal profession including attorneys, solicitors, barristers, advocates, members of the judiciary, in-house lawyers, government lawyers, academics and law students comprise the membership of the I.B.A.. Is this historical notation correct? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

6. James O. Broadhead violated the Original & Organic XIII Amendment of the Constitution of the pre-1871 Continental united States of America, when, in 1878, he was chosen president of the American Bar Association, which met at Saratoga, N.Y.. In 1882, he was elected as the State’s representative to the 48th Congress as a Democrat, and in 1885 was appointed by the government as special agent to make preliminary search of the record of the French archives in the matter of the French spoliation claims, making his report in October, 1885. He was U.S. minister to Switzerland, 1893-’97. Do you agree James O. Broadhead committed treason against the Continental United States government in forming the A.B.A.,and becoming its first President? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

7. James O. Broadhead’s election & appointment were direct abrogations and usurpations of the 1803 Supreme Court ruling over Marbury v. Madison, wherein, John Marshal rendered a majority decision restricting Barristers & Esquires, and other holders of Titles of Nobility, from holding government, or public offices, and declared that, “prescribing, giving, or taking such Oaths of Office” to these offices was “a solemn mockery” against the US Constitution, against its people, and was “equally a crime.” If this is a correct assessment of the foundation & legacy of James O. Broadhead, it stands, then, that the entire concept, structural design, and the implementation of all contracts; ie, “Electoral College,” “Lifetime Judicial Appointments,” “Copyrighted, Revenue- bearing Statutes, Codes, Rules, Ordinances,” etc., created by the A.B.A. are fraudulent, malicious, egregious, and corrupt to the A.B.A.’s core. Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

8. Mr. Broadhead’s coalition of 100 foreign agents (“attorneys”), who, in-concert, collusion, and conspiracy, created, with the encouragement, support, and aid & abetting of the Federal Reserve Debt Banking System, the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, in their efforts to “federalize,” “democratize,” “incorporatize,” “defraud,” and to silently overthrow the righteous & genuine Constitutional government of the united States, and to subvert, usurp, and to destroy the Unlienable & Natural Rights of the People & Tribal families, who resided & inhabited the Land, established by our Nation’s Founding Fathers. Would you

Agree with this assessment? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

9. Is it NOT True, then, that, “fraud vitiates all contracts,“ and that, all commercial contracts, including, but NOT limited to, ALL unlawful sentences & incarcerations of political prisoners (ie; imprisoned I.R.S. Lien Debtors, non-criminal offenders), wherein, such commercial contracts were all conceived in fraud, and lacking any moral & ethical character, are in direct conflict with Natural Law & Commercial Law, and thus, every A.B.A “contract” since 1882, whether verbal, or written, including, but not limited to all Judicial Oath’s of Office, falsely sworn to, and fraudulently securitized, monetized, and commercialized, are Null & Void, ab initio? Yes? or No? If No, please explain in detail.

10. Our country’s Founding Fathers established our Original & Organic Constitution under the “Land Jurisdiction,” and NOT the “Jurisdiction of the Sea,” or “Holy SEE,” with various “embargos” against acts of piracy, press-ganging, personage, slavery, barratry, and other notorious & potentially injurious foreign intrusions, including the Titles of Nobility Act, the XIII Amendment, Bills of Attainder, and other notable & honorasble acts and codifications of law that were to insure the health, safety, and welfare of our government, our lands, and our People. Is this historically correct? Yes? or No?

11. If your anwser to Question #10 is “Yes,” then under what law form, or forms, was the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and their minions, able to subvert & usurp the “Land Jurisdiction” with the mere “presumption” of the “Jurisdiction of the Sea?” (Please Select
one, or more, law forms used) A. “Admiralty Law?” B. “Maritime Law?” C. “International Law?” D. “Commercial Law?” E. “Uniform Commercial Code?” “Roman Curia Law?”

12. The National Lawyer’s Guild was established in 1937, and, according to historic record, has its origins in the Communist Party. The A.B.A. was in protest of its establishment due to a belief that the N.L.G. was a “militant segment of the bar.” In comparison to the criminal, unethical, and immoral conduct & activities of the members & individuals of the A.B.A., the members & individuals of the N.L.G., even if they are referred to as Communists, are, truly, “Saints,” as the N.L.G. genuinely & honestly works for the people, and NOT for the corporations, as the A.B.A. does. Is this an accurate description & comparison of the A.B.A., and the N.L.G.? Yes? or No?

13. During the McCarthy era, the N.L.G. was accused by Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr. as well as the House Un-American Activities Committee of being a Communist front organization. Federal Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover repeatedly tried to get a successive Attorneys General to declare the N.L.G. a “subversive organization,” but without success. If the A.B.A. was so opposed to the N.L.G., as alleged, why did the A.B.A.’s own Attorneys General, block the FBI’s, Brownell’s, the House Un-American Activities Committee, from prosecuting the N.L.G., when the A.B.A. claims the N.L.G. is, quite simply, “a militant segment of the bar (A.B.A.)?” Was this protest by members & individuals of the A.B.A. simply a ruse, or a Red Flag operation, to cloak the true intent &

nature of the A.B.A., and banking elitist they represent? Please be specific in your answers!

14. The 1944 HUAC history asserted that the N.L.G. was merely “a streamlined edition of the International Juridical Organization,” a Communist Party mass organization established in 1931. Is the A.B.A., and the I.B.A., not also, corporate members/associates of the INTERNATIONAL JURIDICAL ORGANIZATION? Yes? or No? If No, please explain.

15. The enactment of the 1948 Administrative Procedure’s Act following the A.B.A.’s 1947 BAR Treaty, created a multitude of quasi-government corporate agencies. Both efforts & Acts, further subverted all legitimate dejure government agencies to bring them under the A.B.A.’s corporate judicial control & administration, thus destroying the genuine & lawful Executive & Legislative branches of the people’s government. Yes? or No? If No, please explain the intent of these two efforts.

16. It is a well documented fact, that the A.B.A., and the
I.B.A. are, quite simply, “political organizations” with distinct corporate connections to all nations, and State BAR Associations, Inns of the Courts, and to Districts & Middle Inns made up of adjoining State BAR Associations, and that, in order to “serve at the bench,” all judges, from a municipal “judge,” to the “Justices” of the US Supreme Court, according to the Federal Civil Procedures Act, MUST be members of the BAR. Does this “interstate districting,” and the “judicial mandating” for the seating of “judges,” “justices,” and “magistrates,” NOT violate every Nation’s/State’s General Laws & Rights, abridge individual voter & election rights, abrogate

both State & Federal Constitutions, and completely nullifies the A.B.A.’s, and the I.B.A.’s very own “Articles of Incorporation,” “Policies & Procedures,” “Bylaws,” and their own “Professional Rules of Conduct?” Yes? or No?

17. Both the A.B.A., and I.B.A., market their wares & practices as “voluntary,” yet, in actual practice & execution, the A.B.A., and I.B.A., by all lawful & “legal” definitions, practice, what can only be defined as a “MONOPOLY” over the entire International & United States Justice Systems, and the
A.B.A. dominates the genuine two branches of Continental government of the united States. Are the requirements set forth in the F.C.P.A., then, prima facie evidence of this criminal “MONOPOLIZING” of the Justice System, and does it NOT, in fact, encourage & promote the de-stabilization of the world’s governments, through judicial & military occupation, political lobbying, social & economic manipulation, and inciting civil protest & unrest? Yes? or No? If No, please explain in detail.

18. Despite the fact, that, MONOPOLIES, and other antitrust
R.I.C.O. activities, are both unlawful & “illegal” on the Land, the A.B.A., and the I.B.A., knowingly & willingly operate in Ultra Vires, and with total disregard & distain of human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the numerous safeguards built into our State & Federal Constitutions. These safeguards are built into any number of our Maxims of Law, and our Constitutionally-derived laws, including 15 USC 1 & 2, which state very clearly & unambiguously, the penalties for operating in such a manner;

15 U.S. Code § 1 – Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty;

“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the (this) court.”

15 U.S. Code § 2 – Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty, which states;
“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the (this) court.”

19. Used in concert & conjunction with this Commercial Obligation Lien, 15 USC 1 & 2, and the invocation of our “Crime Victim’s Rights” as defined & described under 18 USC
#3771, the A.B.A., I.B.A., and the D.O.J., by the preponderance of well documented evidence, and by the sheer weight of notable & probable causes, already posted in, both, the private & public records, the individual members of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., acting in their “corporate capacities,” are found to be “guilty” on both counts, and are “guilty” of all crimes described under the “Piracy Codes” of
18 USC #1651-1661, and under 42 USC #14141-Cause of Action.

Would you NOT agree, that the A.B.A., and D.O.J., enjoys rights, privileges, liberties, freedoms, and pursuits, that are NOT extended to, or enjoyed by non-union members? Yes? or No? If No, please explain why your laws are NOT shared by all, and why these laws do NOT apply equally to A.B.A., I.B.A., or D.O.J. executives, directors, officers, members, employees, or their corporate contractors.

20. Given the incredible & irrefutable weight & preponderance of the evidence, even the private courts owned & administered by the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., MUST find themselves “guilty-as-charged,” and MUST, therefore, under their very own revenue-bearing, statutory laws, convict themselves, less they be totally void of Human Morality, Ethics, Honor, or Character.

21. This request & demand by the Lien Claimants, for “written confessions & admissions,” of course, are NOT likely to be honored, yet, under 28 U.S. Code 455 (a,b,c,d,e,f), which, in effect, and under multiple law systems, dissolves the Judiciary, a.k.a. “A.B.A.,” a.k.a. “I.B.A.,” a.k.a. “D.O.J.,” of ALL their jurisdiction, power, and authority, to hear, to adjudicate over such clear cases of fraud, or to act upon them, unless of course, the “corporate body,” itself, and all justices, judges, magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, spouses or minor children, as whatever the case may be, “divests himself/herself/themselves of the “financial interests” that provide the grounds for their disqualification.”

22. For obvious reasons, as previously stated, the A.B.A.’s, the I.B.A.’s, and D.O.J.’s, private courts CANNOT begin to presume, or assume, to have subject-matter, personal, or territorial jurisdiction, power, or authority, over matters dealing with any Living Being, wherein, this Commercial Obligation Lien can only be dismissed by the Lien Claimant(s), or by a properly convened & seated common law jury, independent of the Crown Templar’s private courts. To the detriment of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., its Officers & Crew, and their entire membership, U.S. Code 28 #455 is, exceedingly, clear, and unambiguous in its mandates, and that, the common law jury, as drawn & specified in the International Commercial Lien processes, belongs to the People, and NOT to any corruptible corporate body politic. Are the People “incorporable” with the lack of full disclosure, and with the lack of their free willed & knowledgeable consent? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the International Law, of the Law of Merchants, giving the A.B.A., I.B.A., or the D.O.J., the right & privilege to create, legislate, or execute such presumptions, statutes, codes, ordinances, rules, gratuitous bailments, bonds, contracts, or other colors of law.

23. In brief, U.S. Code 28 #455 requires & demands that all individual members of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and D.O.J., “divest” themselves of any & all “financial interests” in any corporation, or quasi-government agency, including their financial ties to the only True branches of the Continental united State’s government, their banks, their insurance companies, and their for-profit jail & prison systems. The A.B.A., I.B.A., and the D.O.J., in order to be in full contractual compliance with United States Code 28 #455, MUST ,

without further obstruction, hesitation, or delay, release all military prisoners, corporate captives, and political hostages, currently being held against their free will, or imprisoned by force, threat, intimidation, blackmail, extortion, or by any other unlawful & criminal means. This includes nullifying all such contracts, and the immediate release of all dejure government law enforcement officials, employees, clerks, and staff, currently being held hostage by the BAR’s members and gatekeepers. In so doing, would you have any problem in implementing a “prisoner exchange program?” Yes? or No?

24. The A.B.A. has 410,000 members, and the I.B.A. has 55,000 members, with each individual member acting & operating in their own “corporate capacities,” (P.C.’s, L.L.C.’s, etc.) and each member is, by corporate association, in violation of 15 USC 1 & 2, for a total monetary penalty of SIX HUNDRED MILLION US GOLD DOLLARS ($600,000,000.), EACH, including Tort Claims of 3X’s, and TEN (10) YEARS imprisonment, per individual, corporate-body, per offense (ie; lobbied, legislated, and executed revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, ordinances, and every color of law crafted & copyrighted by the individual members of the A.B.A., the I.B.A.), per each crime victim (315 Million+). With a minimum of 7,000 revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, ordinances, and colors of law, being lobbied, legislated, and executed by the A.B.A., I.B.A., and the D.O.J., every year since 1882, the total Claim for Remedy package would be staggering & overwhelming. Would you NOT agree? Yes? or No? If No, please apply your own rules of math to this equation, and provide the Lien Claimants the result.

25. Obviously, there is not enough gold in the world to cover these “Accounts Payable,” or the People’s “Accounts Receivables,” so the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., along with all of their corporate affiliations MUST, by the sheer weight of the debt owed, be permanently dissolved, and their corporate, personal, and private assets forfeited, seized, recovered, and returned to the People & Tribes they have injured. The A.B.A.’s, and I.B.A.’s membership, then, MUST work off the unrecoverable debts, either through forced imprisonment, and/or hard labor, which, as “Public-anuses,” none of A.B.A.’s, or the I.B.A.’s members are accustomed to.

26. The A.B.A.’s national headquarters are in Chicago, Illinois; it also maintains a significant branch office in Washington, D.C.. The I.B.A.‘s Corporate Offices are located in the City/ State of London, England. These physical public & private properties & assets are to be vacated, and returned to the People, from whom, the capital funds used to build these centers of profit & houses of unjust enrichments, were pirated, pillaged, and stolen. Turning these physical, brick & mortar, assets into centers of knowledge, as in libraries & monuments for the People, would be the Lien Claimant’s recommendation.

27. The A.B.A., by its own admissions & postings, “provides law school accreditation, continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public. The Mission of the American Bar Association is to be the national representative (MONOPOLY) of the legal

profession, serving the public, and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence, and respect for the law.” Is this true? Yes? or No?

28. The genuine Truth of the matter, is that, the A.B.A., the I.B.A., the D.O.J., nor any of their individual officers, or members, have any genuine “respect for the law,” as evident in their behaviors, conduct, and the following Oath of Office requirement, pursuant 28 USC #453, taken by thousands of their “Administrative Clerks” posing as “judges”, and “magistrates;”

“I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent
upon me as under the Constitution and laws of the United
States. So help me God.”
28. This Oath does NOT say, “under the legal system, or corporate body politic.” NOR does it say, “the United States of America, Inc.,” as semantically devised, created, lobbied, legislated, or executed, by the individual members of the A.B.A., or the I.B.A.. And, yet, to swear, under Oath, and under the Penalty of Perjury, “So help me God,” is, by all defintions, “Perjury,” wherein, the A.B.A.’s & I.B.A.’s practices & conduct in “denying God,” is clearly evident in every A.B.A. courtroom in America, and in every, single, revenue-bearing, statute, code, rule, ordinance, and every, single, color of law enacted in both the Public & Private Record.

29. It stands to reason, then, and as a point of accepted & universal Truth, that each & every Oath prescribed, given, taken, filed, recorded, monetized, and securitized, and placed into commerce, by every justice and judge, is a false & fabricated statement, intended to obstruct free trade & commerce, and is, well beyond any reasonable doubt, a written confession to sedition & treason, taken/given in an “open court of law.” It is, also, a willing & premeditated act of Treason, and commercial fraud, against the Continental united States of America, against its Constitutions, and against its residents & inhabitants, pursuant Article III, Section #3 of the Constitution. The BAR’s ignorance of the law shall be NO excuse, and it is NOT a valid reason for the commission of a crime, when the law is easily and readily available to anyone making a reasonable effort to study the law. Would you agree that these Oaths are acts of Sedition & Treason, and that, the judgments handed down at the Nuremberg Trials against those stating, “I was just following orders,” were just & accurate? Yes? or No?

30. The “legal definition” of the term “Public,” according to Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), reads; “1. Relating or belonging to an entire community, state, or nation [Cases: Municipal Corporations ℇℇ 1557-1559.] 2. Open or available to
all to use, share, or enjoy. 3. (Of a company) having shares
that are available on the open market. [Corporations]. Do you agree with this “legal definition?” Yes? or No? If No, please provide the BAR’s corporate definition.

31. The “legal definition” of the term “publican,” has its origins in the Latin term, “publicanus,” which comes from “Hist. Roman Law,” and means, “A tax collector. A publicanus

was described as “a farmer of the public revenue,” although the publicanus reaped only the money from that sown by the labor of others.” Would you agree with this Black’s Law Dictionary definition? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the Republican Party’s definition.

32. The definition of the term LEGAL. “the undoing of God’s Law.” 1893 Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Encyclopedia Britannica; a dictionary of arts, sciences and general literature/ The R. S. Peale 9th 1893. God’s Law is also known as “Natural Law,” and Natural Law is the foundation for “Commercial Law,” wherein, “the Truth bounds all contracts.” Does the A.B.A., the I.B.A., or the D.O.J., then, promote & support the “undoing of God’s Law”? Yes? or No? If No, please identify, describe, and explain who you serve.

33. Following this definition, what does the A.B.A., the I.B.A., or the D.O.J., actually produce in real labor, or in benefits for the people, other than non-productive, self-serving, job programs for its own members, and its affiliated corporations & contractors, such as the I.R.S., J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo Bank, Citicorp, and its privately-controlled & administrated for-profit jail & prison systems? Please be specific in your answers!

34. According to the Northern Trust Corporation documents obtained from the Federal Securities & Exchange Commission, the Bar, a.k.a. “The A.B.A.” is the very same corporation as the Internal Revenue Service, and that, the A.B.A. owns Wells Fargo Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Citicorp, and a host of Fortune
500 companies. Are these documents correct? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the documents that show anything different.

35. If your answer to #34 is “Yes,” does this NOT present an incredibly serious “Conflict of Interest” for the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., pursuant to their very own corporate laws prohibiting such misconduct, fraud, and misrepresentation, when the I.R.S. issues fraudulent mortgage foreclosure liens against living inhabitants of the Land, and the A.B.A.’s membership, which includes Attorney Generals, District Attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, and/or defense attorneys, re-presents the I.R.S. in these kangaroo court cases, and where the Administrative Clerks, a.k.a. “bankruptcy judges” adjudicating over such matters are, also, members of the A.B.A.? Yes? or No? If No, please explain why you believe such “Conflicts of Interest” should be accepted as “Truth in Commerce.”

36. If the answer to #35 is “No,” please present the law, or even the “legal statute,” which gives any A.B.A., the D.O.J., or any I.B.A. member the privilege & right to criminally usurp, subvert, obstruct commerce, or to deprive, the Unalienable & Natural Rights of any living individual of land ownership on the land. Please be very specific in your answer.

37. The A.B.A., and the I.B.A., as “political organizations,” are two of the most powerful political lobbying organizations within the City/State of Washington, D.C., Brussels, The Hague, the Vatican, and in each of the 50 states, wherein, the A.B.A., and the I.B.A., and their subsidiary corporations, have an unprecedented “financial interest” in all national & state government agencies, when the A.B.A., I.B.A., and the

D.O.J., create, draft, construct, present, and instruct, elected & appointed government officials & agents of these Nation/States, including the Federal & State quasi-government agencies, on how best to execute these revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, ordinances, and a broad mix of “colors of law,” from which the A.B.A., the I.B.A., the D.O.J., its members, and/or their affiliate corporate shell franchises, are awarded lucrative corporate-government contracts involving the embezzlement of taxpayer sureties & treasuries, and the execution & enforcement of their copyrighted & legislated statutes, codes, rules, etc.. Is this an accurate assessment of the A.B.A.’s, and I.B.A.’s “financial interests,” their actual lobbying power & efforts used by its individual & corporate executives, officers, members, and contractors? Yes? or No? If No, please explain what your true “financial interests” are.

38. Once, again, with such broad legislative & executive powers to enforce these revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, and ordinances, does this NOT abrogate those very limited Constitutional powers delegated to the Judiciary by the united States, and the people, and do they NOT violate the A.B.A.’s , and I.B.A.‘s very own Corporate Charters, their Policies, Procedures, Bylaws, and Professional Codes of Conduct? Yes? or No?

39. As the “Principals (Individuals)” behind the A.B.A.’s, and I.B.A.’s “financial interests,” lobbying, legislating, and the execution of these revenue-bearing statutes, codes, and ordinances, and with all Federal & State Law Enforcement officials now being under the control of the A.B.A., a.k.a.

“DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,” or the I.B.A.’s “INTERPOL,” does this
NOT make these Law Enforcers culpable, responsible as “Accessories after the fact,” and “parties to fraud,
and voluntary, or “conscripted parties” to the null & void contracts,” and does this NOT directly implicate the agents, employees, and contractors, as criminal co-conspirators of the A.B.A.’s, and I.B.A.’s Corporations? Yes? or No? If No, please explain why law enforcement officers are NOT, more truthfully & accurately, referred to as “Legal Enforcement Officers.”

40. If you answered “Yes” to Question #39, are you attesting, then, that the A.B.A., and the I.B.A., have “financial interests” in all elected, selected, and appointed Law Enforcement officials, and that, these individuals have, in- concert, whether “voluntarily,” or “conscripted,” and under a myriad of “colors of law,” committed voter & election fraud under the presumptions & misrepresentations, that the People have been dooped & hoodwinked into believing they have any type of say over who they may elect, select, or appoint? Yes? or No? If No, please explain how the A.B.A., and the D.O.J., were able to obtain their consent, and maintain the compliance of these public servants.

41. Such reckless behaviors & “criminal presumptions,” then, can be easily construed by any competent, and properly convened & seated common law jury of the people, as forms of extortive racketeering, hijacking, and the piracy of the People’s voter & election systems, along with the press-ganging of the People’s public servants, the piracy & seizures of the People’s lands & labors, and the destruction of the People’s

Unalienable & Natural Rights, for the exclusive benefit, use, and pleasure of the members of the BAR, and the banking elite. Would this be a correct assessment & assertion? Yes? or No? If No, please explain how you believe these acts to be civil & just in any society, or culture.

42. Given the heavy “contractual & commercial nature” of your debt money system, your high-priced lobbying, your “legalized,” and copyrighted legislations, and the excessive use of force in executing your revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, ordinances, and other colors of law, by those ‘allegedly’ elected, selected, and appointed Law Enforcement agents, who were, in fact, duelly sworn under Oath to protect & serve the State & Federal Constitutions, does this NOT present a very serious, and Tortious “Conflict of Interest,” and a major “misrepresentation” by the individual/corporate members of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and their “contractors?” Yes? or No? If No, please provide the lawful Constitution(s) your contractors actually operate under.

43. Would you NOT agree, that these criminal acts are, equally, violative of the “Supreme Laws of Land,” and the A.B.A.’s, and the I.B.A.’s, very own Corporate Charters, along with violating each & every commercial filing & registry of your corporate subsidiary’s “Articles of Incorporation” on public record in each nation, and in each of our 50 states of America? Yes? or No?

44. Given the Maxim of Law, which states, “NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT, AND NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL,” does it NOT follow, then, the terms & conditions

drawn in the Commercial Obligation Lien processes, that, any & all of A.B.A.’s, and I.B.A.’s executives, officers, directors, employees, agents, and their contractors, ie; Government “Legal Enforcement Agents,” are violating the terms & conditions set forth under law, and they are all, presently, operating in commercial dishonor & default? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the Laws of Commerce, which give the A.B.A, the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., the authority to operate outside & above these Maxims of Law.

45. This means, then, any & all A.B.A., I.B.A., and D.O.J. executives, officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors, are lawfully & “legally” prohibited from approaching, engaging, or contacting, any & all witnesses, informants, or crime victims, who, under the “injurious presumptions” of being “lost at sea,” “left on the battlefield,” or are “dead estates,” but who are, in fact, genuine, Living beings, residents, and inhabitants on the Land, Territories, and/or Colonial Districts. This PROHIBITION exists until the terms & conditions of this Commercial Obligation Lien (Agriculture Lien), pursuant 15 USC, are satisfied in full. Would you NOT agree? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the “Natural Law” that gives you the privilege, and the right, to harass, intimidate, coerce, assault, detain, arrest, incarcerate, imprison, or punish, a genuine Living being.

46. Inasmuch; This Commercial Lien, a.k.a. “Agricultural Lien,” is, also, to be received & considered a Writ of Injunction & Restraint against the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., along with a formal & official order by the People to CEASE &

DESIST with all violations & crimes against humanity, including, but NOT limited to, ending the lobbying, bribery, influencing, scripting, construction, drafting, legislating, executing, or profiting from any & all revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, ordinances, or any other “color of law” enactments in, or from, any house of the people’s lawfully constituted government agencies, congresses, commission, or collective venues. Do you agree that these demands & claims for remedy are warranted, lawful, and just? Yes? or No? If No, please explain why you should not Cease & Desist with these activities.

47. If your answer, or response, to Questions #45 & #46, is “No,” please reconsider 18 USC, #3771, wherein, every Living resident, and inhabitant of the Land, has been, and is, either, a “Witness,” or a “Crime Victim” of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., and as such, they are entitled to protection by their dejure & defacto US Marshal Services, the Civilian Provost Marshal, the dejure Military, and their own County Sheriffs, wherein, these officers are held to their “dejure contracts in commerce,” and they are under their very own Oaths of Office to protect “Witnesses,” and “Crime Victims,” and to serve, both, State & Federal Constitutions, with all revenue-bearing statutes, codes, rules, ordinances, and other colors of law, NOTWITHSTANDING! Are these NOT the obligations & duties of the US Marshals & County Sheriffs stated, defined & described under your very own statutes, codes, etc.? Yes? or No?

48. Having invoked 18 USC #3771, which is, clearly, a lawful & righteous derivative of the Continental united States

Constitution’s prohibitions & constraints, all “witnesses,” and “crime victims” are guaranteed due process under the Supreme Laws of the Land, the Law of Nations, International Laws, Commercial Law, Natural Law, and under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proper remedy & recourse for their injuries, particularly, when these guarantees & protections have been intentionally & willfully obstructed, subverted, misrepresented, and/or totally denied by those charged & tasked with providing these guarantees & protections. Would you NOT agree? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the Law that gives your “Legal Enforcement Agents” the rights & privileges to operate outside of, or above, the Law.

49. There are THIRTY (30) Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of these Articles, which Article, or Articles, does the A.B.A., the I.B.A., or the D.O.J., support, and which Article, or Articles, does the A.B.A., the I.B.A., or the D.O.J., reject? Please be specific in your answers.

50. The entities, Agents, and Individuals, that are listed above as Lien Debtors, by their own admissions, records, actions, inactions, omissions, malfeasance, misconduct, or pure negligence, prove, well beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are, at the very least, “guilty” of criminally violating Title
15 USC 1 & 2, a host of Title 18 USC violations, including, but not limited to; Title 18 USC 241, 242, Title 22 USC (Foreign Registrations Act), Title 26 USC, Title 28 USC, and numerous violations of trust & breach of contract under Title
42 USC 1983. Is this NOT a correct assessment? Yes? or No? If No, please provide the Law, or Laws, which would give you protection, or immunity, from such charges.

51. With the Lien Claimants, and other injured parties, having invoked these laws, derivative codifications, protections & immunities, each & every law & code MUST, then, in a point-by- point, article-by-article, be protested, argued, and/or rebutted, in an Affidavit of the Truth, and taken under Oath, that these protests, arguments, and rebuttals, are the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, under the Penalty of Perjury. If you are willing & capable of doing so, you are being given NINETY (90) DAYS in which to answer these charges & allegations? Do you understand? Yes? or No? If No, what elements of these charges & allegations do you NOT understand?

52. Again, under the terms & conditions set forth in Commercial & Natural Law, the above mentioned Lien Debtors have NINETY
(90) DAYS in which to respond, protest, or rebut, this International Commercial Obligation Lien & Affidavit, and to return same via USPS Certified/Registered Mail to each Lien Claimant listed. Failure to do so, will result in an immediate “Asset Forfeiture & Seizure” of the “Accounts Payable” of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE TRILLION ($279,000,000,000,000) US GOLD DOLLARS, currently held by the A.B.A., and the I.B.A., pursuant U.S. Codes UCC-9/102 (Agricultural Liens), and UCC 9/607-610 (Secured Party’s Right to take possession after default). Do you understand these terms & conditions? Yes? or No? If No, please state what terms & conditions you do NOT understand.

53. A perfected & cured Lien also commands the recovery of the “Accounts Receivable,” pursuant to 12 USC #411 mandates & guidelines, for each Affiant and Lien Claimant, who, by the
endowed proxy of this Claim for Remedy, a.k.a. “Commercial Obligation Lien,” and their Affidavit, will, under Oath, act in the capacity of an Administrator, Creditor, Beneficiary, and Grantor, in the assignment of a qualified “Authorized Agent,” or Agents, for the “redistribution” of the “Accounts Receivables,” (ie; all laundered, pirated, and stolen assets, monies & properties), and to restore same to any & all injured parties, individuals, “witnesses,” and “crime victims” of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., their Ponzi Franchise Corporations, and their subcontractors.

1. The “PROOF OF ALLEGATIONS” lies directly at the feet of the individual Officers & Crew of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., ie; their Administrators, Executives, Officers, Directors, Employees, Agents, and Contractors, and with their honor, willingness, and their ability, to respond, protest, argue, or rebut the allegations made, herein, point-by-point, and article-by-article, under an Affidavit of Truth, under sworn Oath, and under the Penalty of Perjury.
2. It is anticipated & expected, that these individual members & contractors of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., and the D.O.J., rather than admit to their crimes against humanity, in-writing, will choose to go silent, or simply invoke the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which, again, is NOT open to ANY A.B.A., I.B.A., or D.O.J. member, agent, employee, or contractor.
3. Their acquiescence, or silence, then, will, under the weight of Commercial Law & Natural Law, result in their waiving all

of their corporate, public, private, and individual rights & immunities, as per 28 USC #455, and they will, also, be attesting to their acceptance & agreement to all allegations made, to accept all fines, fees, penalties & punishments they are deserving of, and entitled to, under Common Law, the Law of Merchants, International Law, Commercial Law, Natural Law, and to have violated their very own corporate laws & self- engineered codifications, which are grounds for the immediate dissolution of their corporate charters. Are these terms & conditions clear to you? Yes? or No?

1. The ledger for this “TRUE BILL” is based on the Truth, the whole Truth, nothing but the Truth, and upon the MONETARY FACE VALUE of TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE TRILLION ($279,000,000,000,000.) US GOLD DOLLARS retrievable from stolen & pirated properties & assets, pursuant 12 USC #411, believed to be of record, and all properties & assets suspected of being hidden in privatized off shore properties & accounts by various individuals & members the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, and the INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION.
2. These stolen & pirated “assets” and “properties” will be confirmed & verified by a People’s open, complete & independent audit of the Federal Reserve Bank, and an audit of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
3. This “TRUE BILL” is, also, set against the MAXIMUM PUBLIC HAZARD BONDS/INSURANCES held by the A.B.A.‘s, and the I.B.A.’s Bonding Companies, whether “in-house,” or “independent,” for

all of these Entities, Agents, and Individuals, including, but
NOT limited to, the individual Lien Debtors listed above.

4. As a Commercial Instrument, this “TRUE BILL” has an S.E.C. Tracer Number of #2640220, which is the Reception No.# assigned by the Mesa County Colorado Deputy Clerk & Recorder, Brandy Emow, for the filing of the fraudulent, fictitious, and fabricated Oath of Office signed by Colorado’s 21st Judicial District Crown Administrative Clerks, Craig P. Henderson, and David A. Bottger, and witnessed by Sandra Casselberry, The Judicial Administrator for Mesa County, Colorado.
5. This S.E.C. Tracer Number of #2640220 is a “commercial securities tag,” and is but a single Exhibit, out of thousands, of the prima facie evidence of the A.B.A.‘s conspiracy to commit sedition, piracy, and commercial fraud, against the Lien Claimants, and against the American people, wherein, any such Oath “prescribed, given, taken,” commercially securitized & monetized, was, and is, a “solemn mockery,” and “equally a crime,” according to the Crown’s very own Supreme Court ruling by US Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Marshal, in 1803.
6. This S.E.C. Tracer Number of #2640220, as related to this Commercial Obligation Lien, may be used as form of identification for any & all “Witnesses,” “Crime Victims,” and/or “injured parties,” when asked for identification by any A.B.A., I.B.A., or D.O.J. contractor, or revenue/tax collector (“Pulbicanus”), (ie; I.R.S. Agent, H.L.S. Agent, F.B.I. Agent,
C.I.A. Agent, Sheriff, Sheriff Deputy, Police Officer, etc.).

7. All such “Crown Contractors” are, under the terms & conditions of this International Commercial Obligation Lien/Agricultural Lien/Writ of Injunction & Restraint/Cease & Desist Order,

prohibited from engaging with, detaining, arresting, incarcerating, harrassing, coercing, or intimidating, any “Witness,” “Crime Victim,” a.k.a. “any Living Being,” or citing same under any revenue-bearing statute, code, rule, ordinance, or any other “color of law” infraction, providing the Living Being has NOT harmed or injured another Living Being. [Corporations CANNOT be injured! Only Living Beings can be injured!] Without an “injury,” there can be NO crime, and NOWHERE can these revenue-bearing statutes adhere, and no “false presumptions of a crime” shall be made, authorized, or enforced!
8. Any encroachments, or violations, upon the terms & conditions stated above by any “Crown Officer,” “Crown Agent,” or “Crown Contractor,” will result in additional 15 USC penalties being levied upon the corporate, personal, and private properties & assets of these individual “Officers,” “Agents,” or “Contractors,” while operating privately, or in their “corporate capacities.”
9. This S.E.C. Tracer Number of #2640220, however, and wherever, presented, will serve as the People’s Rescission of Consent, and as fair, proper, and lawful notice to CEASE & DESIST with any & all criminal aggressions, trespasses, and transgressions, while operating on the Land, and/or under the ‘presumed & alleged’ jurisdiction, power, or authority of the Military/Admiralty Flag of the Crown Templar.

The Sureties & Certifications of, and for, any & all Corporate, Public, Personal or Private Accounts, Bonds, Securities,

Profits, Proceeds, Fixtures, Chattels, and Assets owned/managed by ANY individual operating within the jurisdiction, or control, of the A.B.A., the I.B.A., the D.O.J., or their, “in-house,” Bonding Companies, under the indirect, or direct control of the A.B.A., or the I.B.A., their Nation/State franchises, Inns of the Court, The Federal Reserve Banking System, or The International Monetary Fund (IMF) for these Entities, Agents and Individuals, are all considered forfeitable assets, and as “debt obligations” to the Lien Claimants, their assigns, and/or their heirs. As such, the Lien Debtors are lawfully responsible for producing, upon this commercial demand, these Sureties, Accounts, Financial Statements, and all Certificates of Liability & Indenture.


1. The Affiants & Lien Claimants, without prejudice, and Reserving All Rights, declares this Commercial Obligation Lien to be self-effecting, self-evident, and self-enforcing, noting that the US Marshal Service, is now lawfully restored to the People’s Executive Branch of the Continental united States of America, and they are no longer contractually obligated to the A.B.A.’s subsidiary corporation of the Department of Justice, both of which, are, hereby, dissolved for by the People for cause, and by necessity.
2. The US Marshal Service, a Constitutional Law Enforcement Agency, and NO LONGER a “Legal Enforcement Agency,” in the State of Illinois, and elsewhere throughout the 50 States, Washington, D.C., and their 94 government offices, will be tasked & charged with executing the seizing, freezing, and recovery of all the A.B.A.’s, and the I.B.A.’s corporate,

public, personal, and private properties, found upon the Land, at sea, or found to be held by any & all individuals operating under the A.B.A., or the I.B.A., until such time, as it is determined that the full face amount of this Commercial Obligation Lien can be satisfied, and that all other Claims for Remedy made, herein, are unconditionally satisfied in full.
3. The US Marshals, having been given the preponderance of evidence, and probable causes stated, herein, that crimes have been committed, and that, crimes are being committed, shall under their own authority, jurisdiction, and powers, as dejure Marshals & Sheriffs, commence, IMMEDIATELY, with serving Notice of this Writ of Injunction & Restraint/Cease & Desist, without the need of a court order, or warrant, as is their privilege, duty, and obligation, under Law.
4. On the NINETY-FIRST (91st) DAY after receipt of this Lien, the US Marshals & Interpol, are to commence, at once, with the freezing, forfeiture, and seizing, of all corporate, personal, public, private, and individual properties, accounts, and assets, known to be in the possession of, or under control of, the A.B.A., I.B.A., D.O.J., and/or any & all of their corporate contractors, however related.
5. Fair compensation shall be made for the anticipated expenses & services rendered by these agents, and for their abiding by their own Oaths of Office ( text/28/563). The US Marshal Service & Interpol will receive TWENTY(20%) of the recovered assets, and these funds will be divided equally. A Promissory Note shall be tendered to the dejure United States Treasury, and earmarked to the US Marshal Service & Interpol in this amount. The full face amount of

the Promissory Note will be made payable to the US Marshal Service & Interpol immediately upon the successful recovery, reclamation, and return, of the Lien Claimant’s “Accounts Receivables.”
6. Should it ever be misconstrued, or misrepresented, that this Promissory Note, and/or payments made to the US Marshal Service & Interpol, is some form of bribery, the Lien Claimants shall argue & deny same, and declare these funds lawful & appropriate compensation for the tasks & expenses the US Marshals & Interpol are tasked & charged with. These funds constitute stolen & pirated properties & assets of the American people, and these compensations are to be considered “bounties,” “prizes,” and “rewards” for honest service by the people’s law enforcement agencies & agents.

I, , a living, breathing, being, a Natural inhabitant of the Land, and who is of the age of the majority, and NOT a child, and who has NOT been found lost at sea, or left on the battlefield, am competent in commerce to certify on my own unlimited commercial liability, that I have read the above Affidavit of Obligation, and do know the contents to be true, correct, complete and not misleading of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and do believe that the above described acts have been committed contrary to the Supreme Laws cited, defined, described,

:House & Family of

Date: / /

As First & Second Witnesses to the content of this Affidavit, and to the Living Character & red-inked, blood signature of Affiant, and Lien Claimant, I attest to both as being true in material fact, and both were done without malice, contempt, the intent to defraud, or to evade the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Witness/Beneficiary Date: / /

Witness/Beneficiary Date: / /


BE IT KNOWN TO ALL MEN, the Affiant shall post this Commercial Obligation Lien to the Public Record with a filing to the united State’s Secretary of State, and Colorado’s Secretary of State, and make every attempt of service to the Principals, via USPS Certified Mail, with Return Receipt Requested, noting that NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE PRINCIPAL, and that, NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT(S). INASMUCH, the Affiant is NOT



China Naval Modernization Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities


Background and Issues for Congress

Ronald O’Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs September 21, 2015

Congressional Research Service

China is building a modern and regionally powerful navy with a limited but growing capability for conducting operations beyond China’s near-seas region. Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the longstanding status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific. The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is a key issue in
U.S. defense planning.
China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a broad array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems. China’s naval modernization effort also includes improvements in maintenance and logistics, doctrine, personnel quality, education and training, and exercises.
Observers believe China’s naval modernization effort is oriented toward developing capabilities for doing the following: addressing the situation with Taiwan militarily, if need be; asserting or defending China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea; enforcing China’s view that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ); defending China’s commercial sea lines of communication (SLOCs); displacing U.S. influence in the Western Pacific; and asserting China’s status as a leading regional power and major world power. Consistent with these goals, observers believe China wants its military to be capable of acting as an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) force—a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict in China’s near-seas region over Taiwan or some other issue, or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. forces. Additional missions for China’s navy include conducting maritime security (including anti-piracy) operations, evacuating Chinese nationals from foreign countries when necessary, and conducting humanitarian assistance/disaster response (HA/DR) operations.
Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following:
• whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough and capable enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also adequately performing other missions around the world;
• whether the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), previously known as Air-Sea Battle (ASB), represents a good approach for countering China’s A2/AD systems;
• whether the Navy’s plans for developing and procuring long-range carrier-based aircraft and long-range ship- and aircraft-launched weapons are appropriate;
• whether the Navy can effectively counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and
• whether the Navy, in response to China’s maritime A2/AD capabilities, should shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture.

Introduction 1
Issue for Congress 1
Scope, Sources, and Terminology 1
Background 2
Strategic and Budgetary Context 2
Shift in International Security Environment 2
U.S. Grand Strategy 2
U.S. Strategic Rebalancing to Asia-Pacific Region 3
Declining U.S. Technological and Qualitative Edge 3
Challenge to U.S. Sea Control and U.S. Position in Western Pacific 4
Implications of Military Balance in Absence of a Conflict 4
China’s “Salami-Slicing” Tactics in East and South China Seas 4
Regional U.S. Allies and Partners 5
Limits on Defense Spending in Budget Control Act of 2011 as Amended 5
Overview of China’s Naval Modernization Effort 5
Date of Inception 5
A Broad-Based Modernization Effort 6
Quality vs. Quantity 6
Limitations and Weaknesses 6
Roles and Missions for China’s Navy 7
2014 ONI Testimony 9
Selected Elements of China’s Naval Modernization Effort 9
Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) and Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) 9
Submarines and Mines 12
Aircraft Carriers and Carrier-Based Aircraft 18
Navy Surface Combatants and Coast Guard Cutters 24
Amphibious Ships and Potential Floating Sea Bases 34
Land-Based Aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) 41
Nuclear and Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons 43
Maritime Surveillance and Targeting Systems 43
Naval Cyber Warfare Capabilities 44
Chinese Naval Operations Away from Home Waters 44
Numbers of Chinese Ships and Aircraft; Comparisons to U.S. Navy 46
Numbers Provided by ONI 46
Numbers Presented in Annual DOD Reports to Congress 49
Comparing U.S. and Chinese Naval Capabilities 51
DOD Response to China Naval Modernization 52
U.S. Strategic Rebalancing to Asia-Pacific Region 52
Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy 53
Defense Innovation Initiative 54
Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in Global Commons (JAM-GC)
(Previously Air-Sea Battle) 54
Navy Response to China Naval Modernization 55
Force Posture and Basing Actions 55
Acquisition Programs 56
Training and Forward-Deployed Operations 59

Issues for Congress 60
Future Size and Capability of U.S. Navy 60
Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in Global Commons (JAM-GC) (Previously
Air-Sea Battle) 60
Long-Range Carrier-Based Aircraft and Long-Range Weapons 61
UCLASS Aircraft 61
Long-Range Anti-Ship and Land Attack Missiles 61
Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile 63
Navy’s Ability to Counter China’s ASBMs 63
Breaking the ASBM’s Kill Chain 63
Endo-Atmospheric Target for Simulating DF-21D ASBM 66
Navy’s Ability to Counter China’s Submarines 67
Navy’s Fleet Architecture 68
Legislative Activity for FY2016 69
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376) 69
House 69
Senate 69
Figure 1. Jin (Type 094) Class Ballistic Missile Submarine 12
Figure 2. Yuan (Type 039A) Class Attack Submarine 13
Figure 3. Acoustic Quietness of Chinese and Russian Nuclear-Powered Submarines 14
Figure 4. Acoustic Quietness of Chinese and Russian Non-Nuclear-Powered Submarines 15
Figure 5. Aircraft Carrier Liaoning 19
Figure 6. J-15 Carrier-Capable Fighter 22
Figure 7. Luyang II (Type 052C) Class Destroyer 27
Figure 8. Jiangkai II (Type 054A) Class Frigate 29
Figure 9. Type 056 Corvette 31
Figure 10. Houbei (Type 022) Class Fast Attack Craft 32
Figure 11. China Coast Guard Ship 33
Figure 12. Yuzhao (Type 071) Class Amphibious Ship 35
Figure 13. Type 081 LHD (Unconfirmed Conceptual Rendering of a Possible Design) 36
Figure 14. Very Large Floating Structure (VLFS) 38
Figure 15. Very Large Floating Structure (VLFS) 39
Figure 16. Backdrop Showing Rendering of VLFS 39
Figure 17. U.S. Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) Concept 40
Table 1. PLA Navy Submarine Commissionings 16
Table 2. PLA Navy Destroyer Commissionings 28
Table 3. PLA Navy Frigate Commissionings 30
Table 4. Numbers of PLA Navy Ships Provided by ONI in 2013 47

Table 5. Numbers of PLA Navy Ships and Aircraft Provided by ONI in 2009 48
Table 6. Numbers of PLA Navy Ships Presented in Annual DOD Reports to Congress 50
Appendix A. 2014 ONI Testimony on China’s Navy 73
Appendix B. 2015 DOD Report on Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy 83
Appendix C. Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in Global Commons (JAM-GC)
(Previously Air-Sea Battle) 88
Appendix D. 2012 Article on Navy’s Rebalancing Toward Asia-Pacific 112
Author Contact Information 117

Issue for Congress
This report provides background information and issues for Congress on China’s naval modernization effort and its implications for U.S. Navy capabilities. The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is a key issue in U.S. defense planning and budgeting. Many U.S. military programs for countering improving Chinese military forces (particularly its naval forces) fall within the U.S. Navy’s budget.
The issue for Congress is how the U.S. Navy should respond to China’s military modernization effort, particularly its naval modernization effort. Decisions that Congress reaches on this issue could affect U.S. Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S. defense industrial base.

Scope, Sources, and Terminology
This report focuses on China’s naval modernization effort and its implications for U.S. Navy capabilities. For an overview of China’s military as a whole, see CRS Report R44196, The Chinese Military: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Ian E. Rinehart and David Gitter.
This report is based on unclassified open-source information, such as the annual DOD report to Congress on military and security developments involving China,1 2015 and 2009 reports on China’s navy from the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI),2 published reference sources such as IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships, and press reports.
For convenience, this report uses the term China’s naval modernization effort to refer to the modernization not only of China’s navy, but also of Chinese military forces outside China’s navy that can be used to counter U.S. naval forces operating in the Western Pacific, such as land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), land-based surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), land-based Air Force aircraft armed with anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and land-based long-range radars for detecting and tracking ships at sea.
China’s military is formally called the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Its navy is called the PLA Navy, or PLAN (also abbreviated as PLA[N]), and its air force is called the PLA Air Force, or PLAAF. The PLA Navy includes an air component that is called the PLA Naval Air Force, or PLANAF. China refers to its ballistic missile force as the Second Artillery Corps (SAC).
This report uses the term China’s near-seas region to refer to the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea—the waters enclosed by the so-called first island chain. The so-called second

1 Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress [on] Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015. Washington, undated but released in May 2015, 89 pp. Hereinafter 2015 DOD CMSD. The 2010-2014 editions of the report are cited similarly. The 2009 and earlier editions of the report were known as the China military power report; the 2009 edition is cited as 2009 DOD CMP, and earlier editions are cited similarly.
2 Office of Naval Intelligence, The PLA Navy, New Capabilities and Missions for the 21st Century, undated but released in April 2015, 47 pp., and The People’s Liberation Army Navy, A Modern Navy with Chinese Characteristics, August 2009. 46 pp. Hereinafter 2015 ONI Report and 2009 ONI Report, respectively.

island chain encloses both these waters and the Philippine Sea that is situated between the Philippines and Guam.3

Strategic and Budgetary Context
This section presents some brief comments on elements of the strategic and budgetary context in which China’s naval modernization effort and its implications for U.S. Navy capabilities may be considered. There is also a broader context of U.S.-China relations and U.S. foreign policy toward the Asia-Pacific that is covered in other CRS reports.4

Shift in International Security Environment
World events since late 2013 have led some observers to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the last 20-25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different strategic situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition and challenges to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.5 China’s improving naval capabilities can be viewed as one reflection of that shift.

U.S. Grand Strategy
Discussion of the above-mentioned shift in the international security environment has led to a renewed emphasis in discussions of U.S. security and foreign policy on grand strategy and geopolitics. From a U.S. perspective, grand strategy can be understood as strategy considered at a global or interregional level, as opposed to strategies for specific countries, regions, or issues.
Geopolitics refers to the influence on international relations and strategy of basic world geographic features such as the size and location of continents, oceans, and individual countries.
From a U.S. perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world’s people, resources, and economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of world geography,
U.S. policymakers for the past several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another, on the grounds that such a hegemon could represent a concentration of power strong enough to threaten core U.S. interests by, for example, denying the United States access to some of the other hemisphere’s resources and economic activity. Although U.S. policymakers have not often stated this key national strategic goal explicitly in public, U.S. military (and diplomatic) operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—can be viewed as having been carried out in no small part in support of this key goal. Some observers view China’s military (including naval) modernization effort as part of broader Chinese effort to become a regional hegemon in its part of Eurasia.
3 For a map showing the first and second island chains, see 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 87.
4 See, for example, CRS Report R41108, U.S.-China Relations: An Overview of Policy Issues, by Susan V. Lawrence, and CRS Report R42448, Pivot to the Pacific? The Obama Administration’s “Rebalancing” Toward Asia, coordinated by Mark E. Manyin.
5 For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43838, A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

U.S. Strategic Rebalancing to Asia-Pacific Region
A 2012 Department of Defense (DOD) strategic guidance document6 and DOD’s report on the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)7 state that U.S. military strategy will place an increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. Although Administration officials state that this
U.S. strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region, as it is called, is not directed at any single country, many observers believe it is in no small part intended as a response to China’s military (including naval) modernization effort and its assertive behavior regarding its maritime territorial claims.

Declining U.S. Technological and Qualitative Edge
DOD officials have expressed concern that the technological and qualitative edge that U.S. military forces have had relative to the military forces of other countries is being narrowed by improving military capabilities in other countries. China’s improving naval capabilities contribute to that concern. To arrest and reverse the decline in the U.S. technological and qualitative edge, DOD in November 2014 announced a new Defense Innovation Initiative.8 In a related effort, DOD has also announced that it is seeking a new general U.S. approach—a so-called “third offset strategy”—for maintaining U.S. superiority over opposing military forces that are both numerically large and armed with precision-guided weapons.9

6 Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012, 8 pp. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42146, Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG): In Brief, by Catherine Dale and Pat Towell.
7 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review 2014, 64 pp. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43403, The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Defense Strategy: Issues for Congress, by Catherine Dale. 8 See, for example, Cheryl Pellerin, “Hagel Announces New Defense Innovation, Reform Efforts,” DOD News,
November 15, 2014; Jake Richmond, “Work Explains Strategy Behind Innovation Initiative,” DOD News, November
24, 2014; and memorandum dated November 15, 2015, from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and other DOD recipients on The Defense Innovation Initiative, accessed online on July 21, 2015, at
9 See, for example, Jake Richmond, “Work Explains Strategy Behind Innovation Initiative,” DOD News, November 24, 2014; Claudette Roulo, “Offset Strategy Puts Advantage in Hands of U.S., Allies,” DOD News, January 28, 2015; Cheryl Pellerin, “Work Details the Future of War at Army Defense College,” DOD News, April 8, 2015.
See also Deputy Secretary of Defense Speech, National Defense University Convocation, As Prepared for Delivery by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, National Defense University, August 05, 2014, accessed July 21, 2015, at; Deputy Secretary of Defense Speech, The Third U.S. Offset Strategy and its Implications for Partners and Allies, As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, Willard Hotel, January 28, 2015, accessed July 21, 2015, at 1909; Deputy Secretary of Defense Speech, Army War College Strategy Conference, As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, U.S. Army War College, April 08, 2015, accessed July 21, 2015, at
The effort is referred to as the search for a third offset strategy because it would succeed a 1950s-1960s U.S. strategy of relying on nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet Union’s numerical superiority in conventional military forces (the first offset strategy) and a subsequent U.S. offset strategy, first developed and fielded in the 1970s and 1980s, that centered on information technology and precision-guided weapons (the second offset strategy). (For more on the second offset strategy, see DOD News Release No: 567-96, October 03, 1996, “Remarks as Given by Secretary of Defense William
J. Perry To the National Academy of Engineering, Wednesday, October 2, 1996,” accessed July 21, 2015, at

Challenge to U.S. Sea Control and U.S. Position in Western Pacific
Observers of Chinese and U.S. military forces view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a potential challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime—the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War.10 More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of an emerging broader Chinese military challenge to the longstanding status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific.

Implications of Military Balance in Absence of a Conflict
Some observers consider a U.S.-Chinese military conflict in the Pacific over Taiwan or some other issue to be very unlikely because of significant U.S.-Chinese economic linkages and the tremendous damage that such a conflict could cause on both sides. In the absence of such a conflict, the U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States. In this sense, decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military forces could influence the political evolution of the Pacific and consequently the ability of the United States to pursue various policy goals.

China’s “Salami-Slicing” Tactics in East and South China Seas
China’s actions for asserting and defending its maritime territorial and exclusive economic zone (EEZ)11 claims in the East China (ECS) and South China Sea (SCS), particularly since late 2013, have heightened concerns among observers that ongoing disputes over these waters and some of the islands within them could lead to a crisis or conflict between China and a neighboring country, and that the United States could be drawn into such a crisis or conflict as a result of obligations the United States has under bilateral security treaties with Japan and the Philippines. More broadly, China’s actions for asserting and defending its maritime territorial and EEZ claims, including recent land reclamation and construction activities at several sites in the SCS, have led to increasing concerns among some observers that China may be seeking to dominate or gain control of its near-seas region. Some observers characterize China’s approach for asserting and defending its territorial claims in the ECS and SCS as a “salami-slicing” strategy that employs a series of incremental actions, none of which by itself is a casus belli, to gradually change the status quo in China’s favor.12
10 The term “blue-water ocean areas” is used here to mean waters that are away from shore, as opposed to near-shore (i.e., littoral) waters. Iran is viewed as posing a challenge to the U.S. Navy’s ability to quickly achieve and maintain sea control in littoral waters in and near the Strait of Hormuz. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42335, Iran’s Threat to the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated by Kenneth Katzman.
11 A country’s EEZ includes waters extending up to 200 nautical miles from its land territory. Coastal states have the right under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to regulate foreign economic activities in their own EEZs. EEZs were established as a feature of international law by UNCLOS.
12 For further discussion, see CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke, CRS Report R42930, Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia: Issues for Congress, by Ben Dolven, Mark E. Manyin, and Shirley A. Kan, and CRS Report R44072, Chinese Land Reclamation in the South China Sea: Implications and Policy Options, by Ben Dolven et al.

Regional U.S. Allies and Partners
The United States has certain security-related policies pertaining to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act (H.R. 2479/P.L. 96-8 of April 10, 1979). The United States has bilateral security treaties with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and an additional security treaty with Australia and New Zealand.13 In addition to U.S. treaty allies, certain other countries in the Western Pacific can be viewed as current or emerging U.S. security partners.

Limits on Defense Spending in Budget Control Act of 2011 as Amended
Limits on the “base” portion of the U.S. defense budget established by Budget Control Act of 2011, or BCA (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011), as amended, combined with some of the considerations above, have led to discussions among observers about how to balance competing demands for finite U.S. defense funds, and about whether programs for responding to China’s military modernization effort can be adequately funded while also adequately funding other defense-spending priorities, such as initiatives for responding to Russia’s actions in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe and U.S. operations for countering the Islamic State organization in the Middle East. U.S. Navy officials have stated that if defense spending remains constrained to levels set forth in the BCA as amended, the Navy in coming years will not be able to fully execute all the missions assigned to it under the 2012 DOD strategic guidance document.14

Overview of China’s Naval Modernization Effort15
Date of Inception
China’s military (including naval) modernization effort has been underway for about 20 years. Observers date the beginning of the effort, to various points in the 1990s.16 Design work on the first of China’s newer ship classes appears to have begun in the later 1980s.17 Some observers believe that China’s military (including naval) modernization effort may have been reinforced or accelerated by China’s observation of U.S. military operations against Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991,18 and by a 1996 incident in which the United States deployed two aircraft carrier
13 For a summary, see “U.S. Collective Defense Arrangements,” accessed July 24, 2015, at treaty/collectivedefense/.
14 See, for example, Statement of Admiral Jonathan Greenert, U.S. navy, Chief of Naval Operations, Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Impact of Sequestration on National Defense, January 28, 2015, particularly page 4 and Table 1, entitled “Mission Impacts to a Sequestered Navy.”
15 Unless otherwise indicated, shipbuilding program information in this section is taken from IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016, and previous editions. Other sources of information on these shipbuilding programs may disagree regarding projected ship commissioning dates or other details, but sources present similar overall pictures regarding PLA Navy shipbuilding.
16 China ordered its first four Russian-made Kilo-class submarines in 1993, and its four Russian-made Sovremenny- class destroyers in 1996. China laid the keel on its first Song (Type 039) class submarine in 1991, its first Luhu (Type
52) class destroyer in 1990, its Luhai (Type 051B) class destroyer in 1996, and its first Jiangwei I (Type 053 H2G) class frigate in 1990.
17 First-in-class ships whose keels were laid down in 1990 or 1991 (see previous footnote) likely reflect design work done in the latter 1980s.
18 See, for example, Robert Farley, “What Scares China’s Military: The 1991 Gulf War,” The National Interest (, November 24, 2014.

strike groups to waters near Taiwan in response to Chinese missile tests and naval exercises near Taiwan.19

A Broad-Based Modernization Effort
Although press reports on China’s naval modernization effort sometimes focus on a single element, such as China’s aircraft carrier program or its anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), China’s naval modernization effort is a broad-based effort with many elements. China’s naval modernization effort includes a wide array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including programs for ASBMs, anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs), surface-to-air missiles, mines, manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft, submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes, patrol craft, amphibious ships, mine countermeasures (MCM) ships, underway replenishment ships, hospital ships, and supporting C4ISR20 systems.
Some of these acquisition programs are discussed in further detail below. China’s naval modernization effort also includes improvements in maintenance and logistics, doctrine, personnel quality, education and training, and exercises.

Quality vs. Quantity
In general, China’s naval modernization effort to date appears focused less on increasing total platform (i.e., ship and aircraft) numbers than on increasing the modernity and capability of Chinese platforms. Changes in platform capability and the percentage of the force accounted for by modern platforms have generally been more dramatic than changes in total platform numbers. In some cases (such as submarines and coastal patrol craft), total numbers of platforms have actually decreased over the past 20 years or so, but aggregate capability has nevertheless increased because a larger number of older and obsolescent platforms have been replaced by a smaller number of much more modern and capable new platforms. ONI states that “China’s force modernization has concentrated on improving the quality of its force, rather than its size.
Quantities of major combatants have stayed relatively constant, but their combat capability has greatly increased as older combatants are replaced by larger, multi-mission ships.”21

Limitations and Weaknesses
Although China’s naval modernization effort has substantially improved China’s naval capabilities in recent years, observers believe China’s navy currently has limitations or weaknesses in certain areas, including joint operations with other parts of China’s military,22 antisubmarine warfare (ASW),23 a dependence on foreign suppliers for some ship components,24
19 DOD, for example, stated in 2011 that “The U.S. response in the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis underscored to Beijing the potential challenge of U.S. military intervention and highlighted the importance of developing a modern navy, capable of conducting A2AD [anti-access/area-denial] operations, or ‘counter-intervention operations’ in the PLA’s lexicon.” (2011 DOD CMSD, p. 57.)
20 C4ISR stands for command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
21 2015 ONI Report, p. 5. See also p. 13.
22 See, for example, 2015 ONI Report, p. 31. See also Minnie Chan, “PLA Navy in Future Will Have World-Class Ships, But Not The Expertise to Operate Them, Military Observers Say,” South China Morning Post, July 27, 2015. 23 DOD states that “China is making gradual progress in the undersea domain as well, but continues to lack either a
robust coastal or deep water anti-submarine warfare capability.” (2015 DOD CMSD, p. 35.)
24 DOD states that “China continues to invest in foreign suppliers for some propulsion units, but is becoming increasingly self-reliant.” (2015 DOD CMSD, p. 51.) For a discussion of China’s weakenesses and limitations in general, see Andrew S. Erickson, “Clear Strengths, Fuzzy Weaknesses In CHina’s Massive Military Buildup,” China (continued…)

and long-range targeting.25 China is working to overcome such limitations and weaknesses.26 ONI states that “Although the PLA(N) faces some capability gaps in key areas, it is emerging as a well equipped and competent force.”27
The sufficiency of a country’s naval capabilities is best assessed against that navy’s intended missions. Although China’s navy has limitations and weaknesses, it may nevertheless be sufficient for performing missions of interest to Chinese leaders. As China’s navy reduces its weaknesses and limitations, it may become sufficient to perform a wider array of potential missions.

Roles and Missions for China’s Navy
Observers believe China’s naval modernization effort is oriented toward developing capabilities for doing the following:
• addressing the situation with Taiwan militarily, if need be;
• asserting or defending China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS);28
• enforcing China’s view—a minority view among world nations—that it has the legal right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ);29
• defending China’s commercial sea lines of communication (SLOCs), such as those linking China to the Persian Gulf;
• displacing U.S. influence in the Western Pacific; and
• asserting China’s status as a leading regional power and major world power.30
Real Time (Wall Street Journal), May 9, 2015.
25 DOD states that
It is also unclear whether China has the capability to collect accurate targeting information and pass it to launch platforms in time for successful strikes in sea areas beyond the first island chain.
(2015 DOD CMSD, p. 35.)
See also Dennis J. Blasko, “Ten Reasons Why China Will Have Trouble Fighting A Modern War,” War on the Rocks, February 18, 2015.
26 See, for example, Christopher P. Cavas, “China’s Navy Makes Strides, Work Remains To Be Done,” Defense News, May 24, 2015. Regarding China’s efforts to overcome its limitations in ASW in particular, see, for example, Greg Torode, “China’s Island Airstrips To Heighten South China Sea Underwater Rivalry,” Reuters, September 17, 2015; Lyle J. Goldstein, “A Frightening Thought: China Erodes America’s Submarine Advantage,” The National Interest, August 17, 2015; “China: Closing the Gap in Anti-Submarine Warfare,” Stratfor, July 20, 2015; Ankit Panda, “China’s Navy Just Got Better at Detecting and Taking out Submarines,” The Diplomat, July 9, 2015; Franz-Stefan Gady, “Meet China’s New Submarine Hunter Plane,” The Diplomat, June 30, 2015; Gareth Jennings, “China Fields New Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine Y-8/Y-9 Variant [Aircraft],” IHS Jane’s 360, June 28, 2015.
27 2015 ONI Report, p. 13.
28 For more on China’s territorial claims in the SCS and ECS, see CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke, and CRS Report R42930, Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia: Issues for Congress, by Ben Dolven, Mark E. Manyin, and Shirley
A. Kan. See also CRS Report R44072, Chinese Land Reclamation in the South China Sea: Implications and Policy Options, by Ben Dolven et al.
29 For more on China’s view regarding its rights within its EEZ, see CRS Report R42784, Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
30 For a discussion of roles and missions of China’s navy, see 2015 ONI Report, pp. 8-11.

Most observers believe that, consistent with these goals, China wants its military to be capable of acting as an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) force—a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict in China’s near-seas region over Taiwan or some other issue, or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. forces.31 (A2/AD is a term used by U.S. and other Western writers. During the Cold War, U.S. writers used the term sea-denial force to refer to a maritime A2/AD force.) ASBMs, ASCMs, attack submarines, and supporting C4ISR systems are viewed as key elements of China’s emerging maritime A2/AD force, though other force elements are also of significance in that regard.
China’s maritime A2/AD force can be viewed as broadly analogous to the sea-denial force that the Soviet Union developed during the Cold War with the aim of denying U.S. use of the sea and countering U.S. naval forces participating in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. One difference between the Soviet sea-denial force and China’s emerging maritime A2/AD force is that China’s force includes ASBMs capable of hitting moving ships at sea.
Additional missions for China’s navy include conducting maritime security (including anti- piracy) operations, evacuating Chinese nationals in foreign countries when necessary, and conducting humanitarian assistance/disaster response (HA/DR) operations.
DOD states that
Preparing for potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait remains the focus and primary driver of China’s military investment; however, the PRC is increasing its emphasis on preparations for contingencies other than Taiwan, such as contingencies in the East China Sea and South China Sea. Additionally, as China’s global footprint and international interests grow, its military modernization program has become progressively more focused on investments for a range of missions beyond China’s periphery, including power projection, sea lane security, counter-piracy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR)….
Whereas “near seas” defense remains the PLA Navy’s primary focus, China’s gradual shift to the “far seas” has necessitated that its Navy support operational tasks outside the first island chain with multi-mission, long-range, sustainable naval platforms with robust self-defense capabilities.32
China’s 2015 Military Strategy, released in May 2015, is viewed as placing an increased emphasis on maritime operations, among other things.33 The document states that
With the growth of China’s national interests, its national security is more vulnerable to international and regional turmoil, terrorism, piracy, serious natural disasters and epidemics, and the security of overseas interests concerning energy and resources, strategic sea lines of communication (SLOCs), as well as institutions, personnel and assets abroad, has become an imminent issue….
To implement the military strategic guideline of active defense in the new situation, China’s armed forces will adjust the basic point for PMS [preparation for military struggle]. In line with the evolving form of war and national security situation, the basic

31 See, for example, 2015 DOD CMSD, pp. 33-37.
32 2015 DOD CMSD, p. i, 8. See also page 43, and 2015 ONI Report, pp. 8-11.
33 See, for example, Andrew Jacobs, “China, Updating Military Strategy, Puts Focus on Projecting Naval Power,” New York Times, May 26, 2015; “Kaiser Xi’s Navy,” Wall Street Journal, May 29, 2015; Greg Austin, “China’s Military Dream,” The Diplomat, June 2, 2015. For a somewhat contrary perspective, see Gordon Lubold, “U.S., Experts See No Major Change in China Defense Strategy; Beijing’s Shift in Military Focus to Maritime Warfare Is No Surprise, According to Senior U.S. Defense Official,” Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2015.

point for PMS will be placed on winning informationized local wars, highlighting maritime military struggle and maritime PMS….
In line with the strategic requirement of offshore waters defense and open seas protection, the PLA Navy (PLAN) will gradually shift its focus from “offshore waters defense” to the combination of “offshore waters defense” with “open seas protection,” and build a combined, multi-functional and efficient marine combat force structure. The PLAN will enhance its capabilities for strategic deterrence and counterattack, maritime maneuvers, joint operations at sea, comprehensive defense and comprehensive support….
The seas and oceans bear on the enduring peace, lasting stability and sustainable development of China. The traditional mentality that land outweighs sea must be abandoned, and great importance has to be attached to managing the seas and oceans and protecting maritime rights and interests. It is necessary for China to develop a modern maritime military force structure commensurate with its national security and development interests, safeguard its national sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, protect the security of strategic SLOCs and overseas interests, and participate in international maritime cooperation, so as to provide strategic support for building itself into a maritime power.34

2014 ONI Testimony
In his prepared statement for a January 30, 2014, hearing on China’s military modernization and its implications for the United States before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Jesse L. Karotkin, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer for China, summarized China’s naval modernization effort. For the text of Karotkin’s statement, see Appendix A.

Selected Elements of China’s Naval Modernization Effort
Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) and Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)

Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs)
China is fielding an ASBM, referred to as the DF-21D, that is a theater-range ballistic missile equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (MaRV) designed to hit moving ships at sea. DOD states that
China continues to field an ASBM based on a variant of the CSS-5 (DF-21) MRBM that it began deploying in 2010. This missile provides the PLA the capability to attack aircraft carriers in the western Pacific. The CSS-5 Mod 5 has a range exceeding 1,500 km [about 810 nm] and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.35
Another observer states that “the DF-21D’s warhead apparently uses a combination of radar and optical sensors to find the target and make final guidance updates…. Finally, it uses a high

34 China’s Military Strategy, The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, May 2015, Beijing, released May 26, 2015, accessed July 27, 2015, at content_4586748.htm. “Informationized” is the English translation of a Chinese term that refers to modern warfare with precision-guided weapons and networks of platforms (i.e., ships, aircraft, etc.) that share targeting and other information.
35 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 39. A similar statement appears on page 8. On page 35, the report states that DF-21D missiles are “specifically designed to hold adversary aircraft carriers at risk once they approach within 900 nm [1,667 km] of the Chinese coastline.” See also 2009 ONI Report, pp. 26-27.

explosive, or a radio frequency or cluster warhead that at a minimum can achieve a mission kill [against the target ship].”36
Observers have expressed strong concern about the DF-21D, because such missiles, in combination with broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting systems, would permit China to attack aircraft carriers, other U.S. Navy ships, or ships of allied or partner navies operating in the Western Pacific. The U.S. Navy has not previously faced a threat from highly accurate ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving ships at sea. For this reason, some observers have referred to the DF-21 as a “game-changing” weapon. Due to their ability to change course, the MaRVs on an ASBM would be more difficult to intercept than non-maneuvering ballistic missile reentry vehicles.37
According to press reports, the DF-21D has been tested over land but has not been tested in an end-to-end flight test against a target at sea. A January 23, 2013, press report about a test of the weapon in the Gobi desert in western China stated:
The People’s Liberation Army has successfully sunk a US aircraft carrier, according to a satellite photo provided by Google Earth, reports our sister paper Want Daily—though the strike was a war game, the carrier a mock-up platform and the “sinking” occurred on dry land in a remote part of western China.38
DOD has been reporting on the DF-21D in its annual reports to Congress since 2008.39 On September 3, 2015, at a Chinese military parade in Beijing that displayed numerous types of Chinese weapons, an announcer stated that a second type of Chinese ballistic missile, the DF-26, may have an anti-ship capability.40 The DF-26 has a reported range of 1,800 miles to 2,500 miles,41 or more than twice the reported range of the DF-21D.
36 Richard Fisher, Jr., “PLA and U.S. Arms Racing in the Western Pacific,” available online at A mission kill means that the ship is damaged enough that it cannot perform its intended mission.
37 For further discussion of China’s ASBM-development effort and its potential implications for U.S. naval forces, see Craig Hooper and Christopher Albon, “Get Off the Fainting Couch,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2010: 42- 47; Andrew S. Erickson, “Ballistic Trajectory—China Develops New Anti-Ship Missile,” Jane’s Intelligence Review, January 4, 2010; Michael S. Chase, Andrew S. Erickson and Christopher Yeaw, “Chinese Theater and Strategic Missile Force Modernization and its Implications for the United States,” The Journal of Strategic Studies, February 2009: 67- 114; Andrew S. Erickson and David D. Yang, “On the Verge of a Game-Changer,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2009: 26-32; Andrew Erickson, “Facing A New Missile Threat From China, How The U.S. Should Respond To China’s Development Of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Systems,”, May 28, 2009; Andrew S. Erickson, “Chinese ASBM Development: Knowns and Unknowns,” China Brief, June 24, 2009: 4-8; Andrew S. Erickson and David D. Yang, “Using the Land to Control the Sea? Chinese Analysts Consider the Antiship Ballistic Missile,” Naval War College Review, Autumn 2009: 53-86; Eric Hagt and Matthew Durnin, “China’s Antiship Ballistic Missile, Developments and Missing Links,” Naval War College Review, Autumn 2009: 87-115; Mark Stokes, “China’s Evolving Conventional Strategic Strike Capability, The Anti-ship Ballistic Missile Challenge to U.S. Maritime Operations in the Western Pacific and Beyond, Project 2049 Institute, September 14, 2009. 123 pp.
38 “PLA ‘Sinks’ US Carrier in DF-21D Missile Test in Gobi,” Want China Times (, January 23, 2013, accessed March 21, 2013, at 20130123000112&cid=1101.
39 2008 DOD CMP, pp. 2 and 23.
40 See, for example, Richard D Fisher Jr., “DF-26 IRBM May Have ASM Variant, China Reveals at 3 September Parade,” IHS Jane’s 360, September 2, 2015; Wendell Minnick, “China’s Parade Puts US Navy on Notice,” Defense News, September 3, 2015; Andrew S. Erickson, “Showtime: China Reveals Two ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missiles,” The National Interest, September 3, 2015.
41 Thomas Gibbons-Neff, “China Showcases Advanced Ballistic Missiles at Military Parade,” Washington Post, September 3, 2015. Another press report states that the missile’s range is 3,000 km to 4,000 km, which equates to about 1,860 miles to about 2,480 miles, or to about 1,620 nautical miles to 2,160 nautical miles. (Richard D Fisher Jr., “DF- (continued…)

China reportedly is developing a hypersonic glide vehicle that, if incorporated into Chinese ASBMs, could make Chinese ASBMs more difficult to intercept.42

Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs)
Among the most capable of the new ASCMs that have been acquired by China’s navy are the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn (carried by China’s four Russian-made Sovremenny-class destroyers) and the Russian-made SS-N-27 Sizzler (carried by 8 of China’s 12 Russian-made Kilo-class submarines). China’s large inventory of ASCMs also includes several indigenous designs, including some highly capable models. DOD states that
The PLA Navy is deploying a wide range of advanced ASCMs. The most capable include the domestically produced ship-launched YJ-62 ASCM and the Russian SS-N- 22/SUNBURN supersonic ASCM, which is fitted on China’s SOVREMENNY-class DDGs acquired from Russia. China’s submarine force is also increasing its ASCM capability, with the long-range YJ-18 ASCM replacing the older YJ-82 on the SONG, YUAN, and SHANG classes. The YJ-18 is similar to the Russian SS-N-27B/SIZZLER ASCM, which is capable of supersonic terminal sprint and is fielded on eight of China’s twelve Russian-built KILO SS. In addition, PLA Navy Aviation employs the 200 km range YJ-83K ASCM on its JH-7 and H-6G aircraft. China has also developed the YJ-12 ASCM for the Navy. The new missile provides an increased threat to naval assets, due to its long-range and supersonic speeds. It is capable of being launched from H-6 bombers.43

26 IRBM May Have ASM Variant, China Reveals at 3 September Parade,” IHS Jane’s 360, September 2, 2015.)
42 See, for example, Bill Gertz, “China Conducts Fifth Test of Hypersonic Glide Vehicle,” Washington Free Beacon, August 21, 2015; Philip Ewing, “Arms Race Goes Hypersonic,” Politico, August 11, 2015; Li Bao and Christopher Jones-Cruise, “China Testing ‘Hypersonic’ Weapons,” VOA News, August 3, 2015.
43 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 46. On page 10, the report states:
The PLA Navy continues to emphasize anti-surface warfare (ASUW) as its primary focus, including modernizing its advanced ASCMs and associated over-the-horizon targeting (OTH-T) systems. Older Chinese surface combatants carry variants of the YJ-8A ASCM (65nm), while newer surface combatants such as the LUYANG II DDG [destroyer] are fitted with the YJ-62 (120nm). The LUYANG III DDG and Type 055 CG [cruiser] will be fitted with a variant of China’s newest ASCM, the YJ-18 (290nm), which is a significant step forward in China’s surface ASUW capability. Eight of China’s twelve KILO SS [attack submarines] are equipped with the SS-
N-27 ASCM (120nm), a system China acquired from Russia. China’s newest indigenous
submarine-launched ASCM, the YJ-18 and its variants, represents a dramatic improvement over the SS-N-27, and will be fielded on SONG, YUAN, and SHANG [class] submarines. China’s previously produced sub-launched ASCM, the YJ-82, is a version of the C-801, which has a much shorter range.
See also Lyle J. Goldstein, “YJ-18 Supersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile: America’s Nightmare,” National Interest, June 1, 2015; “CCTV Military Commentator Responds to US Report on YJ-18,” Want China Times, April 18, 2015; Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan, A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier, Assessing China’s Cruise Missile Ambitions, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, Washington, 2014, 165 pp.; Dennis Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan, “China’s Cruise Missiles: Flying Fast Under the Public’s Radar,” The National Interest, May 12, 2014; Dennis M. Gormley, Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan, “A Potent Vector, Assessing Chinese Cruise Missile Developments,” Joint Force Quarterly, 4th
Quarter 2014: 98-105; “Bradley Perrett, “China Strongly Pushing Cruise Missile Capability,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 22, 2014: 4; Wendell Minnick, “Report: Chinese Cruise Missiles Could Poses Biggest Threat to US Carriers,”, June 2, 2014; Richard D. Fisher Jr., “China Unveils Third ‘Russian’ Supersonic Anti- Ship Cruise Missile,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, November 10, 2014: 4; “China’s Anti-Ship Missiles YJ-12 and YJ-100 Revealed,” China Military Online English Edition, February 4, 2014.

Submarines and Mines
China’s submarine modernization effort has attracted substantial attention and concern. DOD states, “The PLA Navy places a high priority on the modernization of its submarine force…. ”44 ONI states that
China has long regarded its submarine force as a critical element of regional deterrence, particularly when conducting “counter-intervention” against modern adversary. The large, but poorly equipped [submarine] force of the 1980s has given way to a more modern submarine force, optimized primarily for regional anti-surface warfare missions near major sea lines of communication.45

Types Acquired in Recent Years
China since the mid-1990s has acquired 12 Russian-made Kilo-class non-nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSs) and put into service at least four new classes of indigenously built submarines, including the following:
• a new nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) design called the Jin class or Type 094 (Figure 1);
• a new nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) design called the Shang class or Type 093;
• a new SS design called the Yuan class or Type 039A (Figure 2);46 and
• another (and also fairly new) SS design called the Song class or Type 039/039G.

11-9-2015 6-52-50 AM

Source: Photograph provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, December 2010.
The Kilos and the four new classes of indigenously built submarines are regarded as much more modern and capable than China’s aging older-generation submarines. At least some of the new indigenously built designs are believed to have benefitted from Russian submarine technology and design know-how.47
44 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 8.
45 [Hearing on] Trends in China’s Naval Modernization [before] U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission[,] Testimony [of] Jesse L. Karotkin, [Senior Intelligence Officer for China, Office of Naval Intelligence, January 30, 2014], accessed February 12, 2014, p. 7.
46 Some sources refer to the Yuan class as the Type 041.
47 The August 2009 ONI report, for example, states that the Yuan class may incorporate quieting technology from the (continued…)

11-9-2015 6-53-30 AM

DOD and other observers believe the Type 093 SSN design will be succeeded by a newer SSN design called the Type 095. The August 2009 ONI report includes a graph (see Figure 3) that shows the Type 095 SSN, along with the date 2015, suggesting that ONI projected in 2009 that the first Type 095 would enter service that year. DOD states, “Over the next decade, China may construct a new Type 095 nuclear powered, guided-missile attack submarine (SSBN), which not only would improve the PLA Navy’s anti-surface warfare capability, but might also provide it with a more clandestine, land-attack option.”48 ONI states that
The SHANG-class SSN’s initial production run stopped after only two hulls that were launched in 2002 and 2003. After nearly 10 years, China is continuing production with four additional hulls of an improved variant, the first of which was launched in 2012.49 These six total submarines will replace the aging HAN class SSN on nearly a one-for-one basis in the next several years. Following the completion of the improved SHANG SSN, the PLA(N) will progress to the Type 095 SSN, which may provide a generational improvement in many areas such as quieting and weapon capacity.50
China in 2012 commissioned into a service a new type of non-nuclear-powered submarine, called the Type 032 or Qing class according to IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016, that is about one-

Kilo class. (2009 ONI Report, p. 23.)
48 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9.
49 For additional discussion of these improved Type 093boats, see Franz-Stefan Gady, “China’s ‘New’ Carrier Killer Subs,” The Diplomat, April 6, 2015; Kris Osborn, “China Unveils Three New Nuclear-Powered Attack Submarines,” DefenseTech, April 3, 2015; Zhao Lei, “Navy To Get 3 New Nuclear Subs,” China Daily, April 3, 2015.
50 2015 ONI Report, p, 19. See also Lyle Goldstein, “Emerging From The Shadows,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2015: 30-34.

third larger than the Yuan-class design. Observers believe the boat may be a one-of-kind test platform; IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 refers to it as an auxiliary submarine (SSA).51 DOD states that China is pursuing “a new joint-design and production program [with Russia] for diesel-electric submarines based on the Russian PETERSBURG/LADA-class.”52 A June 29, 2015, press report showed a 2014 satellite photograph of an apparent Chinese mini- or midget- submarine submarine that “has not been seen nor heard of since.”53
Figure 3 and Figure 4, which are taken from the August 2009 ONI report, show the acoustic quietness of Chinese nuclear- and non-nuclear-powered submarines, respectively, relative to that of Russian nuclear- and non-nuclear-powered submarines.

11-9-2015 6-54-02 AM

In Figure 3 and Figure 4, the downward slope of the arrow indicates the increasingly lower noise levels (i.e., increasing acoustic quietness) of the submarine designs shown. In general, quieter submarines are more difficult for opposing forces to detect and counter. The green-yellow-red color spectrum on the arrow in each figure might be interpreted as a rough indication of the relative difficulty that a navy with capable antisubmarine warfare forces (such as the U.S. Navy) might have in detecting and countering these submarines: Green might indicate submarines that would be relatively easy for such a navy to detect and counter, yellow might indicate submarines
51 IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016, p. 134.
52 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 52.
53 Jamie Seidel, “Mini Submarine Captured on Satellite Photo of Chinese Dockyard,”, June 29, 2015.

that would be less easy for such a navy to detect and counter, and red might indicate submarines that would be more difficult for such a navy to detect and counter.

11-9-2015 6-54-33 AM

China’s submarines are armed with one or more of the following: ASCMs, wire-guided and
wake-homing torpedoes, and mines. Eight of the 12 Kilos purchased from Russia (presumably the ones purchased more recently) are armed with the highly capable Russian-made SS-N-27 Sizzler ASCM. In addition to other weapons, Shang-class SSNs may carry LACMs. Although ASCMs are often highlighted as sources of concern, wake-homing torpedoes are also a concern because they can be very difficult for surface ships to counter.
Although China’s aging Ming-class (Type 035) submarines are based on old technology and are much less capable than China’s newer-design submarines, China may decide that these older boats have continued value as minelayers or as bait or decoy submarines that can be used to draw out enemy submarines (such as U.S. SSNs) that can then be attacked by other Chinese naval forces.

Submarine Acquisition Rate and Potential Submarine Force Size
Table 1 shows actual and projected commissionings of Chinese submarines by class since 1995, when China took delivery of its first two Kilo-class boats. The table includes the final nine boats in the Ming class, which is an older and less capable submarine design. As shown in Table 1, China by the end of 2015 is expected to have a total of 41 relatively modern attack submarines—

meaning Shang-, Kilo-, Yuan-, and Song-class boats—in commission. As shown in the table, much of the growth in this figure occurred in 2004-2006, when 18 attack submarines (including 8 Kilo-class boats and 8 Song-class boats) were added, and in 2011-2012, when 8 Yuan-class attack submarines were added.

11-9-2015 6-55-13 AM

Note: n/a = data not available.
a. Figures for Ming-class boats are when the boats were launched (i.e., put into the water for final construction). Actual commissioning dates for these boats may have been later.
b. Some sources refer to the Yuan class as the Type 041.
c. This total excludes the Jin-class SSBNs (because they are not attack boats), the Ming-class SSs (because they are generally considered to not be of a modern design), and the Qing-class boat (because IHS Jane’s considers it to be an auxiliary submarine).
d. IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 lists the commissioning date of one of the two Kilos as November 15, 1994.
e. Observers believe this boat may be a one-of-kind test platform; IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 refers to it as an auxiliary submarine (SSA).
f. IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 states that a class of up to 20 boats is expected. DOD states that a total of 20 are planned for production. (2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9) ONI states that as many as 20 may be produced. (2015 ONI Report, p. 19)

g. IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 states that a total of five boats is expected.
h. IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 states that a total of six boats are expected, with the final four boats built to a modified (Type 093A) design.
The figures in Table 1 show that between 1995 and 2015, China placed or was expected to place into service a total of 56 submarines of all kinds, or an average of about 2.7 submarines per year. This average commissioning rate, if sustained indefinitely, would eventually result in a steady- state submarine force of about 54 to 81 boats of all kinds, assuming an average submarine life of 20 to 30 years.
Excluding the 12 Kilos purchased from Russia, the total number of domestically produced submarines placed into service between 1995 and 2015 is 44, or an average of about 2.1 per year. This average rate of domestic production, if sustained indefinitely, would eventually result in a steady-state force of domestically produced submarines of about 42 to 63 boats of all kinds, again assuming an average submarine life of 20 to 30 years.
DOD states that “by 2020, [China’s submarine] force will likely grow to between 69 and 78 submarines.”54 ONI states that “by 2020, the [PLA(N)] submarine force will likely grow to more than 70 submarines.”55 In an accompanying table, ONI provides a more precise projection of 74 submarines in 2020, including 11 nuclear-powered boats and 63 non-nuclear-powered boats.56 A May 16, 2013, press report quotes Admiral Samuel Locklear, then-Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, as stating that China plans to acquire a total of 80 submarines.57

JL-2 SLBM on Jin-Class SSBN
Each Jin-class SSBN is expected to be armed with 12 JL-2 nuclear-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). DOD states that
China continues to produce the JIN SSBN (Type 094) with associated CSS-NX-14 (JL-2) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) that has an estimated range of 7,400 km [3,996 nautical miles]. This capability represents China’s first credible, sea-based nuclear deterrent. China will likely conduct its first SSBN nuclear deterrence patrol sometime in 2015. Four JIN-class SSBNs are currently operational, and up to five may enter service before China begins developing and fielding its next-generation SSBN, the Type 096, over the coming decade.58
A range of 7,400 km could permit Jin-class SSBNs to attack
• targets in Alaska (except the Alaskan panhandle) from protected bastions close to China;
• targets in Hawaii (as well as targets in Alaska, except the Alaskan panhandle) from locations south of Japan;
• targets in the western half of the 48 contiguous states (as well as Hawaii and Alaska) from mid-ocean locations west of Hawaii; and
• targets in all 50 states from mid-ocean locations east of Hawaii.
54 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9.
55 2015 ONI Report, p. 19.
56 2015 ONI Report, p. 18.
57 Richard Halloran, “China, US Engaging in Underwater Arms Race,” Taipei Times, May 16, 2013: 8, accessed May 17, 2013, at
58 2015 DOD CMSD, pp. 9. See also p. 32, and 2015 ONI Report, pp. 19-20.

China has modernized its substantial inventory of naval mines.59 ONI states that
China has a robust mining capability and currently maintains a varied inventory estimated at more than 50,000 [naval] mines. China has developed a robust infrastructure for naval mine-related research, development, testing, evaluation, and production. During the past few years, China has gone from an obsolete mine inventory, consisting primarily of pre- WWII vintage moored contact and basic bottom influence mines, to a vast mine inventory consisting of a large variety of mine types such as moored, bottom, drifting, rocket-propelled, and intelligent mines. The mines can be laid by submarines (primarily for covert mining of enemy ports), surface ships, aircraft, and by fishing and merchant vessels. China will continue to develop more advanced mines in the future such as
extended-range propelled-warhead mines, antihelicopter mines, and bottom influence mines more able to counter minesweeping efforts.60

Aircraft Carriers and Carrier-Based Aircraft61
China has begun operating its first aircraft carrier—the Liaoning, a refurbished ex-Ukrainian aircraft carrier—and reportedly has begun construction of its first indigenously built aircraft carrier.

Liaoning (Ex-Ukrainian Aircraft Carrier Varyag)
On September 25, 2012, China commissioned into service its first aircraft carrier—the Liaoning (Figure 5), a refurbished ex-Ukrainian aircraft carrier, previously named Varyag, that China purchased from Ukraine as an unfinished ship in 1998.62
The Liaoning is conventionally powered, has an estimated full load displacement of almost 60,000 tons,63 and might accommodate an eventual air wing of 30 or more aircraft, including fixed-wing airplanes and helicopters. A September 7, 2014, press report, citing an August 28, 2014, edition of the Chinese-language Shanghai Morning Post, stated that the Liaoning’s air wing may consist of 24 J-15 fighters, 6 anti-submarine warfare helicopters, 4 airborne early warning helicopters, and 2 rescue helicopters, for a total of 36 aircraft.64 The Liaoning lacks aircraft catapults and instead launches fixed-wing airplanes off the ship’s bow using an inclined “ski ramp.”

59 See, for example, Scott C. Truver, “Taking Mines Seriously, Mine Warfare in China’s Near Seas,” Naval War College Review,” Spring 2012: 30-66.
60 2015 ONI Report, pp. 23-24.
61 China, according to one set of observers, initiated studies on possible aircraft carrier options in the 1990s, and approved a formal aircraft carrier program in 2004. (Andrew S. Erickson and Gabriel B. Collins, “The Calm Before the Storm,” FP [Foreign Policy] National Security (, September 26, 2012.) Another observer dates Chinese activities in support of an eventual aircraft carrier program back to the 1980s. (Torbjorg Hemmingsen, “PLAN For Action: New Dawn for Chinese Naval Aviation,” Jane’s Navy International, June 2012: 12-17.)
62 The Soviet Union began work on the Varyag in a shipyard in Ukraine, which at the time was part of the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, construction work on the ship stopped and the unfinished ship became the property of Ukraine. For a discussion, see James Holmes, “The Long Strange Trip of China’s First Aircraft Carrier,” Foreign Policy, February 3, 2015; Chen Chu-chun and Staff Reporter, “Man Who Bought Varyag From Ukraine Plied Officials With Liquor,” Want China Times, January 22, 2015.
63 IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 lists a full load displacement of 59,439 tons for the ship.
64 Wendell Minnick, “Chinese Carrier’s Purported Air Wing Deemed Plausible But Limited,” Defense News (, September 7, 2014.

11-9-2015 6-55-56 AM

By comparison, a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier is nuclear powered (giving it greater cruising endurance than a conventionally powered ship), has a full load displacement of about 100,000 tons, can accommodate an air wing of 60 or more aircraft, including fixed-wing aircraft and some helicopters, and launches its fixed-wing aircraft over both the ship’s bow and its angled deck using catapults, which can give those aircraft a range/payload capability greater than that of aircraft launched with a ski ramp. The Liaoning, like a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, lands fixed- wing aircraft using arresting wires on its angled deck. Some observers have referred to the Liaoning as China’s “starter” carrier.65 DOD states that
Even when fully operational, the Liaoning will not enable long-range power projection similar to U.S. NIMITZ-class carriers. The LIAONING’s smaller size limits the number of aircraft it can embark, while the ski-jump configuration limits restricts fuel and ordnance load. The LIAONING is therefore best suited to fleet air defense missions, extending air cover over a fleet operating far from land-based coverage.66
ONI states that
LIAONING is quite different from the U.S. Navy’s NIMITZ-class carriers. First, since LIAONING is smaller, it will carry far fewer aircraft in comparison to a U.S.-style carrier air wing. Additionally, the LIAONING’s ski-jump configuration significantly restricts aircraft fuel and ordnance loads. Consequently, the aircraft it launches have more a
65 See, for example, 2015 ONI Report, p. 23, and “China Plans New Generation of Carriers as Sea Disputes Grow,”
Bloomberg News, April 24, 2013.
66 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 11.

limited flight radius and combat power. Finally, China does not yet possess specialized supporting aircraft such as the E-2C Hawkeye.
Unlike a U.S. carrier, LIAONING is not well equipped to conduct long-range power projection. It is better suited to fleet air defense missions, where it could extend a protective envelope over a fleet operating in blue water. Although it possesses a full suite of weapons and combat systems, LIAONING will likely offer its greatest value as a long- term training investment.67
A July 8, 2015, press report states:
China’s first aircraft carrier battle group is expected to be formed next year to make up for the shortcoming of the limited combat radius of the country’s existing fleets, according to China’s official news agency Xinhua….
Beijing is considering different approaches for forming its aircraft carrier battle groups, including the one used by the United States Navy, the report said.68
The PLA Navy is currently learning to operate aircraft from the ship. DOD states, “The [ship’s] air wing is not expected to embark the carrier until 2015 or later.”69 ONI states that “full integration of a carrier air regiment remains several years in the future, but remarkable progress has been made already,”70 and that “it will take several years before Chinese carrier-based air regiments are operational.”71 A September 2, 2015, press report states that “China’s aircraft carrier Liaoning can carry at least 20 fixed-wing carrier-based J-15 fighter jets and the ratio between the pilots and planes is about 1.5:1. So China needs to train more pilots for the future aircraft carrier, said a military expert recently.”72

Indigenous Aircraft Carriers
DOD states that “China also continues to pursue an indigenous aircraft carrier program and could build multiple aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.”73 ONI states that “Chinese officials acknowledge plans to build additional carriers but they have not publicly indicated whether the next carrier will incorporate catapults or which aircraft they plan to embark.”74 On July 25, 2014, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the U.S. Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), stated that China “will build another carrier [in addition to the Liaoning], probably relatively soon,” that Chinese officials said it will “look just like” the Liaoning, with a ski ramp, that it will be similar in size to the Liaoning, with a displacement of 65,000 tons or 70,000 tons, and that China is “moving on a pace that is extraordinary.”75
A September 3, 2015, press report states:
67 2015 ONI Report, p. 23.
68 “Liaoning Carrier’s First Battle Group To Be Formed Next Year,” Want China Times, July 8, 2015.
69 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 11.
70 2015 ONI Report, p. 13.
71 2015 ONI Report, p. 23.
72 “Over 20 J-15 Fighters Can Land on the Liaoning Aircraft Carrier,” People’s Daily Online, September 7, 2015.
73 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 11.
74 2015 ONI Report, p. 13.
75 Claudette Roulo, “Greenert: China Moving Quickly to Modernize Navy,” DoD News, Defense Media Acitivty/American Forces Press Service (, July 26, 2014; Bill Gertz, “Chinese Missile Forces Pose Threat to U.S. in Future Conflcit,” Washington Free Beacon (, July 28, 2014.

China is building two aircraft carriers that will be the same size as its sole carrier, a 60,000-tonne refurbished Soviet-era ship, according to a new Taiwanese Defence Ministry report on the capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)….
One of the new vessels is being built in Shanghai and the other in the northeastern city of Dalian, said the Taiwanese report, which was obtained by Reuters.
It gave no estimate for when construction would be finished….
A Taiwanese Defence Ministry spokesman said details on the carrier program came from the ministry’s intelligence unit. He declined to give further details on the report, which was sent to parliament this week.76
A July 30, 2015, press report states:
China’s first domestically-built aircraft carrier could be nuclear-powered, Chinese web media reported Thursday [July 30], quoting an internal document of the shipbuilder responsible for building the carrier.77
A July 18, 2015, press report states:
China’s first domestically produced aircraft carrier will be built by Dalian Shipyard, Chinese media reported, adding that there are several reasons for it to become the building base for aircraft carriers … .
Jiangnan Shipyard will likely build China’s second domestically-built aircraft carrier….
China will require six years to build an aircraft carrier of its own and the next four aircraft carriers will boost the country blue-water naval capacity.
Although China’s blue-water navy capacity is still limited, reports said the water displacement of the second domestically-built carrier will be 59,000 tons, equal to the Liaoning, which is already in service and can carry 22 fixed-wing fighters.78
A March 9, 2015, press report states:
Several senior Chinese officials have confirmed that China is building its second aircraft carrier and will likely adopt an improved launch system for aircraft on the ship, a Chinese-language daily in Hong Kong reported Monday.
The Hong Kong Commercial Daily… cited Liu Xiaojiang … , a former political commissar of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy, as saying that the government’s industrial and manufacturing agencies are now in charge of the ship’s construction.
Liu said that compared with the first carrier, the Liaoning … , which was commissioned in September 2012, several improvements are being made to the second ship but concrete details are only known within those agencies responsible for the project….
The reports also cited Ma Weiming … , an expert in electrical and electronics engineering, as saying that the new carrier’s system to launch aircraft was proceeding smoothly.

76 J.R. Wu, “China Building Two Aircraft Carriers: Taiwan Defense Ministry Report,” Reuters, September 3, 2015. See also Bradley Perrett, “China Building Third Carrier, Taiwanese Report Says,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, September 16, 2015: 4.
77 See also Christopher Harress, “Chinese Military Building Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier To Curb US Influence In Asia,” International Business Times, July 31, 2015.
78 “Dalian Shipyard to Build China’s First Domestic Aircraft Carrier,” Want China Times, July 18, 2015.

He stressed that the system was no longer inferior to and might even be more advanced than that used by the United States, whose catapult takeoff service technology is currently the best in the world.
China’s CCTV reported last week that the catapult being tested in China to help planes take off quickly is more efficient than the “ski-jump” ramp used to launch aircraft on China’s first carrier.79

Carrier-Based Aircraft
China has developed a carrier-capable fighter, called the J-15 or Flying Shark, that can operate from the Liaoning (Figure 6). DOD states that the J-15 is “modeled after the Russian Su-33 [Flanker],” and that “although the J-15 has a land-based combat radius of 1,200 km, the aircraft will be limited in range and armament when operating from the carrier, because the ski-jump design does not provide as much airspeed and, therefore, lift at takeoff as a catapult design.”80

11-9-2015 6-56-28 AM

A November 10, 2014, trade press report states that “China has put the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark carrier-borne multirole fighter into serial production, with at least eight production examples known to be flying already. This is in addition to the six J-15 prototypes, some of which conducted carrier trials on board China’s refurbished former Soviet Kuznetsov-class carrier, Liaoning.”81

79 “China Reportedly Building 2nd Aircraft Carrier,” Focus Taiwan News Channel, March 9, 2015. See also “PLA Official Confirms 2nd Aircraft Carrier Under Construction,” Want China Times, March 9, 2013; Zachary Keck, “Confirmed: China Is Building 2nd Aircraft Carrier,” The National Interest, March 9, 2015; Charles Clover, “China Media Confirm Second Aircraft Carrier,” Financial Times, March 10, 2015; Shannon Tiezzi, “Chinese Admirals Spill the Beans on New Aircraft Carrier,” The Diplomat, March 12, 2015; “Corporate Meeting Reveals New PLA navy Aircraft Carrier in the Works,” Focus Taiwan News Channel, February 1, 2015; Simon Denyer, “Fresh Reports Circulate on China’s Second Aircraft Carrier,” Reuters, February 2, 2015; “China Builds Second Aircraft Carrier, But Deletes News Reports Announcing It,” Washington Post, February 2, 2015.
80 2014 DOD CMSD, p. 68. See also 2015 ONI Report, p. 23.
81 Mike Yeo, “Chinese Carrier Fighter Now In Serial Production,” USNI News (, November 10, (continued…)

A May 13, 2015, press report states that China has begun development of a short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft that could operate from a ship.82

Potential Roles, Missions, and Strategic Significance
Although aircraft carriers might have some value for China in Taiwan-related conflict scenarios, they are not considered critical for Chinese operations in such scenarios, because Taiwan is within range of land-based Chinese aircraft. Consequently, most observers believe that China is acquiring carriers primarily for their value in other kinds of operations, and to symbolize China’s status as a leading regional power and major world power.
Chinese aircraft carriers could be used for power-projection operations, particularly in scenarios that do not involve opposing U.S. forces, and to impress or intimidate foreign observers.83 Chinese aircraft carriers could also be used for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations, maritime security operations (such as anti-piracy operations), and non- combatant evacuation operations (NEOs). Politically, aircraft carriers could be particularly valuable to China for projecting an image of China as a major world power, because aircraft carriers are viewed by many as symbols of major world power status. In a combat situation involving opposing U.S. naval and air forces, Chinese aircraft carriers would be highly vulnerable to attack by U.S. ships and aircraft, but conducting such attacks could divert U.S. ships and aircraft from performing other missions in a conflict situation with China.84
DOD states that “although it possesses a full suite of weapons and combat systems, LIAONING will likely continue to play a significant role in training China’s carrier pilots, deck crews, and developing tactics that will be used with later, more capable carriers.”85 DOD also states that
Although LIAONING is serving in what officials describe as an “experimental” capacity, they also indicate that China will build additional carriers possessing more capability than the ski-jump-configured LIAONING. Such carriers would be capable of improved endurance and of carrying and launching more varied types of aircraft, including electronic warfare, early warning, and anti-submarine, thus increasing the potential striking power of a PLA Navy “carrier battle group” in safeguarding China’s interests in areas outside its immediate periphery. The carriers would most likely perform such missions as patrolling economically important sea lanes, and conducting naval diplomacy, regional deterrence, and HA/DR.86

2014. See also “J-15 Carrier-Based Fighter Modified for Catapult Launch,” Want China Times (, November 3, 2014. See also David Axe, “Is China Sending a Stealth Fighter to Sea? J-31 Mock-Up Appears on Carrier Deck,” Real Clear Defense (, October 1, 2014.
82 “Nation Starts Research on Naval Jet,”, May 13, 2015.
83 For a discussion, see, for example, Bryan McGrath and Seth Cropsey, “The Real Reason China Wants Aircraft Carriers, China’s Carrier Plans Target U.S. Alliances, Not Its Navy,” Real Clear Defense (, April 10, 2014.
84 For further discussion, see Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins, “The ‘Flying Shark’ Prepares to Roam the Seas: pros and cons [for China] of China’s aircraft carrier program,” China SignPost, May 18, 2011, 5 pp.; Aaron Shraberg, “Near-Term Missions for China’s Maiden Aircraft Carrier,” China Brief, June 17, 2011: 4-6; and Andrew S. Erickson, Abraham M. Denmark, and Gabriel Collins, “Beijing’s ‘Starter Carrier’ and Future Steps,” Naval War College Review, Winter 2012: 15-55.
85 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 11. See also 2015 ONI Report, p. 23.
86 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 40. See also Bryan McGrath, “Why China Wants Aircraft Carriers,” National Interest, June 9, 2015. For an additional discussion of Chinese efforts to acquire aircraft carriers and develop naval aviation, see Andrew Erickson, “A Work in Progress: China’s Development of Carrier Strike,” Jane’s Navy International (continued…)

Navy Surface Combatants and Coast Guard Cutters

China since the early 1990s has purchased four Sovremenny-class destroyers from Russia and put into service 10 new classes of indigenously built destroyers and frigates (some of which are variations of one another) that demonstrate a significant modernization of PLA Navy surface combatant technology. DOD states that China’s new destroyers and frigates “provide a significant upgrade to the PLA Navy’s area air defense capability, which will be critical as it expands operations into distant seas beyond the range of shore-based air defense.”87 ONI states that
In recent years, shipboard air defense is arguably the most notable area of improvement on PLA(N) surface ships. China has retired several legacy destroyers and frigates that had at most a point air defense capability, with a range of just several miles. Newer ships entering the force are equipped with medium-to-long range area air defense missiles.88
China reportedly is also building a new class of corvettes (i.e., light frigates) and has put into service a new kind of missile-armed fast attack craft that uses a stealthy catamaran hull design. China also appears to be planning to build a new cruiser. ONI states, “The JIANGKAI-class (Type 054A) frigate series, LUYANG-class (Type 052B/C/D) destroyer series, and the upcoming new cruiser (Type 055) class are considered to be modern and capable designs that are comparable in many respects to the most modern Western warships.”89
China is also building substantial numbers of new cutters for the China Coast Guard (CCG), a paramilitary service that China often uses for asserting and defending its maritime territorial claims in the East and South China Seas. In terms of numbers of ships being built and put into service, production of corvettes for China’s navy and cutters for the CCG are currently two of China’s most active areas of non-commercial shipbuilding.
Russia reportedly has assisted China’s development of new surface warfare capabilities.90

Press Reports of Potential New Type 055 Cruiser (or Destroyer)
Photographs showing a land-based mockup of what appears to be the topside (i.e., the main deck and superstructure) of a large surface combatant have led some observers to conclude that China is planning to build a new cruiser (or destroyer), called the Type 055, that might displace roughly 10,000 tons.91 China is the only country known to be planning to build a ship referred to (by some

(, June 19, 2014.
87 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9.
88 2015 ONI Report, p. 15.
89 2015 ONI Report, p. 13.
90 Paul Schwartz, Russia’s Contribution to China’s Surface Warfare Capabilities, Feeding the Dragon, Washington, Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2015, 42 pp. For a press report based on this document, see Franz-Stefan Gady, “How Russia Is Helping China Develop Its Naval Power,” The Diplomat, September 4, 2015.
91 David Axe, “Looks Like China’s Building a Giant New Warship, Possible Missile Cruiser Could Outweigh Rival Surface Combatants,” War Is Boring (, undated; David Axe, “New Chinese Cruiser—Not as Big as We Thought, But Still Pretty Big,” War Is Boring (, undated; Bill Gertz, “China Reveals New Carrier Jet Prior to Hagel Visit,” The Washington Free Beacon, April 9, 2014; Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer, “Learning More About China’s New Massive Warship Plan (055 Cruiser), Popular Science (, May 1, 2014; Bill Gertz, “Inside the Ring: China’s Missile Cruiser A Major Step To Naval Warfare Buildup,” Washington Times (, May 7, 2014.

sources at least) as a cruiser.92 (The U.S. Navy’s current 30-year shipbuilding plan includes destroyers but no cruisers.) DOD states that China will “likely begin construction of a larger Type 055 ‘destroyer’ in 2015, a vessel better characterized as a guided-missile cruiser (CG) than a DDG.”93 ONI states that “a new cruiser to be built in China in the latter half of the decade will carry a variety of antisurface weapons, some of which will be newly developed.”94
An April 6, 2015, press report states:
China could be developing two types of the Type 055 guided-missile destroyer—an anti- submarine and an air-defense model—according to the Kanwa Defense Review, a Chinese-language military magazine based in Canada.
The April edition of the magazine made the suggestion after analyzing the latest leaked satellite images of a ground model of the Type 055, which experts believe may have been designed as the successor to the PLA Navy‘s highly successful Type 52D destroyer.95
A December 30, 2014, press report states:
A picture has just emerged on the Chinese internet showing that construction of the first Type 055 destroyer may have started. The Type 055 guided missile destroyer is the next generation destroyer designed for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN or Chinese Navy).
According to Chinese sources, the picture was taken last week at the Changxing Jiangnan shipyard (member of CSSC – China State Shipbuilding Corporation) near Shanghai. It shows a sign with the mention “Commencement Ceremony for the Construction of 055 destroyer number 1”. Such ceremonies are common practice in Chinese naval shipyards and should the picture be authentic, this would indicate that construction of the first Type 055 destroyer has indeed just started with the first cut of steel ceremony.
According to Chinese media, the Chinese government awarded the contract for construction of the first ship of the class to Changxing Jiangnan shipyard in August. According to the same sources, the second Type 055 destroyer will be built at the Dalian naval shipyard (Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company member of CSIC – China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation).
Construction of a Type 055 Shore Integration Facility (SIF) started in early 2014 at the Ship Design and Research Center (701 Institute) of CSIC at the Wuhan University of Science and Technology. A model of the PLAN’s Aircraft Carrier was built at the same location in 2009. Based on pictures of the Type 055 SIF taken in September 2014, construction was almost over. This could indicate that land based testing has already started and it would then make sense timing wise to start construction of the first unit (it will likely take over one year to launch the first hull in the water)….
[The set of weapons that observers believe the ship will be equipped with] is close to the one found on board Type 052D destroyers (Kunming/Luyang III class) but with an overall better integration and what appears to be a sleeker design….
92 The U.S. Navy’s most recent cruiser was procured in FY1988 and entered service in 1994, and the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan includes no ships identified as cruisers. The three Zumwalt (DDG-1000) class destroyers currently being built for the U.S. Navy, however, will each displace more than 15,000 tons. The U.S. Navy’s other cruisers and destroyers have displacements of 9,000 to 9,500 tons.
93 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9.
94 2015 ONI Report, p. 16. See also “PLA’s Type 055 destroyer to be bigger than US Arleigh Burke-class,” Want China Times, July 1, 2015; Manny Salvacion, “China Building Type 055 Destroyer More Powerful Than U.S. Arleigh Burke-Class,” Yibada, July 3, 2015.
95 “PLA Could Be Developing Two Versions of Type 055 Destroyer,” Want China Times, April 6, 2015.

Using recent Google Earth satellite imagery, the Type 055 SIF in Wuhan measures close to 130 meters in length, with most of its bow and its helicopter deck missing. The rest is pure estimation but Type 055 may end up measuring about 190 meters in length with a close to 12,000 tons displacement.96

Sovremenny-Class Destroyers
China in 1996 ordered two Sovremenny-class destroyers from Russia; the ships entered service in 1999 and 2001. China in 2002 ordered two additional Sovremenny-class destroyers from Russia; the ships entered service in 2005 and 2006. Sovremenny-class destroyers are equipped with the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn ASCM, a highly capable ASCM.

Six New Indigenously Built Destroyer Classes
China since the early 1990s has put into service six new classes of indigenously built destroyers, including three variations of one class. The classes are called the Luhu (Type 052A), Luhai (Type 051B), Louzhou (Type 051C), Luyang I (Type 052B), Luyang II (Type 052C), and Luyang III (Type 052D) designs. Compared to China’s remaining older Luda (Type 051) class destroyers, which entered service between 1971 and 1991, these six new indigenously built destroyer classes are substantially more modern in terms of their hull designs, propulsion systems, sensors, weapons, and electronics.
The Luyang II-class ships (Figure 7) and the Luyang III-class ships appear to feature phased- array radars that are outwardly somewhat similar to the SPY-1 radar used in the U.S.-made Aegis combat system. Like the older Luda-class destroyers, these six new destroyer classes are armed with ASCMs.
As shown in Table 2, China between 1994 and 2007 commissioned only one or two ships in its first four new indigenously built destroyers classes, suggesting that these classes were intended as stepping stones in a plan to modernize the PLA Navy’s destroyer technology incrementally before committing to larger-scale series production of Luyang II- and Luyang III-class destroyers. As shown in Table 2, after commissioning no new destroyers in 2008-2012—a hiatus that may have been caused in part by the relocation of a shipyard97—commissionings of new Luyang II- and Luyang III-class destroyers have resumed. DOD states that “during 2014, the final two LUYANG II-class DDG (Type 052C) entered service, bringing the total number of ships of this class to six. Additionally, the first LUYANG III-class DDG (Type 052D) entered service in 2014.”98 A July 21, 2015, press report states:
People‘s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) watchers report that the second of the Type 052D ‘Luyang III’ class destroyers, Yangsha (pennant number 173), was commissioned in mid-July and joined China’s South Sea Fleet….
Earlier in July, the seventh Type 052D emerged from the building shed at the Jiangnan Changxingdao shipyard in Shanghai and after launch joined the sixth of class currently

96 “Focus – PLAN Type 055 Destroyer,”, December 30, 2014. See also “PLA Begins Construction of Type 055 Destroyers: Photo,” Want China Times, December 31, 2014; Sam LaGrone, “Chinese Carrier-On-Land Facility Adds Destroyer,” USNI News, January 26, 2015.
97 Regarding the 2008-2012 gap in commissionings, one observer states, “The relocation of JiangNan shipyard and indigenization of [the] DA80/DN80 gas turbine (QC-280) delayed the production of follow-on units [of Luyang II-class destroyers] for several years.” (Blog entry entitled “2012 in Review,” December 28, 2012, accessed March 21, 2013 at
98 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9. See also 2015 ONI Report, p. 15.

fitting out. Photographs showing visible progress on the eighth and ninth hulls have also appeared.99

11-9-2015 6-57-07 AM

A July 27, 2015, press report states that “all in all, the PLAN plans to build a fleet of 12 Type 052D [Luyang III-class] destroyers—nicknamed “Chinese Aegis” [ships]—before shifting production to the newer Type 055D multi-role cruiser.100

99 Andrew Tate, “China Commissions Second Type 052D DDG, Pushes Ahead With Frigate, Corvette Launches,” IHS Jane’s 360, July 21, 2015. See also Sam LaGrone, “China Commissions Second Advanced Destroyer,” USNI News, July 23, 2015, and “Seven Type 052D Destroyers Being Built in Shanghai Port,” Want China Times, May 2, 2015.
100 Franz-Stefan Gady, “China Commissions Second ‘Carrier Killer Destroyer,’” The Diplomat, July 27, 2015.
11-9-2015 6-58-52 AMFour New Indigenously Built Frigate Classes
China since the early 1990s has put into service four new classes of indigenously built frigates, two of which are variations of two others. The classes are called the Jiangwei I (Type 053 H2G), Jiangwei II (Type 053H3), Jiangkai I (Type 054), and Jiangkai II (Type 054A) designs. Figure 8 shows a Jiangkai II-class ship.

11-9-2015 6-59-23 AM

Compared with China’s remaining older Jianghu (Type 053) class frigates, which entered service between the mid-1970s and 1989, the four new frigate classes feature improved hull designs and systems, including improved AAW capabilities. DOD states that “China has continued to produce the JIANGKAI II FFG (Type 054A), with 17 ships currently in the fleet and 5 in various stages of construction.”101 A July 27, 2015 press report states that
Type 054A ‘Jiangkai II’ class frigates Yangzhou (578) and Handan (579) appear to have been handed over to the PLAN and are believed to have been commissioned, or they will be shortly. They are the 19th and 20th ships of the class. Two more are in build at the Hudong shipyard in Shanghai and a further two at the Huangpu yard in Guangzhou.102
Table 3 shows commissionings of new frigates since 1991.

101 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 9.
102 Andrew Tate, “China Commissions Second Type 052D DDG, Pushes Ahead With Frigate, Corvette Launches,” IHS Jane’s 360, July 21, 2015. See also Morgan Clemens, Gabe Collins, and Kristen Gunness, “The Type 054/054A Frigate Series: China’s Most Produced and Deployed Large Modern Surface Combatant,” China Signpost, August 2, 2015.

11-9-2015 6-59-53 AM

Type 056 Corvette
China is building a new type of corvette (i.e., a light frigate, or FFL) called the Jiangdao class or Type 056/056A (Figure 9). These ships are being built at a high annual rate; IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 states that the first 8 ships were commissioned into service in 2013, followed by 10 more in 2014 and 5 more projected for 2015. DOD states that
More than 20 JIANGDAO-class corvettes (FFL) (Type 056) are in service and an additional 11 were launched in 2014. China may build more than 60 of this class, ultimately replacing older PLA Navy patrol vessels, including the 60 HOUBEI-class wave-piercing catamaran missile patrol boats (PTG) (Type 022) [see next section] built for operations in China’s “near seas.”103

11-9-2015 7-00-26 AM

ONI states that
In 2012, China began producing the new JIANGDAO-class (Type 056) corvette (FFL), which offers precisely the flexibility that the HOUBEI lacks. The JIANGDAO is equipped to patrol China’s claimed EEZ and assert Beijing’s interests in the South China and East China Seas. The 1500-ton JIANGDAO is equipped with 76mm, 30mm, and 12.7mm guns, four YJ-83 family ASCMs, torpedo tubes, and a helicopter landing area. The JIANGDAO is ideally-suited for general medium-endurance patrols, counterpiracy missions, and other littoral duties in regional waters, but is not sufficiently armed or equipped for major combat operations in blue-water areas. At least 20 JIANGDAOs are already operational and 30 to 60 total units may be built, replacing both older small patrol craft as well as some of the PLA(N)’s aging JIANGHU I-class (Type 053H) frigates (FF).104
A March 21, 2015, press report states that
As China launched its 25th Type 056 corvette on Ma. 19, the Sina Military Network based in Beijing said the PLA Navy will be able to control the disputed South China Sea with between 10 and 20 such vessels. China is estimated to be building at least 40 Type 056 corvettes….”105
A July 27, 2015, press report states that
On 17 July the latest Type 056 ‘Jiangdao’ class corvette was launched at the Huangpu shipyard. This is the 27th of the class and the eighth to be equipped with variable depth and towed array sonars. Reports suggest that two days later, the 22nd of class, Suqian
104 2015 ONI Report, p. 17.
105 “056 Corvette Suitable for PLA Navy Defense in South China Sea,” Want China Times, March 21, 2015.

(504), also an ASW variant, was commissioned. Earlier in the month the sixth Type 056 to be built at the Lushun Liaonan shipyard was launched.106

Houbei (Type 022) Fast Attack Craft
As a replacement for at least some of its older fast attack craft, or FACs (including some armed with ASCMs), China in 2004 introduced a new type of ASCM-armed fast attack craft, called the Houbei (Type 022) class (Figure 10), that uses a stealthy, wave-piercing, catamaran hull.107 Each boat can carry eight C-802 ASCMs.

11-9-2015 7-01-38 AM

China is rapidly modernizing its inventory of CCG ships, and some of China’s newest CCG ships are relatively large.109 DOD states that
In the next decade, a new force of civilian law enforcement ships will afford China the capability to patrol more robustly its claims in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. China is continuing with the second half of a modernization and construction program for the CCG. The first half of this program, from 2004-2008, resulted in the addition of almost 20 ocean-going patrol ships. The second half of this program, from 2011-2015, includes at least 30 new ships for the CCG. Several less capable patrol ships will be decommissioned during this period. In addition, the CCG will likely build more than 100 new patrol craft and smaller units, both to increase capability and to replace old units. Overall, The CCG’s total force level is expected to increase by 25 percent. Some of

109 See, for example, Ryan Martinson, “Power to the Provinces: The Devolution of China’s Maritime Rights Protection,” China Brief (, September 10, 2014.

these ships will have the capability to embark helicopters, a capability that only a few CCG ships currently have. The enlargement and modernization of China’s CCG forces will improve China’s ability to enforce its maritime and sovereignty claims.110
ONI states that
During the last decade, China’s MLE force has undergone a major modernization, which increased both the sizes of its ships and their overall capability. These civilian maritime forces have added approximately 100 new large patrol ships (WPS), patrol combatants/craft (WPG/WPC), and auxiliary/support ships, not including small harbor and riverine patrol boats.
The current phase of the construction program, which began in 2012, will add over 30 large patrol ships and over 20 patrol combatants to the force by 2015. This will increase by 25 percent the overall CCG force level in a fleet that is also improving rapidly in quality. Most MLE ships are either unarmed or armed only with light deck weapons (12.7mm, 14.5mm, and 30mm guns) and generally use commercial radars and communications equipment. Several of the largest ships are equipped with helicopter landing and hangar facilities as well.111

Amphibious Ships and Potential Floating Sea Bases
DOD states that “China’s amphibious ship force has remained relatively constant in recent years following what was a robust modernization program in the early 2000s.”112

Yuzhao (Type 071) Amphibious Ship
China has put into service a new class of amphibious ships called the Yuzhao or Type 071 class (Figure 12). IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 states that the first three ships in the class were commissioned into service in 2007, 2011, and 2012, and that two more projected to be commissioned in 2016 and 2017.113 The Type 071 design has an estimated displacement of more than 18,500 tons,114 compared with about 15,900 tons to 16,700 tons for the U.S. Navy’s Whidbey Island/Harpers Ferry (LSD-41/49) class amphibious ships, which were commissioned into service between 1985 and 1998, and about 25,900 tons for the U.S. Navy’s new San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships, the first of which was commissioned into service in 2006.
DOD states that
China has built four large YUZHAO (Type 071) class amphibious transport docks (LPD), which provide a considerably greater and more flexible capability than the older landing ships, signaling China’s development of an expeditionary warfare and OTH amphibious assault capability, as well as inherent humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) and counterpiracy capabilities. The YUZHAO can carry up to four of the new air cushion

110 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 44.
111 2015 ONI Report, p. 46. See also Jane Perlez, “China Is Rapidly Adding Coast Guard Ships, U.S. Navy Says,” New York Times, April 10, 2015; Ryan D. Martinson, “China’s Second Navy,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2015: 24-29; Ryan D. Martinson, “East Asian Security inthe Age of the Chinese Mega-Cutter,” Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), July 3, 2015.
112 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 10. A similar statement appears in 2015 ONI Report, p. 18.
113 IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016, p. 153.
114 Unless otherwise indicated, displacement figures cited in this report are full load displacements. IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016, p. 153, does not provide a full load displacement for the Type 071 class design. Instead, it provides a standard displacement of 18,500 tons. Full load displacement is larger than standard displacement, so the full load displacement of the Type 071 design is more than 18,500 tons.

landing craft YUYI LCUA (similar to LCAC), as well as four or more helicopters, armored vehicles, and troops on long-distance deployments. Additional YUZHAO construction is expected in the near-term 115

11-9-2015 7-02-13 AM

Reported Potential Type 081 Amphibious Ship
DOD states that construction of an “amphibious assault ship that is not only larger [than the Type 071 design], but incorporates a full flight deck for helicopters,” is “expected in the near term.”116 IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016 states that “There are reports that construction of a Type 081 LHD [amphibious assault ship] is under consideration. The ship is believed to be of the order of 20,000 tonnes and may be based on the Type 071 hull.”117 A July 30, 2015, press report states that a design for the ship displaces 40,000 tons;118 an August 3, 2015, press report states puts the figure at 36,000 tons.119 By comparison, U.S. Navy LHD/LHA-type amphibious assault ships displace 41,000 to 45,000 tons. Figure 13 shows an unconfirmed conceptual rendering of a possible design for the Type 081 LHD.

115 2015 ONI Report, p. 18. A similar statement appears in 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 10.
116 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 10. A similar statement appears in 2015 ONI Report, p. 18.
117 IHS Jane’s Fighting Ships 2015-2016, p. 153.
118 “China To Build 40,000-Ton Amphibious Assault Ship: Kanwa,” Want China Times, July 30, 2015.
119 Jamie Seidel, “Pictures Circulate of New Chinese Helicopter Assault Ship,”, August 3, 2015.

11-9-2015 7-02-42 AM

A January 25, 2015, press report states:
Hong Kong’s Ming Pao… newspaper reported on Friday [January 23] that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is building large amphibious assault ships to bolster gaps in its naval strategic doctrine….
According to the report, in 2004 the push towards the adoption of amphibious assault ships garnered consensus across China’s military….
The PLA quickly became aware of the many inadequacies of its Type 071 Kunlun Shan- class… amphibious transport dock during conflicts in Africa. Despite its ability to carry two Russian-designed Zubr-class air cushion landing crafts (LCAC), currently the largest military hovercraft of its kind, the Type 071 vessel is plagued by a lack of firepower and inability to fill command and air support roles in combat.
The same inadequacies in military humanitarian missions were repeated during the subsequent armed conflicts in Libya, which hastened the adoption of amphibious crafts by the PLA, the report said.
In addition, the report said that the PLA might be motivated to match the capabilities of the U.S. Navy’s America amphibious class landing crafts.

In response, China’s dockyards are scrambling to build its own home-grown amphibious assault craft, with a displacement of 50,000 long tons, said the report, and the Shanghai Jiangnan-Changxing Shipbuilding Company Limited… has been commissioned to build at least four amphibious assault ships.120

Potential Roles for Type 071 and Type 081 Ships
Although larger amphibious ships such as the Type 071 and the potential Type 081 would be of value for conducting amphibious landings in Taiwan-related conflict scenarios, some observers believe that China is building such ships more for their value in conducting other operations, such as operations for asserting and defending China’s territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) operations, maritime security operations (such as anti-piracy operations), and non-combatant evacuation operations (NEOs). Politically, larger amphibious ships can also be used for naval diplomacy (i.e., port calls and engagement activities) and for impressing or intimidating foreign observers. DOD states that
The PLA is capable of accomplishing various amphibious operations short of a full-scale invasion of Taiwan. With few overt military preparations beyond routine training, China could launch an invasion of small Taiwan-held islands in the South China Sea such as Pratas or Itu Aba. A PLA invasion of a medium-sized, better defended offshore island such as Matsu or Jinmen is within China’s capabilities. Such an invasion would demonstrate military capability and political resolve while achieving tangible territorial gain and simultaneously showing some measure of restraint. However, this kind of operation includes significant, if not prohibitive, political risk because it could galvanize pro-independence sentiment on Taiwan and generate international opposition.
Large-scale amphibious invasion is one of the most complicated and difficult military operations. Success depends upon air and sea superiority, rapid buildup and sustainment of supplies on shore, and uninterrupted support. An attempt to invade Taiwan would strain China’s armed forces and invite international intervention. These stresses, combined with China’s combat force attrition and the complexity of urban warfare and counterinsurgency (assuming a successful landing and breakout), make amphibious invasion of Taiwan a significant political and military risk. Taiwan’s investments to harden infrastructure and strengthen defensive capabilities could also decrease China’s ability to achieve its objectives. Moreover, China does not appear to be building the conventional amphibious lift required to support such a campaign.121

Zubr-Class Air Cushioned Landing Craft
In June 2013, it was reported that China in May 2013 had taken delivery of four large, Ukrainian- made Zubr-class air-cushioned landing craft (LCACs). The craft reportedly have a range of 300 nautical miles, a maximum speed of 63 knots, and a payload capacity of 150 tons. China in July 2014 used at least one of the craft in an amphibious assault exercise in the South China Sea.122
120 “PLA To Build Amphibious Assault Ships: Report,” Focus Taiwan News Channel, January 25, 2015.
121 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 59.
122 Franz-Stefan Gady, “Beijing Practices Invasion of South China Sea islands,” The Diplomat, July 24, 2014. See also Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer, “China Practices Pacific D-Days With Tanks And Hovercraft,” Popular Science, July 27, 2015.

Ship Similar to U.S. Navy’s Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ship
In July 2015, it was reported that China’s navy had commissioned into service a ship similar to the U.S. military’s Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ship. China’s ship, like the U.S. MLP, is a semi-submersible ship that can support ship-to-shore movement of equipment by serving as a “pier at sea” for ships that lack a well deck for accommodating landing craft. China’s MLP-like ship, with an estimated displacement of about 20,000 tons, is smaller than the U.S. MLP.123

Potential Use of Civilian Ships
Some observers have commented over the years on the possibility that China could use civilian ships to assist in an amphibious operation. In June 2015, it was reported that China had approved a plan to ensure that civilian ships can support maritime military operations in the event of a crisis.124

Potential Floating Sea Bases
China reportedly is building or preparing to build one or more large floating sea bases. The bases (see Figure 14, Figure 15, and Figure 16) are referred to in press reports as very large floating structures (VLFSs). They are broadly similar in appearance to a concept known as the Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) (Figure 17) that U.S. defense planners considered at one point years ago. VLFSs could be used for supporting operations by aircraft and surface ships and craft.

11-9-2015 7-03-48 AM

123 Mike Yeo, “China Commissions First MLP-Like Logistics Ship, Headed For South Sea Fleet,” USNI News, July 14, 2015; “China Gains Semi-Submersible Ship for South China Sea Fleet,” Reuters, July 10, 2015; Megha Rajagopalan, “This Submersible Cargo Ship Strengthens Beijing’s Hand in the South China Sea,” Business Insider, July 10, 2015.
124 Franz-Stefan Gady, “China Prepares Its 172,000 Civilian Ships for War,” The Diplomat, June 23, 2015.

11-9-2015 7-04-25 AM

11-9-2015 7-05-17 AM

be based as a deep sea support project in the South China Sea, the PLA could have dual use interests in JDG’s technology.”

11-9-2015 7-05-58 AM

An August 10, 2015, press report states:
China’s military wants the ability to create large modular artificial islands that can be repositioned around the world as necessary. And it’s not as outlandish a goal as it might seem.
According to Navy Recognition, China’s Jidong Development Group unveiled its first design for a Chinese-built Very Large Floating Structure (VLSFs) at its National Defense Science and Technology Achievement exhibition in Beijing at the end of July. The structures are comprised of numerous smaller floating modules that can be assembled together at sea in order to create a larger floating platform.
VLSFs have a number of uses. The artificial islands can be used as fake islands for touristic purposes, or can also be constructed to function as piers, military bases, or even floating airports, Navy Recognition notes.125
An August 19, 2015, press report states:

125 Jeremy Bender, “China Wants To Build Giant Floating Islands in the South China Sea,” Business Insider, August 10, 2015. The Navy Recognition article referred to is: “China Unveiled its First VLFS Project Similar to the US Military Mobile Offshore Base Concept,” Navy Recognition, August 9, 2015. See also Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer, “Chinese Shipyard Looks to Build Giant Floating Islands,” Popular Science, April 20, 2015.

Two Chinese companies are to build 3.2-kilometer [2-mile] long platforms that could host airstrips, docks, helipads, barracks, or even “comprehensive security bases”, the Financial Times quoted Feng Jun, chairman of Hainan Offshore Industry as saying on August 18.
[The] Financial Times says Jidong Development Group have confirmed its contribution to most of the 3.7 billion yuan in research funding of the project. Hainan Offshore Industry will also play a part in the project.
Although the “Floating Fortresses” so far “are only in the design and research phase”, western media are already paying close attention on the project, which also drew criticism from military observers.
“Planting one of these in the middle of the South China Sea would be a terribly provocative act,” said Richard Bitzinger, a U.S. authority on maritime security.
However, experts incline to the view that these platforms are more likely to serve large oil drilling rigs. The two companies also emphasize on the peaceful application of the giant platforms, mentioning duty-free shopping malls and exotic tourist destinations.
The first VLFS (very large floating structure) of the project is currently under construction at dry dock in Caofeidian near Beijing.126

Land-Based Aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

Land-Based Aircraft
ONI states that
During the past two decades, the PLANAF has made great strides in moving beyond its humble origins. Antiquated fixed-wing aircraft such as the Nanchang Q-5 Fantan and the Harbin H-5 Beagle have given way to an array of relatively high-quality aircraft. This force is equipped for a wide range of missions including offshore air defense, maritime strike, maritime patrol, antisubmarine warfare, and, in the not too distant future, carrier- based operations. Just a decade ago, this air modernization relied very heavily on Russian imports. Following in the footsteps of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), the PLA(N) has recently begun benefitting from domestic combat aircraft production.
Historically, the PLA(N) relied on older Chengdu J-7 variants and Shenyang J-8B/D Finback fighters for offshore air defense. These aircraft offered limited range, avionics, and armament. The J-8 is perhaps best known in the West as the aircraft that collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft in 2001. The PLA(N)’s first major air capability upgrade came with the Su-30MK2 FLANKER. While the PLAAF had received numerous FLANKER variants from Russia between 1992 and 2002, the PLA(N) did not acquire its initial aircraft until very late in that process.
In 2002, China purchased 24 Su-30MK2, making it the first 4th-generation fighter aircraft fielded with the PLA(N). These aircraft feature both an extended range and maritime radar systems. This allows the Su-30MK2 to strike enemy ships at long distances, while maintaining a robust air-to-air capability. Several years later, the PLA(N) began replacing its older J-8B/D with the newer J-8F variant. The J-8F featured improved armament such as the PL-12 radar-guided air-to-air missile, upgraded avionics, and an improved engine with higher thrust. Today, the PLA(N) is taking deliveries of modern domestically produced 4th- generation fighter aircraft such as the J-10A Firebird and the J-11B

126 Luxioa Zou, “Two Chinese Companies to Build ‘Floating Fortresses,’” People’s Daily Online, August 19, 2015. See also Liang Jun, “China Displays Its First Large Floating Structure,” People’s Daily Online, July 30, 2015.

FLANKER. Equipped with modern radars, glass cockpits, and armed with PL-8 and PL- 12 air-to-air missiles, PLA(N) J-10A and J-11B are among the most modern aircraft in China’s inventory.
For maritime strike, the PLA(N) has relied on the H-6 BADGER bomber for decades. The H-6 is a licensed copy of the ex-Soviet Tu-16 BADGER medium jet bomber, maritime versions of which can employ advanced ASCMs against surface targets. Despite the age of the design, the Chinese H-6 continues to receive electronics and payload upgrades, which keep the aircraft viable. We think as many as 30 of these aircraft remain in service….
With at least five regiments fielded across the three fleets, the JH-7 FLOUNDER augments the H-6 for maritime strike. The JH-7 is a domestically produced tandem-seat fighter/bomber, developed as a replacement for obsolete Q-5 Fantan light attack aircraft and H-5 Beagle bombers….
In addition to combat aircraft, the PLA(N) is expanding its inventory of fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), airborne early warning (AEW), and surveillance aircraft. China has achieved significant new capabilities by modifying several existing airframes. The Y-8, a Chinese license-produced version of the ex-Soviet An-12 Cub, forms the basic airframe for several PLA(N) special mission variants. All of these aircraft play a key role in providing a clear picture of surface and air contacts in the maritime environment. As the PLA(N) pushes farther from the coast, long-range aircraft capable of extended on-station times to act as the eyes and ears of the fleet become increasingly important.
Internet photos from 2012 indicated the development of a Y-9 naval variant that is equipped with a MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) boom, typical of ASW aircraft. This Y-9 ASW variant features a large surface search radar mounted under the nose as well as multiple blade antennae on the fuselage for probable electronic surveillance.127

Chia reportedly is developing and fielding a range of UAV designs. DOD states that
the acquisition and development of longer-range UAVs will increase China’s ability to conduct long-range reconnaissance and strike operations. China is advancing its development and employment of UAVs. Some estimates indicate China plans to produce upwards of 41,800 land- and sea-based unmanned systems, worth about $10.5 billion, between 2014 and 2023. During 2013, China began incorporating its UAVs into military exercises and conducted ISR over the East China Sea with the BZK-005 UAV. In 2013, China unveiled details of four UAVs under development—the Xianglong, Yilong, Sky Saber, and Lijian—the last three of which are designed to carry precision-strike capable weapons. The Lijian, which first flew on November 21, 2013, is China’s first stealthy flying wing UAV.128
ONI states that
The PLA(N) will probably emerge as one of China’s most prolific UAV users, employing UAVs to supplement manned ISR aircraft as well as to aid targeting for land-, ship-, and other air-launched weapons systems…. In addition to land-based systems, the PLA(N) is also pursuing ship-based UAVs as a supplement to manned helicopters.129

127 2015 ONI Report, pp. 21-22.
128 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 37.
129 2015 ONI Report, pp. 22-23.

Nuclear and Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons
A July 22, 2011, press report states that “China’s military is developing electromagnetic pulse weapons that Beijing plans to use against U.S. aircraft carriers in any future conflict over Taiwan, according to an intelligence report made public on Thursday [July 21]…. The report, produced in 2005 and once labeled ‘secret,’ stated that Chinese military writings have discussed building low- yield EMP warheads, but ‘it is not known whether [the Chinese] have actually done so.’”130

Maritime Surveillance and Targeting Systems
China reportedly is developing and deploying maritime surveillance and targeting systems that can detect U.S. ships and submarines and provide targeting information for Chinese ASBMs, ASCMs, and other Chinese military units. These systems reportedly include land-based over-the- horizon backscatter (OTH-B) radars, land-based over-the-horizon surface wave (OTH-SW) radars, electro-optical satellites, radar satellites, and seabed sonar networks.131 DOD states that
The PLA Navy recognizes that long-range ASCMs require a robust, over-the-horizon targeting capability to realize their full potential, and China has, therefore, invested heavily in reconnaissance, surveillance, command, control, and communications systems at the strategic, campaign, and tactical levels to provide high-fidelity targeting information to surface and subsurface launch platforms….
The PLA Navy also is improving its over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting capability with sky wave and surface wave OTH radars, which can be used in conjunction with reconnaissance satellites to locate targets at great distances from China (thereby supporting long-range precision strikes, including employment of anti-ship ballistic missiles).132
ONI states that
China is developing a wide array of sensors to sort through this complex environment and contribute to its maritime picture. The most direct method is reporting from the ships and aircraft that China operates at sea. These provide the most detailed and reliable information, but can only cover a fraction of the needed space. A number of ground- based coastal radars provide overlapping coverage of the area immediately off the coast, but their range is similarly limited.
To gain a broader view of the activity in its near and far seas, China has turned to more sophisticated sensors. The skywave OTH radar provides awareness of a much larger area than conventional radars by bouncing signals off the ionosphere. At the same time, China operates a growing array of reconnaissance satellites, which allow it to observe maritime activity anywhere on the earth. Two civilian systems also contribute to China’s maritime

130 Bill Gertz, “Beijing Develops Pulse Weapons,” Washington Times, July 22, 2011: 1. Except for “[July 21],” materials in brackets as in original.
131 See 2011 DOD CMSD, pp. 3 and 38; Ben Blanchard, “China Ramps Up Military Use of Space With New Satellites
– Report,” Reuters, July 11, 2011; Andrew Erickson, “Satellites Support Growing PLA Maritime Monitoring and Targeting Capabilities,” China Brief, February 10, 2011: 13-18; Torbjorg Hemmingsen, “Enter the Dragon: Inside China’s New Model Navy,” Jane’s Navy International, May 2011: 14-16, 18, 20, 22, particularly the section on target tracking on pages 15-16; Simon Rabinovitch, “China’s Satellites Cast Shadow Over US Pacific Operations,” Financial Times, July 12, 2011; Andrew S. Erickson, “Eyes in the Sky,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2010: 36-41.
132 2015 DOD CMSD, pp. 10 and 46. See also Shane Bilsborough, “China’s Emerging C4ISR Revolution,” The Diplomat (, August 13, 2013; Andrew Tate, “China Launches Latest of Military, ‘Experimental’ Satellites,” Jane’s Defence Weekly (, September 28, 2014; William Lowther, “Chinese Spy Satellites ‘Might Threaten Navy,’” Taipei Times (, October 2, 2014.

awareness. The first is a coastal monitoring network for the Automatic Identification System (AIS)—an automated system required on most commercial vessels by the International Maritime Organization. China’s Beidou system, installed on several thousand of its fishing boats, provides GPS-like navigation to the boats as well as automatic position reporting back to a ground station in China, allowing the location of the fishing fleet to be constantly monitored by fishing enforcement authorities.

Naval Cyber Warfare Capabilities
ONI states that
Strategic Chinese military writings do not specifically deal with how China would employ cyber operations in a maritime environment, although they do make clear the importance of cyber operations. The PLA highlights network warfare as one of the “basic modes of sea battle” alongside air, surface, and underwater long-range precision strikes.” As the PLA’s larger military investment in emerging domains such as cyber matures, the application of cyber operations in the maritime realm will consequently bolster the PLA(N)’s capability.133

Chinese Naval Operations Away from Home Waters
Chinese navy ships in recent years have begun to conduct operations away from China’s home waters. Although many of these operations have been for making diplomatic port calls, some of them have been for other purposes, including in particular anti-piracy operations in waters off Somalia. DOD states that
The PLA Navy remains at the forefront of the military’s efforts to extend its operational reach beyond East Asia and into what China calls the “far seas.” Missions in these areas include protecting important sea lanes from terrorism, maritime piracy, and foreign interdiction; providing HA/DR; conducting naval diplomacy and regional deterrence; and training to prevent a third party, such as the United States, from interfering with operations off China’s coast in a Taiwan contingency or conflict in the East or South China Sea. The PLA Navy’s ability to perform these missions is modest but growing as it gains more experience operating in distant waters and acquires larger and more advanced platforms. The PLA Navy’s goal over the coming decades is to become a stronger regional force that is able to project power across the greater Asia-Pacific region for high- intensity operations over a period of several months. However, logistics and intelligence support remain key obstacles, particularly in the Indian Ocean.
In the last several years, the PLA Navy’s “far seas” experience has been derived primarily from its ongoing counter-piracy mission in the GOA and long-distance task group deployments beyond the first island chain in the Western Pacific. China continues to sustain a three-ship presence in the GOA to protect Chinese merchant shipping from maritime piracy. This operation is China’s first enduring naval operation beyond the Asia region.134
The 2015 ONI report states that
Although the PLA(N)’s primary focus remains in the East Asia region, where China faces multiple disputes over the sovereignty of various maritime features and associated maritime rights, in recent years, the PLA(N) has increased its focus on developing blue-

133 2014 ONI Report, p. 24.
134 2015 DOD CMSD, pp. 40-41.

water naval capabilities. Over the long term, Beijing aspires to sustain naval missions far from China’s shores.
When we wrote the 2009 publication [i.e., the 2009 ONI report], China had just embarked on its first counterpiracy missions in the Gulf of Aden, but most PLA(N) operations remained close to home. Nearly six years later, these missions have continued without pause, and China’s greater fleet has begun to stretch its legs. The PLA(N) has begun regular combat training in the Philippine Sea, participated in multinational exercises including Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2014, operated in the Mediterranean, increased intelligence collection deployments in the western Pacific, and for the first time deployed a submarine to the Indian Ocean….
With a greater percentage of the force consisting of these modern combatants capable of blue water operations, the PLA(N) will have an increasing capability to undertake missions far from China.135
Some observers believe that China may want to eventually build a series of naval and other military bases in the Indian Ocean—a so-called “string of pearls”—so as to support Chinese naval operations along the sea line of communication linking China to Persian Gulf oil sources.136 Other observers argue that although China has built or is building commercial port facilities in the Indian Ocean, China to date has not established any naval bases in the Indian Ocean and instead appears to be pursuing what U.S. officials refer to as a “places not bases” strategy (meaning a collection of places for Chinese navy ships to occasionally visit for purposes of refueling and restocking supplies, but not bases).137 A July 2015, report states that China may build something functionally close to a base, if not a base itself, at Djibouti in the Horn of Africa.138 DOD states that
Limited logistical support remains a key obstacle preventing the PLA Navy from operating more extensively beyond East Asia, particularly in the Indian Ocean. China desires to expand its access to logistics in the Indian Ocean and will likely establish several access points in this area in the next 10 years. These arrangements likely will take the form of agreements for refueling, replenishment, crew rest, and low-level

135 2015 ONI Report, p. 5. See also pp. 8, 13, 27, 28-29.
136 Bill Gertz, “China Builds Up Strategic Sea Lanes,” Washington Times, January 18, 2005, p.1. See also Daniel J. Kostecka, “The Chinese Navy’s Emerging Support Network in the Indian Ocean,” China Brief, July 22, 1010: 3-5; Edward Cody, “China Builds A Smaller, Stronger Military,” Washington Post, April 12, 2005, p. 1; Indrani Bagchi, “China Eyeing Base in Bay of Bengal?” Times of India, August 9, 2008, posted online at; Eric Ellis, “Pearls for the Orient,” Sydney Morning Herald, July 9, 2010.
137 Christopher D. Yung, “Burying China’s ‘String of Pearls,’” The Diplomat, January 22, 2015; Daniel J. Kostecka, “A Bogus Asian Pearl,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, April 2011: 48-52; Daniel J. Kostecka, “Places and Bases: The Chinese Navy’s Emerging Support Network in the Indian Ocean,” Naval War College Review, Winter 2011: 59-78; Daniel J. Kostecka, “Hambantota, Chittagong, and the Maldives – Unlikely Pearls for the Chinese Navy,” China Brief, November 19, 2010: 8-11; Daniel J. Kostecka, “The Chinese Navy’s Emerging Support Network in the Indian Ocean,” China Brief, July 22, 2010: 5.
138 Xunxhao Zhang, “Becoming A Maritime Power?—The First Chinese Base in the Indian Ocean,” Center for International Maritime Security (CIMSEC), August 8, 2015; Prashanth Parameswaran, “Beware China’s ‘Basing’ Strategy: Forner US Navy Chief,” The Diplomat, July 29, 2015; Gabe Colins and Andrew Erickson, “Djibouti Likely to Become China’s First Indian Ocean Outpost,” China Sign Post, July 11, 2015; “China Military Declines to Confirm Djibouti Base,” Reuters, June 25, 2015. See also Andrew S. Erickson and Gabriel Collins, Dragon Tracks: Emerging Chinese Access Points in the Indian Ocean Region,” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), June 18, 2015; Rob Edens, “China’s Naval Plans for Djibouti: A Road, a Belt, or a String of Pearls?” The Diplomat, May 14, 2015; Colin Clark, “China Seeks Djibouti Access; Who’s A Hegemon Now?” Breaking Defense, May 12, 2015.

maintenance. The services provided likely will fall short of permitting the full spectrum of support from repair to re-armament.139

Numbers of Chinese Ships and Aircraft; Comparisons to U.S. Navy
Numbers Provided by ONI

Numbers Provided by ONI in 2015
The 2015 ONI report states that
• “the PLA(N) currently possesses more than 300 surface combatants, submarines, amphibious ships, and missile-armed patrol craft”;140 that
• “the PLA(N) [surface force] consists of approximately 26 destroyers (21 of which are considered modern), 52 frigates (35 modern), 20 new corvettes, 85 modern missile-armed patrol craft, 56 amphibious ships, 42 mine warfare ships (30 modern), more than 50 major auxiliary ships, and more than 400 minor auxiliary ships and service/support craft”;141 and that
• “currently, the [PLA(N)] submarine force consists of five nuclear attack submarines, four nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and 57 diesel attack submarines.”142

Numbers Provided by ONI in 2013
Table 4 shows figures provided by ONI in 2013 on numbers of Chinese navy ships in 2000, 2005, and 2010, and projected figures for 2015 and 2020, along with the approximate percentage of ships within these figures considered by ONI to be of modern design.

139 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 41. See also Brendan Thomas-Noone, “The Master Plan: Could This Be China’s Overseas Basing Strategy?” The National Interest (, November 6, 2014. See also Peter A. Dutton and Ryan D. Martinson, editors, Beyond the Wall, Chinese Far Seas Operations, Newport, RI (Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Naval War College, China Maritime Study No. 13), May 2015, 120 pp.; Christopher H. Sharman, China Moves Out: Stepping Stones Toward a New Maritime Strategy, Washington, National Defense University Press (Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University), 45 pp.
140 2015 ONI Report, p. 13.
141 2015 ONI Report. p. 15.
142 2015 ONI Report, p. 18.

11-9-2015 7-07-39 AM

Numbers Provided by ONI in 2009
Table 5 shows figures provided by ONI in 2009 on numbers of Chinese navy ships and aircraft from 1990 to 2009, and projected figures for 2015 and 2020. The figures in the table lump older and less capable ships together with newer and more capable ships discussed above.

11-9-2015 9-23-58 AM

Source: Prepared by CRS. Source for 2009, 2015, and 2020: 2009 ONI report, page 18 (text and table), page 21 (text), and (for figures not available on pages 18 or 21), page 45 (CRS estimates based on visual inspection of ONI graph entitled “Estimated PLA[N] Force Levels”). Source for 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005: Navy data provided to CRS by Navy Office of Legislative Affairs, July 9, 2010.
Notes: n/a is not available. The use of question marks for the projected figures for ballistic missile submarines, aircraft, carriers, and major amphibious ships (LPDs and LHDs) for 2015 and 2020 reflects the difficulty of resolving these numbers visually from the graph on page 45 of the ONI report. The graph shows more major amphibious ships than ballistic missile submarines, and more ballistic missile submarines than aircraft carriers. Figures in this table for aircraft carriers include the Liaoning. The ONI report states on page 19 that China “will likely have an operational, domestically produced carrier sometime after 2015.” Such a ship, plus the Liaoning, would give China a force of 2 operational carriers sometime after 2015.
The graph on page 45 shows a combined total of amphibious ships and landing craft of about 244 in 2009, about 261 projected for 2015, and about 253 projected for 2015.
Since the graph on page 45 of the ONI report is entitled “Estimated PLA[N] Force Levels,” aircraft numbers shown in the table presumably do not include Chinese air force (PLAAF) aircraft that may be capable of attacking ships or conducting other maritime operations.

Numbers Presented in Annual DOD Reports to Congress
DOD states that “the PLA Navy now possesses the largest number of vessels in Asia, with more than 300 surface ships, submarines, amphibious ships, and patrol craft,”143 and that “The PLA Navy has the largest force of principal combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia.”144 Table 6 shows numbers of Chinese navy ships as presented in annual DOD reports to Congress on military and security developments involving China (previously known as the annual report on China military power). As with Table 5, the figures in Table 6 lump older and less capable ships together with newer and more capable ships discussed above. DOD stated in 2011 that the percentage of modern units within China’s submarine force has increased from less than 10% in 2000 and 2004 to about 47% in 2008 and 50% in 2009, and that the percentage of modern units within China’s force of surface combatants has increased from less than 10% in 2000 and 2004 to about 25% in 2008 and 2009.145

143 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 8.
144 2015 DOD CMSD, p. 79.
145 2011 DOD CMSD, p. 43 (figure).

Table 6. Numbers of PLA Navy Ships Presented in Annual DOD Reports to Congress
(Figures include both older and less capable units and newer and more capable units)

11-9-2015 9-28-11 AM

Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data in 2000-2015 editions of annual DOD report to Congress on military and security developments involving China (known for 2009 and prior editions as the report on China military power).
Notes: n/a means data not available in report. LST means tank landing ship; LPD means transport dock ship; LSM means medium landing ship.
a. The DOD report generally covers events of the prior calendar year. Thus, the 2014 edition of the report covers events during 2013.
b. 2014 was the first year that this category was included in the table in DOD’s annual report.

Comparing U.S. and Chinese Naval Capabilities
U.S. and Chinese naval capabilities are sometimes compared by showing comparative numbers of
U.S. and Chinese ships. Although numbers of ships (or aggregate fleet tonnages) can be relatively easy to compile from published reference sources, they are highly problematic as a means of assessing relative U.S. and Chinese naval capabilities, for the following reasons:
• A fleet’s total number of ships (or its aggregate tonnage) is only a partial metric of its capability. In light of the many other significant contributors to naval capability,146 navies with similar numbers of ships or similar aggregate tonnages can have significantly different capabilities, and navy-to-navy comparisons of numbers of ships or aggregate tonnages can provide a highly inaccurate sense of their relative capabilities. In recent years, the warfighting capabilities of navies have derived increasingly from the sophistication of their internal electronics and software. This factor can vary greatly from one navy to the next, and often cannot be easily assessed by outside observation. As the importance of internal electronics and software has grown, the idea of comparing the warfighting capabilities of navies principally on the basis of easily observed factors such as ship numbers and tonnages has become increasingly less valid, and today is highly problematic.
• Total numbers of ships of a given type (such as submarines, destroyers, or frigates) can obscure potentially significant differences in the capabilities of those ships, both between navies and within one country’s navy.147 The potential for obscuring differences in the capabilities of ships of a given type is particularly significant in assessing relative U.S. and Chinese capabilities, in part because China’s navy includes significant numbers of older, obsolescent ships. Figures on total numbers of Chinese submarines, destroyers, frigates, and coastal patrol craft lump older, obsolescent ships together with more modern and more capable designs.148 This CRS report shows numbers of more modern and more capable submarines, destroyers, and frigates in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, respectively.
• A focus on total ship numbers reinforces the notion that increases in total numbers necessarily translate into increases in aggregate capability, and that decreases in total numbers necessarily translate into decreases in aggregate capability. For a Navy like China’s, which is modernizing in some ship categories by replacing larger numbers of older, obsolescent ships with smaller numbers of more modern and more capable ships, this is not necessarily the case. As shown in Table 5, for example, China’s submarine force today has fewer boats than it did in the 1990, but has greater aggregate capability than it did in 1990, because larger numbers of older, obsolescent boats have been replaced
146 These include types (as opposed to numbers or aggregate tonnage) of ships; types and numbers of aircraft; the sophistication of sensors, weapons, C4ISR systems, and networking capabilities; supporting maintenance and logistics capabilities; doctrine and tactics; the quality, education, and training of personnel; and the realism and complexity of exercises.
147 Differences in capabilities of ships of a given type can arise from a number of other factors, including sensors, weapons, C4ISR systems, networking capabilities, stealth features, damage-control features, cruising range, maximum speed, and reliability and maintainability (which can affect the amount of time the ship is available for operation).
148 For an article discussing this issue, see Joseph Carrigan, “Aging Tigers, Mighty Dragons: China’s bifurcated Surface Fleet,” China Brief, September 24, 2010: 2-6.

by smaller numbers of more modern and more capable boats. A similar point might be made about China’s force of missile-armed attack craft. For assessing navies like China’s, it can be more useful to track the growth in numbers of more modern and more capable units. This CRS report shows numbers of more modern and more capable submarines, destroyers, and frigates in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, respectively.
• Comparisons of total numbers of ships (or aggregate tonnages) do not take into account the differing global responsibilities and homeporting locations of each fleet. The U.S. Navy has substantial worldwide responsibilities, and a substantial fraction of the U.S. fleet is homeported in the Atlantic. As a consequence, only a certain portion of the U.S. Navy might be available for a crisis or conflict scenario in China’s near-seas region, or could reach that area within a certain amount of time. In contrast, China’s navy has limited responsibilities outside China’s near-seas region, and its ships are all homeported along China’s coast at locations that face directly onto China’s near-seas region.
• Comparisons of numbers of ships (or aggregate tonnages) do not take into account maritime-relevant military capabilities that countries might have outside their navies, such as land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), and land-based Air Force aircraft armed with ASCMs or other weapons. Given the significant maritime-relevant non-navy forces present in both the U.S. and Chinese militaries, this is a particularly important consideration in comparing U.S. and Chinese military capabilities for influencing events in the Western Pacific. Although a U.S.-China incident at sea might involve only navy units on both sides, a broader U.S.-China military conflict would more likely be a force-on-force engagement involving multiple branches of each country’s military.
• The missions to be performed by one country’s navy can differ greatly from the missions to be performed by another country’s navy. Consequently, navies are better measured against their respective missions than against one another. Although Navy A might have less capability than Navy B, Navy A might nevertheless be better able to perform Navy A’s intended missions than Navy B is to perform Navy B’s intended missions. This is another significant consideration in assessing U.S. and Chinese naval capabilities, because the missions of the two navies are quite different.

DOD Response to China Naval Modernization
U.S. Strategic Rebalancing to Asia-Pacific Region
As mentioned earlier, a 2012 DOD strategic guidance document149 and DOD’s report on the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)150 state that U.S. military strategy will place an increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. Although Administration officials state that this U.S.

149 Department of Defense, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense, January 2012, 8 pp. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R42146, Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG): In Brief, by Catherine Dale and Pat Towell.
150 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review 2014, 64 pp. For additional discussion, see CRS Report R43403, The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Defense Strategy: Issues for Congress, by Catherine Dale.

strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific region, as it is called, is not directed at any single country, many observers believe it is in no small part intended as a response to China’s military (including naval) modernization effort and its assertive behavior regarding its maritime territorial claims.

Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy
As one reflection of the U.S. strategic rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region, a DOD report on Asia-Pacific maritime security strategy submitted to Congress in August 2015 states, in discussing “DoD lines of effort,” that
First, we are strengthening our military capacity to ensure the United States can successfully deter conflict and coercion and respond decisively when needed. The Department is investing in new cutting-edge capabilities, deploying our finest maritime capabilities forward, and distributing these capabilities more widely across the region. The effort also involves enhancing our force posture and persistent presence in the region, which will allow us to maintain a higher pace of training, transits, and operations. The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate in accordance with international law, as U.S. forces do all around the world.
Second, we are working together with our allies and partners from Northeast Asia to the Indian Ocean to build their maritime capacity. We are building greater interoperability, updating our combined exercises, developing more integrated operations, and cooperatively developing partner maritime domain awareness and maritime security capabilities, which will ensure a strong collective capacity to employ our maritime capabilities most effectively.
Third, we are leveraging military diplomacy to build greater transparency, reduce the risk of miscalculation or conflict, and promote shared maritime rules of the road. This includes our bilateral efforts with China as well as multilateral initiatives to develop stronger regional crisis management mechanisms. Beyond our engagements with regional counterparts, we also continue to encourage countries to develop confidence-building measures with each other and to pursue diplomatic efforts to resolve disputed claims.
Finally, we are working to strengthen regional security institutions and encourage the development of an open and effective regional security architecture. Many of the most prevalent maritime challenges we face require a coordinated multilateral response. As such, the Department is enhancing our engagement in ASEAN-based institutions such as the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum (EAMF), as well as through wider forums like the Western Pacific Naval Symposium (WPNS) and Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), which provide platforms for candid and transparent discussion of maritime concerns.151
For more on the first of the lines of effort listed above—enhancing U.S. military capacity in Maritime Asia—see Appendix B.
Administration officials have stated that notwithstanding constraints on U.S. defense spending under the Budget Control Act of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended, DOD will seek to protect initiatives for strengthening U.S. military presence and capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. Some observers, viewing both the BCA’s constraints on defense spending

151 Department of Defense, Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy, undated but released August 2015, pp. 19-20. Italics as in original. The report was submitted in response to Section 1259 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (H.R. 3979/P.L. 113-291 of December 19, 2014).

and events in Europe (i.e., Russia’s actions in Ukraine) and in the Middle East (U.S. efforts to counter the Islamic State organization) that have drawn U.S. policymaking attention back to those two regions, have questioned whether DOD will be able to fully implement its initiatives for the Asia-Pacific region.

Defense Innovation Initiative
As also mentioned earlier, DOD officials have expressed concern that the technological and qualitative edge that U.S. military forces have had relative to the military forces of other countries is being narrowed by improving military capabilities in other countries. China’s improving naval capabilities contribute to that concern. To arrest and reverse the decline in the U.S. technological and qualitative edge, DOD in November 2014 announced a new Defense Innovation Initiative.152 In a related effort, DOD has also announced that it is seeking a new general U.S. approach—a so- called “third offset strategy”—for maintaining U.S. superiority over opposing military forces that are both numerically large and armed with precision-guided weapons.153

Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in Global Commons (JAM-GC) (Previously Air-Sea Battle)
DOD has been developing a concept, originally called Air-Sea Battle (ASB) and now called Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC),154 for increasing the joint operating effectiveness U.S. naval and Air Force units, particularly in operations for countering adversary anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) forces. DOD announced the concept in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. Although DOD officials state that the concept is not directed at any particular adversary, many observers believe it is focused to a large degree, if not principally, on
152 See, for example, Cheryl Pellerin, “Hagel Announces New Defense Innovation, Reform Efforts,” DOD News, November 15, 2014; Jake Richmond, “Work Explains Strategy Behind Innovation Initiative,” DOD News, November 24, 2014; and memorandum dated November 15, 2015, from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and other DOD recipients on The Defense Innovation Initiative, accessed online on July 21, 2015, at
153 See, for example, Jake Richmond, “Work Explains Strategy Behind Innovation Initiative,” DOD News, November 24, 2014; Claudette Roulo, “Offset Strategy Puts Advantage in Hands of U.S., Allies,” DOD News, January 28, 2015; Cheryl Pellerin, “Work Details the Future of War at Army Defense College,” DOD News, April 8, 2015.
See also Deputy Secretary of Defense Speech, National Defense University Convocation, As Prepared for Delivery by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, National Defense University, August 05, 2014, accessed July 21, 2015, at; Deputy Secretary of Defense Speech, The Third U.S. Offset Strategy and its Implications for Partners and Allies, As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, Willard Hotel, January 28, 2015, accessed July 21, 2015, at 1909; Deputy Secretary of Defense Speech, Army War College Strategy Conference, As Delivered by Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, U.S. Army War College, April 08, 2015, accessed July 21, 2015, at
The effort is referred to as the search for a third offset strategy because it would succeed a 1950s-1960s U.S. strategy of relying on nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet Union’s numerical superiority in conventional military forces (the first offset strategy) and a subsequent U.S. offset strategy, first developed and fielded in the 1970s and 1980s, that centered on information technology and precision-guided weapons (the second offset strategy). (For more on the second offset strategy, see DOD News Release No: 567-96, October 03, 1996, “Remarks as Given by Secretary of Defense William
J. Perry To the National Academy of Engineering, Wednesday, October 2, 1996,” accessed July 21, 2015, at
154 In February 2015, it was reported that the name of the concept was being changed from Air-Sea Battle to Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC). See Terry S. Morris et al., “Securing Operational Access: Evolving the Air-Sea Battle Concept,” The National Interest, February 11, 2015. See also Paul McLeary, “New US Concept Melds Air, Sea and Land,” Defense News, January 24, 2015.

countering Chinese and Iranian anti-access forces. On June 3, 2013, DOD released an unclassified summary of the concept; the document builds on earlier statements from DOD officials on the topic. DOD’s unclassified summary of the document is reprinted in Appendix C.

Navy Response to China Naval Modernization
The U.S. Navy has taken a number of steps in recent years that appear intended, at least in part, at improving the U.S. Navy’s ability to counter Chinese maritime A2/AD capabilities, including but not limited to those discussed below. A November 14, 2012, article by Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, provides an overview of Navy activities associated with the U.S. strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific; the text of the article is presented in Appendix D.

Force Posture and Basing Actions
Navy force posture and basing actions include the following, among others:
• The final report on the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) directed the Navy “to adjust its force posture and basing to provide at least six operationally available and sustainable carriers and 60% of its submarines in the Pacific to support engagement, presence and deterrence.”155
• More generally, the Navy intends to increase the share of its ships that are homeported in the Pacific from the current figure of about 55% to 60% by 2020.
• The Navy states that, budgets permitting, the Navy will seek to increase the number of Navy ships that will be stationed in or forward-deployed to the Pacific on a day-to-day basis from 51 in 2014 to 58 in 2015 and 67 by 2020.156
• In terms of qualitative improvements, the Navy has stated that it will assign its newest and most capable ships and aircraft, and its most capable personnel, to the Pacific.
• The Navy will increase the number of attack submarines homeported at Guam to four, from a previous total of three.157
• The Navy has announced an intention to station up to four Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) at Singapore by 2017,158 and an additional seven LCSs in Japan by 2022.159
• In April 2014, the United States and the Philippines signed an agreement that will provide U.S. forces with increased access to Philippine bases.160
155 U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Washington, 2006. (February 6, 2006) p. 47. 156 Victor Battle, “US Navy ‘Shaping Events’ in South China Sea,” VOA News (, May 20, 2014. See also Mike McCarthy, “CNO Sees More Integration With Asian Allies,” Defense Daily, May 20, 2014: 1-2.
157 “Fourth Attack Sub to be Homeported in Guam,” Navy News Service, February 10, 2014.
158 Jim Wolf, “U.S. Plans 10-Month Warship Deployment To Singapore,”, May 10, 2012; Jonathan Greenert, “Sea Change, The Navy Pivots to Asia,” Foreign Policy (, November 14, 2012. 159 Zachary Keck, “U.S. Chief of Naval Operations: 11 Littoral Combat Ships to Asia by 2012,” The Diplomat
(, May 17, 2013.
160 See, for example, Mark Landler, “U.S. and Philippines Agree to a 10-Year Pact on the Use of Military Bases,” New York Times, (, April 27, 2014; Associated Press, “Obama Says US-Philippines Military Pact Will Improve Asia’s Security,” Fox News (, April 28, 2014; Luis Ramirez, “US-Philippines Defense Deal to Improve Asia Security,” VOA News (, April 28, 2014; Armando J. Heredia, “New Defense (continued…)

In addition to the above actions, U.S. Marines have begun six-month rotational training deployments through Darwin, Australia, with the number of Marines in each deployment scheduled to increase to 2,500 in 2016.161

Acquisition Programs
As mentioned earlier (see “Limitations and Weaknesses” in “Background”), China’s navy exhibits limitations or weaknesses in several areas, including antisubmarine warfare (ASW). Countering China’s naval modernization might thus involve, among other things, actions to exploit such limitations and weaknesses, such as developing and procuring Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines, torpedoes, and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).
Many of the Navy’s programs for acquiring highly capable ships, aircraft, and weapon systems can be viewed as intended, at least in part, at improving the U.S. Navy’s ability to counter Chinese maritime A2/AD capabilities. Examples of highly capable ships now being acquired include Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers,162 Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines,163 and Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers, including the new Flight III version of the DDG-51, which is to be equipped with a new radar for improved air and missile defense operations.164 The procurement rate of Virginia-class submarines was increased to two per year in FY2011, and the Navy wants to start procuring the Flight III version of the DDG-51 in FY2016.
Examples of highly capable aircraft now being acquired by the Navy include F-35C carrier-based Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs),165 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters and EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft,166 E-2D Hawkeye early warning and command and control aircraft, and the P-8A Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA).167
The Navy is also developing a number of new weapon technologies that might be of value in countering Chinese maritime A2/AD capabilities, such as an electromagnetic rail gun (EMRG),

Agreement Between The Philippines and U.S.: The Basics, USNI News (, April 29, 2014; Ankit Panda, “US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement Bolsters ‘Pivot to Asia’,” The Diplomat (, April 29, 2014; “Philippines To Give U.S. Forces Access To Up To Five Military Bbases,” Reuters (, May 2, 2014; Carl Thayer, “Analyzing the US-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement,” The Diplomat (, May 2, 2014.
161 Seth Robson, “US Increasing Number of Marines On Rotation To Australia,” Stars and Stripes (, June 15, 2013.
162 For more on the CVN-78 program, see CRS Report RS20643, Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
163 For more on the Virginia-class program, see CRS Report RL32418, Navy Virginia (SSN-774) Class Attack Submarine Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
164 For more on the DDG-51 program, including the planned Flight III version, see CRS Report RL32109, Navy DDG- 51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
165 For more on the F-35 program, see CRS Report RL30563, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, by Jeremiah Gertler.
166 For more on the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G programs, see CRS Report RL30624, Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Aircraft Program, by Jeremiah Gertler.
167 For an article discussing the use of P-8 for countering Chinese submarines, see Jeremy Page, “As China Deploys Nuclear Submarines, U.S. P-8 Poseidon Jets Snoop on Them,” Wall Street Journal (, October 24, 2014.

solid state lasers (SSLs),168 and a hypervelocity projectile (HPV) for the 5-inch guns on Navy cruisers and destroyers.
An October 10, 2011, press report states that Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), in a memorandum dated September 23, 2011, “has launched a new review to identify warfighting investments that could counter Chinese military methods for disrupting key battlefield information systems.” According to the report, the memorandum “requests options for warfighting in ‘the complex electromagnetic environment’ and for countering ‘anti-access/area- denial’ threats—terms closely associated with China’s military.” The report quotes the memorandum as stating that “Today’s weapons rely on EM [electromagnetic] sensors, EM communications and EM seekers to complete their ‘kill chains,’ while defenders are increasingly turning to EM methods for protection,” and that “some kill chains never leave the EM environment at all, damaging an adversary’s military capability by affecting control systems alone—no bomb or missile required.” The report states that the memorandum “directs the group to ‘generate innovative concepts for [the] Navy to employ the EM environment as a primary line of operation in a 2025-2030 warfighting campaign.”169
In a December 2011 journal article, Greenert stated that
regional powers in 2025 could use ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and guided rockets and artillery to prevent military forces or legitimate users from entering an area (“anti-access,” or A2) or operating effectively within an area (“area-denial,” or AD). Those capabilities can be characterized as defensive, reducing opposition to them, and they can be deployed from the country’s mainland territory, making attacks against them highly escalatory. Their intended purpose, however, is clear—intimidation of neighboring countries, including U.S. allies and partners. Aggressors can threaten to hold key maritime crossroads at risk, render territorial claims moot, and assert that intervention by the United States or others in these disputes can be delayed or prevented. The stated or unstated implication is that their neighbors should capitulate to the aggressor’s demands.
To help defend our allies and protect our interests, U.S. forces in 2025 will need to be able to operate and project power despite adversary A2/AD capabilities. Over the next decade naval and air forces will implement the new AirSea Battle Concept and put in place the tactics, procedures, and systems of this innovative approach to the A2/AD challenge….
Over the next decade, maintaining the Navy’s war-fighting edge and addressing fiscal constraints will require significant changes in how we develop the force. We will need to shift from a focus on platforms to instead focus on what the platform carries. We have experience in this model. Aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and the littoral combat ships are inherently reconfigurable, with sensor and weapon systems that can evolve over time for the expected mission. As we apply that same modular approach to each of our capabilities, the weapons, sensors, unmanned systems, and electronic-warfare systems that a platform deploys will increasingly become more important than the platform itself.
That paradigm shift will be prompted by three main factors. First, the large number, range of frequencies, and growing sophistication of sensors will increase the risk to ships and aircraft—even “stealthy” ones—when operating close to an adversary’s territory. Continuing to pursue ever-smaller signatures for manned platforms, however, will soon become unaffordable. Second, the unpredictable and rapid improvement of adversary
168 For more on the Navy’s laser-development efforts, see CRS Report R41526, Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
169 Christopher J. Castelli, “Memo: Navy Seeks To Counter China’s Battle-Disruption Capabilities,” Inside the Navy, October 10, 2011.

A2/AD capabilities will require faster evolution of our own systems to maintain an advantage or asymmetrically gain the upper hand. This speed of evolution is more affordable and technically possible in weapons, sensors, and unmanned systems than in manned platforms.
The third factor favoring a focus on payloads is the changing nature of war. Precision- guided munitions have reduced the number and size of weapons needed to achieve the same effect. At the same time, concerns for collateral damage have significantly lowered the number of targets that can be safely attacked in a given engagement. The net effect is fewer weapons are needed in today’s conflicts.
Together, those trends make guided, precision stand-off weapons such as Tomahawk land-attack missiles, joint air-surface stand-off missiles, and their successors more viable and cost-effective alternatives to increasingly stealthy aircraft that close the target and drop bombs or shoot direct-attack missiles. To take full advantage of the paradigm shift from platform to payload, the Fleet of 2025 will incorporate faster, longer-range, and more sophisticated weapons from ships, aircraft, and submarines. In turn, today’s platforms will evolve to be more capable of carrying a larger range of weapons and other payloads.
Those other payloads will include a growing number of unmanned systems. Budget limitations over the next 10 to 15 years may constrain the number of ships and aircraft the Navy can buy….
The future Fleet will deploy a larger and improved force of rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) including today’s Fire Scout and soon, the armed Fire-X. Those vehicles were invaluable in recent operations in Libya and in counterterrorism operations around the Central Command area of responsibility. Deploying from the deck of a littoral combat ship, a detachment of Fire Scouts can provide continuous surveillance more than 100 miles away. Those systems will expand the reach of the ship’s sensors with optical and infrared capabilities, as well as support special operations forces in the littorals. Even more significant, the Fleet of 2025 will include UAVs deploying from aircraft carrier decks. What started a decade ago as the unmanned combat air system will be operating by 2025 as an integral element of some carrier air wings, providing surveillance and some strike capability at vastly increased ranges compared with today’s strike fighters. Once that aircraft is fielded, it will likely take on additional missions such as logistics, electronic warfare, or tanking.
Submarines will deploy and operate in conjunction with a family of unmanned vehicles and sensors by 2025 to sustain the undersea dominance that is a clear U.S. asymmetric advantage. Large-displacement unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) will deploy from ships, shore, or Virginia-class submarine payload tubes to conduct surveillance missions. With their range and endurance, large UUVs could travel deep into an adversary’s A2/AD envelope to deploy strike missiles, electronic warfare decoys, or mines. Smaller UUVs will be used by submarines to extend the reach of their organic sensors, and will operate in conjunction with unattended sensors that can be deployed from surface combatants, submarines, and P-8A patrol aircraft. The resulting undersea network will create a more complete and persistent “common operational picture” of the underwater environment when and where we need it. This will be essential to finding and engaging adversary submarines, potentially the most dangerous A2/AD capability.
The undersea picture is extremely important in terms of countering enemy mining. The most basic of A2/AD weapons, mines can render an area of ocean unusable for commercial shipping for weeks or months while we laboriously locate and neutralize them. Even the threat of mines is enough to severely restrict ship movements, significantly affecting trade and global economic stability if it happens in key choke points such as the Malacca or Hormuz straits. The mine countermeasure capabilities we are developing for littoral combat ships and MH-60 aircraft rely heavily on unmanned

sensors to rapidly build the underwater picture, and unmanned neutralization systems to disable mines. By 2025 those systems will be fully fielded, and their portable nature could allow them to be another swappable payload on a range of combatants….
Electronic warfare (EW) and cyber operations are increasingly essential to defeating the sensors and command and control (C2) that underpin an opponent’s A2/AD capabilities. If the adversary is blinded or unable to communicate, he cannot aim long-range ballistic and cruise missiles or cue submarines and aircraft. Today, Navy forces focus on deconflicting operations in the electromagnetic spectrum or cyber domains. By 2025, the Fleet will fully operationalize those domains, more seamlessly managing sensors, attacks, defense, and communications, and treating EW and cyber environments as “maneuver spaces” on par with surface, undersea, or air.
For example, an electronic jammer or decoy can defeat individual enemy radar, and thus an enemy C2 system using the radar’s data. A cyber operation might be able to achieve a similar effect, allowing U.S. forces to avoid detection. This is akin to using smoke and “rubber-duck” decoys in World War II to obscure and confuse the operational picture for Japanese forces, allowing U.S. ships to maneuver to an advantageous position. The future Fleet will employ EW and cyber with that same sense of operational integration.170
An August 20, 2012, press report stated that the Air-Sea Battle concept prompted Navy officials to make significant shifts in the service’s FY2014-FY2018 budget plan, including new investments in ASW, electronic attack and electronic warfare, cyber warfare, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV (a maritime version of the Global Hawk UAV). The report quoted Greenert as saying that the total value of the budget shifts was certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and perhaps in the “low billions” of dollars.171

Training and Forward-Deployed Operations
The Navy in recent years has increased antisubmarine warfare (ASW) training for Pacific Fleet forces and conducted various forward-deployed operations in the Western Pacific, including exercises and engagement operations with Pacific allied and partner navies, as well as operations that appear to have been aimed at monitoring Chinese military operations.172 In a December 2011 journal article, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated: “At the high end [of operations], we will expand our combined efforts with allies in Japan, South Korea, and Australia to train and exercise in missions such as antisubmarine warfare and integrated air and missile defense.173 A July 2, 2013, blog post states that

170 Jonathan Greenert, “Navy, 2025: Forward Warfighters,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, December 2011: 20. Greenert’s statement about stationing several LCSs at Singapore followed statements by other Administration officials dating back to June 2011 about operating a small number of LCSs out of Singapore. See, for example, Wong Maye-E (Associated Press), “Gates Pledges Wider U.S. Military Presence in Asia,” USA Today, June 4, 2011; and Dan de Luce (Agence France-Presse), “Gates: New Weapons For ‘Robust’ U.S. Role in Asia,”, June 3, 2011.
171 Christopher J. Castelli, “CNO: Air-Sea Battle Driving Acceleration Of Key Programs In POM-14,” Inside the Navy, August 20, 2012. POM-14 is the Program Objective Memorandum (an internal DOD budget-planning document) for the FY2014 DOD budget.
172 Incidents at sea in recent years between U.S. and Chinese ships and aircraft in China’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) appear to involve, on the U.S. side, ships and aircraft, such as TAGOS ocean surveillance ships and EP-3 electronic surveillance aircraft, whose primary apparent mission is to monitor foreign military operations.
173 Jonathan Greenert, “Navy, 2025: Forward Warfighters,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, December 2011: 20.

The U.S. Navy’s multi-national exercises in the Pacific theater are growing in size and taking on new dimensions due to the U.S. military’s overall strategic re-balance or “pivot” to the region, service officials explained.
Although many of the multi-national exercises currently underway have been growing in recent years, the U.S. military’s strategic focus on the area is having a profound impact upon training activities there, Navy officials acknowledge.174

Issues for Congress
Future Size and Capability of U.S. Navy
One potential oversight issue for Congress, particularly in the context of the constraints on U.S. defense spending established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 as amended, is whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough and capable enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime A2/AD forces while also adequately performing other missions around the world of interest to U.S. policymakers. Some observers are concerned that a combination of growing Chinese naval capabilities and budget-driven reductions in the size and capability of the
U.S. Navy could encourage Chinese military overconfidence and demoralize U.S. allies and partners in the Pacific, and thereby destabilize or make it harder for the United States to defend its interests in the region.175
Navy officials state that, to carry out Navy missions around the world in coming years, the Navy will need to achieve and maintain a fleet of 308 ships of various types and numbers. Many observers are concerned that constraints on Navy budgets in coming years will result in a fleet with considerably fewer than 308 ships.176 The issue of whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough and capable enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime anti- access forces is part of a larger debate about whether the military pillar of the U.S. strategic rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region is being adequately resourced.

Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in Global Commons (JAM- GC) (Previously Air-Sea Battle)
Another potential oversight issue for Congress is whether the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), previously known as Air-Sea Battle (ASB), represents a good approach for countering China’s A2/AD systems. During the time it was known as ASB, the merits of ASB as a response to China’s A2/AD systems became a matter of some controversy. While there seemed to be little disagreement over the goal within the ASB effort to improve the joint operating effectiveness U.S. naval and Air Force units, there was controversy about the effectiveness of the ASB concept as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression and reassuring U.S. allies and partners in the region, and about whether attacking land targets on the Chinese mainland—something that some observers believe to be an element of the ASB— would pose an unwanted degree of risk of escalating a smaller crisis or conflict into a larger one.

174 Kris Osborn, “Navy Pivots Training to Match Pacific Transition,” DOD Buzz (, July 2, 2013.
175 See, for example, Seth Cropsey, “China’s Growing Challenge To U.S. Naval Power,” Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2013: 13.
176 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL32665, Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

As an alternative to ASB, some observers advocated an alternative military strategy, which they call Offshore Control, that would not involve attacking land targets in China.177 Other observers defended ASB and/or criticized Offshore Control.178

Long-Range Carrier-Based Aircraft and Long-Range Weapons
Another potential oversight issue for Congress whether the Navy’s plans for developing and procuring long-range carrier-based aircraft and long-range ship- and aircraft-launched weapons are appropriate. Aircraft and weapons with longer ranges could help Navy ships and aircraft achieve results while remaining outside the ranges of Chinese A2/AD systems that can pose a threat to their survivability.179

UCLASS Aircraft
Some observers have stressed a need for the Navy to proceed with its plans for developing and deploying a long-range, carrier-based, unmanned UAV called the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft. Some of these observers view the acquisition of a long-range carrier-based UAV as key to maintaining the survivability and mission effectiveness of aircraft carriers against Chinese A2/AD systems in coming years.180
The operational requirements for the UCLASS aircraft have been a matter of some debate, with a key issue being whether the UCLASS should be optimized for penetrating heavily defended air space and conducting strike operations at long ranges, or for long-endurance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations (with a limited secondary capacity for conducting strike operations).181 The issue was the topic of a July 16, 2014, hearing before the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Long-Range Anti-Ship and Land Attack Missiles
Some observers have stressed a need for the Navy to proceed with the development and acquisition of a longer-ranged, next-generation replacement for the Navy’s current Harpoon ASCM, and a next-generation replacement for the Navy’s Tomahawk land attack cruise missile. These observers view the acquisition of such weapons as key to maintaining the survivability and mission effectiveness of Navy surface combatants when operating within range of Chinese
177 See, for example, “T.X. Hammes and R.D. Hooker Jr., “America’s Ultimate Strategy in a Clash with China,” The National Interest (, June 10, 2014. See also John Speed Meyers, “The Real Problem With Strikes on Mainland China,” War on the Rocks, August 4, 2015; Erik Slavin, “Analysts: Air-Sea Battle Concept Carries Risks in Possible Conflict with China,” Stars and Stripes (, September 28, 2014.
178 See, for example, Bill Dries, “How to Have a Big Disastrous War with China,” The National Interest (, June 27, 2014. See also Wendell Minnick, “China Threat: Air-Sea Battle vs. Offshore Control?” Defense News (, June 23, 2014; Chris Mclachlan, “The Political Perils of Offshore Balancing,” The Diplomat (, October 21, 2014. For an article discussing interservice tensions over the Air-Sea Battle concept, see Mark Perry, “The Pentagon’s Fight Over Fighting China,” Politico, July/August 2015.
179 For an article that provides an overview discussion of the issue, see Robert Haddick, “The Real U.S.-China War Asia Should Worry About: The ‘Range War,’” The National Interest (, July 25, 2014.
180 See, for example, Mark Gunzinger and Bryan Clark, “Commentary: The Next Carrier Air Wing,”, February 24, 2014.
181 See, for example, Dave Majumdar, “Requirements Debate Continues to Delay UCLASS RFP,” USNI News (, March 24, 2014; Mike McCarthy, “NAVIAR Chief Says Navy Seeking Optimal Balance On UCLASS,” Defense Daily, March 7, 2014.

A2/AD systems, including Chinese surface combatants armed with capable ASCMs. The Navy has initiated efforts to develop such new weapons, and is also experimenting with a new, long- range antiship variant of the Tomahawk.182 A proposal in the Navy’s FY2016 budget to end procurement of new Tomahawks following a final procurement of 100 missiles in FY2016 has become an oversight issue for Congress.183 At a February 25, 2015, hearing on Department of the Navy acquisition programs before the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, Department of the Navy officials stated:
The Tomahawk Weapons System is the Navy’s premier precision strike standoff weapon for deep strike against various fixed and re-locatable targets and can be launched from both Surface Ships and Submarines. The current variant is the Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM BLK IV), which preserves Tomahawk’s long-range precision-strike capability while significantly increasing responsiveness and flexibility. TACTOM’s improvements include in-flight retargeting, the ability to loiter over the battlefield, in- flight missile health and status monitoring, and battle damage indication imagery (providing a digital look-down “snapshot” of the battlefield via a satellite data link). Other Tomahawk improvements include rapid mission planning and execution via Global Positioning System (GPS) onboard the launch platform and improved anti-jam GPS.
The FY 2016 President’s Budget requests $184.8 million in WPN [the Weapons Procurement, Navy appropriation account] for procurement of an additional 100 BLK IV TACTOM vertical launch system weapons and associated support, $71.2 million in OPN for the Tomahawk support equipment, and $25.2 million in RDT&E to minimize factory shutdown time until the start of BLK IV recertification and modernization in FY 2019. The BLK IV recertification and upgrade program includes advanced communications, electronics, and software navigation upgrades that will ensure Tomahawk BLK IV remains operationally viable until the end of its service life in the 2040s. The Navy is determining whether there are warfighter capability gaps in light of advances and proliferation of adversary anti-access/area denial technology that may be addressed via additional Tomahawk upgrades.
For ASuW [anti-surface warfare], President’s Budget FY 2016 continues to accelerate the acquisition of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) air-launched variant, which will achieve early operational capability on F/A-18E/F aircraft in FY 2019 as an Increment I capability. As part of the long-term strike weapon strategy, the Department is investing in a Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC) that includes a survivable, long range, multi-mission, multi-platform conventional strike capability by the mid-2020s. NGSC will combine the current maritime Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OaSuW) Increment II and Next Generation Land Attack Weapons (NGLAW) projects into a single multi-mission development effort as the acquisition follow-on program to the current OASuW Increment I (LRASM) and Land Strike (Tomahawk Modernization) investments. NGSC will focus on assessing, maturing and incorporating emergent

182 See, for example, Tony Osborne, “New Seeker Could Put Tomahawk In Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile Race,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, November 12, 2014; Sam LaGrone, “Video: Tomahawk Strike Missile Punches Hole Through Moving Maritime Target,” USNI News, February 9, 2015; Christopher P. Cavas, “Raytheon Working on Tomahwak With Active Seeker,” Defense News, February 13, 2015.
183 See, for example, Mike McCarthy, “Navy Will Take Another Look At Tomahawks In 2017, Defense Daily, March 23, 2015: 4; Lara Seligman and Lee Hudson, “Raytheon: Navy’s FY-16 Tomahawk Request Won’t Sustain Production Line,” Inside the Navy, February 9, 2015. See also James Feldkamp, “Tomahawk: Vital to the Future of U.S. Seapower,” Real Clear Defense, March 2, 2015; Kirk S. Lippold, “Obama Can’t Skimp on Tomahawks,” Politico, March 25, 2015.

technologies to determine the best path forward for the follow-on improved land/maritime strike capabilities.184
An August 22, 2015, press report states that the Navy has begun integrating the above-mentioned LRASM with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighter aircraft.185

Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile
Another potential issue for Congress is whether the Navy should develop and procure a long- range air-to-air missile for its carrier-based strike fighters. Such a weapon might improve the survivability of Navy carrier-based strike fighters in operations against Chinese aircraft armed with capable air-to-air missiles, and help permit Navy aircraft carriers to achieve results while remaining outside the ranges of Chinese A2/AD systems that can pose a threat to their survivability.
During the Cold War, Navy F-14 carrier-based fighters were equipped with a long-range air-to-air missile called the Phoenix. The F-14/Phoenix combination was viewed as key to the Navy’s ability to effectively counter Soviet land-based strike aircraft equipped with long-range ASCMs that appeared designed to attack U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. A successor to the Phoenix called the Advanced Air-to-Air Missile (AAAM) was being developed in the late 1980s, but the AAAM program was cancelled as a result of the end of the Cold War. The Navy today does not have a long-range air-to-air missile, and DOD has announced no program to develop such a weapon.

Navy’s Ability to Counter China’s ASBMs
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Navy’s ability to counter China’s ASBMs. Although China’s projected ASBM, as a new type of weapon, might be considered a “game changer,” that does not mean it cannot be countered. There are several potential approaches for countering an ASBM that can be imagined, and these approaches could be used in combination. The ASBM is not the first “game changer” that the Navy has confronted; the Navy in the past has developed counters for other new types of weapons, such as ASCMs, and is likely exploring various approaches for countering ASBMs.

Breaking the ASBM’s Kill Chain
Countering China’s projected ASBMs could involve employing a combination of active (i.e., “hard-kill”) measures, such as shooting down ASBMs with interceptor missiles, and passive (i.e., “soft-kill”) measures, such as those for masking the exact location of Navy ships or confusing ASBM reentry vehicles. Employing a combination of active and passive measures would attack various points in the ASBM “kill chain”—the sequence of events that needs to be completed to carry out a successful ASBM attack. This sequence includes detection, identification, and

184 Statement of the Honorable Sean J. Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) and Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Integration of Capabilities and Resources, and Lieutenant General Kenneth J. Glueck, Jr., Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration & Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Before the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces of the House Armed Services Committee on Department of the Navy Seapower and Projection Forces Capabilities, February 25, 2015, p. 26. See also Zachary Keck, “This Is How America Plans to Sink China’s Warships,” The National Interest, August 8, 2015.
185 James Drew, “US Navy Begins Certifying New Anti-Ship Missile on Super Hornet,”, August 22, 2015.

localization of the target ship, transmission of that data to the ASBM launcher, firing the ASBM, and having the ASBM reentry vehicle find the target ship.
Attacking various points in an opponent’s kill chain is an established method for countering an opponent’s military capability. A September 30, 2011, press report, for example, quotes Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements, as stating in regard to Air Force planning that “We’ve taken [China’s] kill chains apart to the ‘nth’ degree.”186 In an interview published on January 14, 2013, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, stated:
In order for one to conduct any kind of attack, whether it is a ballistic missile or cruise missile, you have got to find somebody. Then, you have got to make sure it is somebody you want to shoot. Then, you’ve got to track it, you’ve got to hold that track. Then, you deliver the missile. We often talk about what I would call hard kill—knocking it down, a bullet on a bullet—or soft kill; there is jamming, spoofing, confusing; and we look at that whole spectrum of operations.
And frankly, it is cheaper in the left-hand side of that spectrum.187
To attack the ASBM kill chain, Navy surface ships, for example, could operate in ways (such as controlling electromagnetic emissions or using deception emitters) that make it more difficult for China to detect, identify, and track those ships.188 The Navy could acquire weapons and systems for disabling or jamming China’s long-range maritime surveillance and targeting systems, for attacking ASBM launchers, for destroying ASBMs in various stages of flight, and for decoying and confusing ASBMs as they approach their intended targets. Options for destroying ASBMs in flight include developing and procuring improved versions of the SM-3 BMD interceptor missile (including the planned Block IIA version of the SM-3), accelerating the acquisition of the Sea- Based Terminal (SBT) interceptor (the planned successor to the SM-2 Block IV terminal-phase BMD interceptor),189 and accelerating development and deployment of the electromagnetic rail gun (EMRG), and solid state lasers (SSLs). Options for decoying and confusing ASBMs as they approach their intended targets include equipping ships with systems, such as electronic warfare systems or systems for generating radar-opaque smoke clouds or radar-opaque carbon-fiber clouds, that could confuse an ASBM’s terminal-guidance radar.190

186 David A. Fulghum, “USAF: Slash And Burn Defense Cuts Will Cost Missions, Capabilities,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, September 30, 2011: 6.
187 “Interview: Adm. Jon Greenert,” Defense News, January 14, 2013: 30. The reference to “the left-hand side of that spectrum” might be a reference to soft kill measures.
188 For a journal article discussing actions by the Navy during the period 1956-1972 to conceal the exact locations of Navy ships, see Robert G. Angevine, “Hiding in Plain Sight, The U.S. Navy and Dispersed Operations Under EMCON, 1956-1972,” Naval War College Review, Spring 2011: 79-95. See also Jonathan F. Sullivan, Defending the Fleet From China’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile: Naval Deception’s Roles in Sea-Based Missile Defense, A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Security Studies, April 15, 2011, accessed August 10, 2011 at; Jon Solomon, “Deception and the Backfire Bomber: Reexamining the Late Cold War Struggle Between Soviet Maritime Reconnaissance and U.S. Navy Countertargeting,” Information Dissemination (, October 27, 2014; John Solomon, “Deception and the Backfire Bomber, Part II,” Information Dissemination (, October 28, 2014; John Solomon, “Deception and the Backfire Bomber, Part III,” Information Dissemination (, October 29, 2014; John Solomon, “Deception and the Backfire Bomber, Part IV,” Information Dissemination (, October 30, 2014.
189 For more on the SM-3, including the Block IIA version, and the SBT, see CRS Report RL33745, Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
190 Regarding the option of systems for generating radar-opaque smoke clouds, Thomas J. Culora, “The Strategic (continued…)

An August 9, 2014, press report states that Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, in response to a question about the threat posed to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers by China’s ASBMs, stated, “We are very well aware of the capabilities that China has and is trying to develop and I’m very confident we would be able to carry out any mission that we have to.” The press report states that Harris said he could not state the nature of the technology used to counter the ASBM, but that “We work in it every day. I’m confident of our ability to defeat any Chinese missile threat and to be able to do whatever we need to do.”191
A May 29, 2014, press report states:
When the next-generation aircraft carrier CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford takes to the seas later this decade, it will face one of the most dangerous threats to the U.S. maritime military behemoth—the Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).
But U.S. Navy officials remain confident that the technological improvements to the Ford as well as the other ships shielding the carrier from attack should be able to protect the vessel….
… zeroing in on a carrier with such a missile is more difficult than it seems, says Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, director of air warfare.
Eyeing the Ford from the ship’s flight deck, he notes: “People think this is a big target. But they have to get to the carrier and then discern that it is a carrier.”
In addition, the U.S. Navy has a layered network of defensive systems.
“It’s a series of systems,” Manazir explains during a recent exclusive tour of the Ford at the Newport News Shipbuilding yard in the Tidewater part of Virginia. “We want to attack it on the left side of the kill chain.”192
A May 21, 2014, press report states:
When asked whether a new Chinese anti-ship weapon—the DF-21D missile—might render carriers obsolete in the Pacific, [Admiral Jonathan] Greenert [the Chief of Naval Operations] said the U.S. is developing countermeasures to protect the prized vessels from the weapon that is sometimes referred to as a “carrier killer.”
“It’s a good weapon that they’ve developed. But there’s nothing that doesn’t have vulnerabilities, and we continue to pursue ideas in that regard. … We’re working quite feverishly on that, and I’m pretty comfortable with where we can operate our carriers,” Greenert said.
The Navy chief said the U.S. has “lots of intelligence” on the Chinese weapon, but wouldn’t elaborate, nor would he discuss what specific steps the military is taking to counter it.
In the future, Greenert said that new electromagnetic weapons, unmanned aircraft and other standoff weapons will help mitigate the threat of anti-ship missiles.193
Implications of Obscurants,” Naval War College Review, Summer 2010: 73-84; Scott Tait, “Make Smoke!” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2011: 58-63. Regarding radar-opaque carbon-fiber clouds, see “7th Fleet Tests Innovative Missile Defense System,” Navy News Services, June 26, 2014; Kevin McCaney, “Navy’s Carbon-Fiber Clouds Could Make Incoming Missiles Miss Their Targets,” Defense Systems (, June 27, 2014.
191 Greg Sheridan, “China’s Military Provocation in The Pacific An Accident Waiting to Happen,” The Australian, August 9, 2014.
192 Michael Fabey, “Ford Carriers Sport New Radars To Deflect Threats,” Aviation Week & Space Technology
(, May 29, 2014.

An April 24, 2014, press report states that
The U.S. Navy has no silver-bullet concept to defeat the Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), but will rather rely on a network of defensive systems to do the job.
“It’s a series of systems,” Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, director of air warfare, tells the Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN). “We want to attack it on the left side of the kill chain.”
During an exclusive tour and interview this month of the next-generation aircraft carrier CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford while under construction at the Newport News Shipbuilding yard in Virginia, Manazir says, “People think this is a big target. But they have to get to the carrier and then discern that it is a carrier.”
The Navy’s various networks of defensive shields aboard the carrier, and other vessels elsewhere, will make that very difficult, he says.”194

Endo-Atmospheric Target for Simulating DF-21D ASBM
A December 2011 report from DOD’s Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)—the DOT&E office’s annual report for FY2011—states the following in its section on test and evaluation resources:
Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Target
A threat representative Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) target for operational open- air testing has become an immediate test resource need. China is fielding the DF-21D ASBM, which threatens U.S. and allied surface warships in the Western Pacific. While the Missile Defense Agency has exo-atmospheric targets in development, no program currently exists for an endo-atmospheric target. The endo-atmospheric ASBM target is the Navy’s responsibility, but it is not currently budgeted. The Missile Defense Agency estimates the non-recurring expense to develop the exo-atmospheric target was $30 million with each target costing an additional $30 million; the endo-atmospheric target will be more expensive to produce according to missile defense analysts. Numerous Navy acquisition programs will require an ASBM surrogate in the coming years, although a limited number of targets (3-5) may be sufficient to validate analytical models.195
A February 28, 2012, press report stated:
“Numerous programs will require” a test missile to stand in for the Chinese DF-21D, “including self-defense systems used on our carriers and larger amphibious ships to counter anti-ship ballistic missiles,” [Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation] said in an e-mailed statement….
“No Navy target program exists that adequately represents an anti-ship ballistic missile’s trajectory,” Gilmore said in the e-mail. The Navy “has not budgeted for any study, development, acquisition or production” of a DF-21D target, he said.
193 Jon Harper, “Navy’s Top Admiral: Reducing Carrier Fleet Would Burn Out Sailors, Ships,” Stars and Stripes
(, May 21, 2014.
194 Michael Fabey, “U.S. Navy Looks To ‘Series of Systems’ To Counter Chinese Anti-Ship Missile,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, April 24, 2014: 5. See also Spencer Ackerman, “How To Kill China’s ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missile: Jam, Spoof And Shoot,” Danger Room (, March 16, 2012; Otto Kreisher, “China’s Carrier Killer: Threat and Theatrics,” Air Force Magazine, December 2013: 44-47; and “Who’s Afraid of the DF-21D,” Information Dissemination (, October 10, 2013.
195 Department of Defense, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, FY 2011 Annual Report, December 2011, p. 294.

Lieutenant Alana Garas, a Navy spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the service “acknowledges this is a valid concern and is assessing options to address it. We are unable to provide additional details.”…
Gilmore, the testing chief, said his office first warned the Navy and Pentagon officials in 2008 about the lack of an adequate target. The warnings continued through this year, when the testing office for the first time singled out the DF-21D in its annual public report….
The Navy “can test some, but not necessarily all, potential means of negating anti-ship ballistic missiles,” without a test target, Gilmore said.196
The December 2012 report from DOT&E (i.e., DOT&E’s annual report for FY2012) did not further discuss this issue; a January 21, 2013, press report stated that this is because the details of the issue are classified.197

Navy’s Ability to Counter China’s Submarines
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Navy’s ability to counter China’s submarines. Some observers raised questions about the Navy’s ability to counter Chinese submarines following an incident on October 26, 2006, when a Chinese Song-class submarine reportedly surfaced five miles away from the Japan-homeported U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk (CV-63), which reportedly was operating at the time with its strike group in international waters in the East China Sea, near Okinawa.198
Improving the Navy’s ability to counter China’s submarines could involve further increasing ASW training exercises, procuring platforms (i.e., ships and aircraft) with ASW capabilities, and/or developing technologies for achieving a new approach to ASW that is distributed and sensor-intensive (as opposed to platform-intensive).199 Countering wake-homing torpedoes more
196 Tony Capaccio, “Navy Lacks Targets To Test U.S. Defenses Against China Missile,” Bloomberg Government (, February 28, 2012. See also Christopher J. Castelli, “DOD IG Questions Realism Of Targets Used To Simulate Enemy Missiles,” Inside Missile Defense, March 21, 2012.
197 Christopher J. Castelli, “DOD Testing Chief Drops Public Discussion Of ASBM Target Shortfall,” Inside the Navy, January 21, 2013.
198 Bill Gertz, “China Sub Secretly Stalked U.S. Fleet,” Washington Times, November 13, 2006: 13; Philip Creed, “Navy Confirms Chinese Sub Spotted Near Carrier,”, November 13, 2006; Bill Gertz, “Defenses On [sic] Subs To Be Reviewed,” Washington Times, November 14, 2006; En-Lai Yeoh, “Fallon Confirms Chinese Stalked Carrier,”, November 14, 2006; Bill Gertz, “Admiral Says Sub Risked A Shootout,” Washington Times, November 15, 2006; Jeff Schogol, “Admiral Disputes Report That Kitty Hawk, Chinese Sub Could Have Clashed,” Mideast Starts and Stripes, November 17, 2006.
199 Navy officials in 2004-2005 spoke of their plans for achieving distributed, sensor-intensive ASW architecture. (See Otto Kreisher, “As Underwater Threat Re-Emerges, Navy Renews Emphasis On ASW,” Seapower, October 2004, p. 15, and Jason Ma, “ASW Concept Of Operations Sees ‘Sensor-Rich’ Way Of Fighting Subs,” Inside the Navy, February 7, 2005.) Such an approach might involve the use of networked sensor fields, unmanned vehicles, and standoff weapons. (See Jason Ma, “Autonomous ASW Sensor Field Seen As High-Risk Technical Hurdle,” Inside the Navy, June 6, 2005. See also Jason Ma, “Navy’s Surface Warfare Chief Cites Progress In ASW Development,” Inside the Navy, January 17, 2005. More recent press reports discuss research on ASW concepts involving bottom-based sensors, sensor networks, and unmanned vehicles; see Richard Scott, “GLINT In the Eye: NURC Explores Novel Autonomous Concepts For Future ASW,” Jane’s International Defence Review, January 2010: 34-35; Richard Scott, “DARPA Goes Deep With ASW Sensor Network,” Jane’s International Defence Review, March 2010: 13; Richard Scott, “Ghost In The Machine: DARPA Sets Course Towards Future Unmanned ASW Trail Ship,” Jane’s Navy International, April 2010: 10-11; Norman Friedman, “The Robots Arrive,” Naval Forces, No. IV, 2010: 40-42, 44, 46; Bill Sweetman, “Darpa Funds Unmanned Boat For Submarine Stalking,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, January 6, 2011: 5; Richard Scott, “Networked Concepts Look to Square the ASW Circle,” Jane’s International Defence Review, January 2011: 42-47; Richard Scott, “DARPA’s Unmanned ASW Sloop Concept Casts Lines,” Jane’s Navy (continued…)

effectively could require completing development work on the Navy’s new anti-torpedo torpedo (ATT) and putting the weapon into procurement.200

Navy’s Fleet Architecture
Another potential oversight issue for Congress concerns the Navy’s fleet architecture. Some observers, viewing China’s maritime A2/AD forces, have raised the question of whether the U.S. Navy should respond by shifting over time to a more highly distributed fleet architecture featuring a reduced reliance on carriers and other large ships and an increased reliance on smaller ships.201 Supporters of this option argue that such an architecture could generate comparable aggregate fleet capability at lower cost and be more effective at confounding Chinese maritime anti-access capabilities. Skeptics, including supporters of the currently planned fleet architecture, question both of these arguments.202

International, January/February 2011: 5.) See also Jeremy Page, “Underwater Drones Join Microphones to Listen for Chinese Nuclear Submarines,” Wall Street Journal), October 24, 2014; Richard Scott, “Nodes, Networks And Autonomy: Charting A Course For Future ASW,” Jane’s International Defence Review, December 2014: 47-51; “Japan, U.S. Running Undersea Listening Post to Detect Chinese Subs,” Japan Times, September 10, 2015.
200 For articles discussing torpedo defense systems, including ATTs, see Richard Scott, “Ships Shore Up,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, September 1, 2010: 22-23, 25, 27; Mike McCarthy, “NAVSEA Seeks Industry Thoughts On Torpedo
Defense Systems,” Defense Daily, November 29, 2011: 4-5.
201 See, for example, David C. Gompert, Sea Power and American Interests in the Western Pacific, RAND, Santa Monica (CA), 2013, 193 pp. (RR-151-OSD)
202 The question of whether the U.S. Navy concentrates too much of its combat capability in a relatively small number of high-value units, and whether it should shift over time to a more highly distributed fleet architecture, has been debated at various times over the years, in various contexts. Much of the discussion concerns whether the Navy should start procuring smaller aircraft carriers as complements or replacements for its current large aircraft carriers.
Supporters of shifting to a more highly distributed fleet architecture argue that the Navy’s current architecture, including its force of 11 large aircraft carriers, in effect puts too many of the Navy’s combat-capability eggs into a relatively small number of baskets on which an adversary can concentrate its surveillance and targeting systems and its anti-ship weapons. They argue that although a large Navy aircraft carrier can absorb hits from multiple conventional weapons without sinking, a smaller number of enemy weapons might cause damage sufficient to stop the carrier’s aviation operations, thus eliminating the ship’s primary combat capability and providing the attacker with what is known as a “mission kill.” A more highly distributed fleet architecture, they argue, would make it more difficult for China to target the Navy and reduce the possibility of the Navy experiencing a significant reduction in combat capability due to the loss in battle of a relatively small number of high-value units.
Opponents of shifting to a more highly distributed fleet architecture argue that large carriers and other large ships are not only more capable, but proportionately more capable, than smaller ships, that larger ships are capable of fielding highly capable systems for defending themselves, and that they are much better able than smaller ships to withstand the effects of enemy weapons, due to their larger size, extensive armoring and interior compartmentalization, and extensive damage-control systems. A more highly distributed fleet architecture, they argue, would be less capable or more expensive than today’s fleet architecture. Opponents of shifting to a more highly distributed fleet architecture argue could also argue that the Navy has already taken an important (but not excessive) step toward fielding a more distributed fleet architecture through its plan to acquire 55 Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), which are small, fast surface combatants with modular, “plug-and-flight” mission payloads. (For more on the LCS program, see CRS Report RL33741, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)/Frigate Program: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke
The issue of Navy fleet architecture, including the question of whether the Navy should shift over time to a more highly distributed fleet architecture, was examined in a report by DOD’s Office of Force Transformation (OFT) that was submitted to Congress in 2005. OFT’s report, along with two other reports on Navy fleet architecture that were submitted to Congress in 2005, are discussed at length in CRS Report RL33955, Navy Force Structure: Alternative Force Structure Studies of 2005—Background for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke. The functions carried out by OFT have since been redistributed to other DOD offices. See also Wayne P. Hughes, Jr., The New Navy Fighting Machine: (continued…)

Legislative Activity for FY2016
FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376)
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 114-102 of May 5, 2015) on H.R. 1735, states:
Tomahawk Block IV
The budget request contained $184.8 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy for procurement of 100 Tomahawk missiles, which is a decrease of 96 missiles below the minimum sustaining rate. The budget request also would terminate Tomahawk Block IV procurement beginning in fiscal year 2017.
The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Navy’s recommendation to terminate procurement of the Nation’s only long-range, surface-launched land-attack cruise missile production capability prior to finalizing concept development of the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon, which is not planned to be operationally fielded until 2024 at the earliest. Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the capability to recertify current inventory Block IV Tomahawk missiles could be put at risk if the Secretary of the Navy decides to shutter the Tomahawk Block IV production line in fiscal year 2017. In addition, the Secretary has not clearly articulated how the inventory of long-range cruise missiles will be replenished if the current stock of Tomahawk missiles is utilized to fulfill test, training, and warfighting requirements between 2016–24. The committee is also concerned that the Navy is well below all categories of inventory requirements and is discouraged that the Navy is only using one category of inventory requirements in stating that there is no risk by terminating Tomahawk Block IV production in fiscal year 2017.
Finally, the committee notes that although the fiscal year 2016 budget request is 96 missiles below the minimum sustaining rate, the Secretary has committed to procure 47 Tomahawk Block IV missiles in fiscal year 2016 using $45.5 million provided in the Overseas Contingency Operations account of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 (division C of Public Law 113–235). As a result, the committee understands that an additional 49 missiles are required in fiscal year 2016 to meet minimum sustaining rate.
Therefore, the committee recommends $214.8 million, an increase of $30.0 million, in Weapons Procurement, Navy for procurement of 149 Tomahawk missiles and to reduce risk to the Tomahawk missile industrial base. The committee supports continuing the minimum sustaining rate of Tomahawk Block IV to fully satisfy inventory requirements and bridge transition to Tomahawk Block IV recertification and modernization. (Page 26)

Section 1262 of S. 1376 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept. 114-49 of May 19, 2015) states:
A Study of the Connections Between Contemporary Policy, Strategy, Sea Power, Naval Operations, and the Composition of the United States Fleet, Monterey (CA), Naval Postgraduate School, August 2009, 68 pp.; Timothy C. Hanifen, “At the Point of Inflection,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, December 2011: 24-31; and the blog entry available online at

SEC. 1262. Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of implementing the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.
(a) Findings.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The United States has a longstanding national interest in maintaining security in the Asia-Pacific region.
(2) The Asia-Pacific region is home to the world’s three largest economies, four most populous countries, and five largest militaries. The Asia-Pacific’s rapid economic growth and mounting security tensions require a renewed focus from the United States on the region to maintain security, expand prosperity, and support common values.
(3) In 2011, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. Since then, there have been a number of actions taken to strengthen the United States posture and relationships in the region, including the negotiation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Philippines, the distributed laydown of the United States Marines Corps in the Pacific, the rotational stationing of the Littoral Combat Ship in Singapore, and a new comprehensive partnership with Vietnam on defense and security.
(4) Leaders in regional states remain concerned about a variety of regional military challenges. These include China’s military modernization and its increasingly assertive actions in the East and South China Sea and North Korea’s continued belligerence and its pursuit of nuclear and ballistic missile technology. United States allies and partners are looking to the United States to demonstrate its willingness and ability to maintain regional peace and security by fully implementing the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.
(5) In April 2015, the Commander of the United States Pacific Command Admiral Samuel Locklear warned, “Our relative superiority I think has declined and continues to decline…we rely very heavily on power projection, which means we have to be able to get the forces forward…”. Admiral Locklear also noted, “Any significant force structure moves out of my AOR in the middle of a rebalance would have to be understood and have to be explained because it would counterintuitive to a rebalance to move significant forces in another direction.”
(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) in order to maintain the credibility of the United States rebalance, it is vital that the United States continue to shift forces to the Asia-Pacific region to strengthen the ability of the United States Armed Forces to project power to shape the choices of regional states and to deter, and if necessary defend, against hostile military actions;
(2) United States allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as potential adversaries, would take note of any withdrawal of forces from the Asia-Pacific theater;
(3) any withdrawal of United States forces from Outside the Continental United States (“OCONUS”) Asia-Pacific region or from United States Pacific Command would therefore seriously undermine the rebalance; and
(4) in order to properly implement United States rebalance policy, United States forces under the operational control of the United States Pacific Command should be increased consistent with commitments already made by the Department of Defense and aligned with the requirement to maintain a balance of military power that favors the United States and United States allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
Regarding Section 1262, S.Rept. 114-49 states:
Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of implementing the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region (Sec. 1262)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of the Senate that the United States continue to implement the rebalance of U.S. forces to the Asia-Pacific region. The committee believes that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Pacific theater of operations would undermine the rebalance and that forces should be increased consistent with commitments already make by the Department of Defense and aligned with the requirement to maintain a balance of military power that favors the United States and its allies in the region. (Page 234)
S.Rept. 114-49 also states:
The budget request included $184.8 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy to procure 100 Tomahawk missiles. The future years defense program envisions shutting down the Tomahawk production line after the fiscal year 2016 procurement.
The committee is concerned about the Navy’s decision to truncate production. The Tomahawk is a combat-proven missile, having been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades, most recently against targets in Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve in September 2014 and remains the country’s first-strike weapon of choice. The Navy has stated that the current Tomahawk inventory is sufficient for munitions requirements and will meet the Navy’s needs until its replacement is operational in the mid-2020s. The Next Generation Land Attack Weapon, however, is only in initial planning stages and is not due to enter service until 2024. The committee believes the assumption of this much risk in a capability as important as long-range strike is not prudent in the current and projected security environment.
Additionally, the Navy plans to begin recertification of its existing Block IV missiles beginning in 2019. By its own analysis, the Navy recognizes that the existence of a production gap between the end of new missile builds and the start of recertification will put tremendous strain on the Tomahawk supplier base and involve millions of dollars to requalify suppliers for recertification. The committee is concerned by the Navy’s plan as it moves toward recertification.
The committee believes that it would be imprudent to ramp down and close production of the Tomahawk missile at this time. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
$30.0 million to keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining rate of 196 missiles per year. (Pages 22-23)
S.Rept. 114-49 also states:
Standoff precision guided weapons
As the air and missile defense capabilities of potential adversaries rapidly advance, the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to employ short-range precision guided weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) will be increasingly challenged. The capability to employ precision guided weapons at standoff ranges in large numbers will be necessary to ensure operational success in any high-end engagement. Advanced weapons such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile—Extended Range (JASSM–ER), the Longe Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), the Tomahawk missile and others will be key elements in attack execution, but are cost prohibitive to use in the numbers that future strike scenarios may require.
The committee is concerned the Navy is not adequately planning for a future environment in which large scale use of standoff precision guided munitions is a prerequisite for victory. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide, prior to submission of the fiscal year 2017 budget request, a report on the Navy’s plan for standoff precision guided munitions in the 2025–2030 timeframe to include ship-, submarine- and air-launched weapons. The report should include what actions are being taken to ensure that cost-effective solutions are part of the planning. The Navy should

provide this information in an unclassified report with an accompanying classified annex. (Pages 40-41)
S.Rept. 114-49 also states:
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
The budget request included $134.7 million in PE 64501N for the Unmanned Carrier- Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system. The committee notes the directed pause in the program during the Department of Defense’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Strategic Portfolio Review, which will inform the Department’s fiscal year 2017 budget submission. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $134.7 million due to excess fiscal year 2015 funds that may be used to wholly offset fiscal year 2016 budget requirements.
The committee looks forward to reviewing the results of the Department of Defense ISR Strategic Portfolio Review and also the report directed in section 217 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. (page 59)
S.Rept. 114-49 also states:
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Program
The committee believes that survivable, air-refuelable, unmanned combat aircraft are critical for countering emerging anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power projection. In this context, the committee views sea-based unmanned combat aircraft as particularly important for giving aircraft carrier air wings an enduring role in the joint family of airborne, long-range, surveillance-strike systems—and thus, maintaining the operational effectiveness and strategic utility of the U.S. carrier fleet. Based on the progress to date in the ongoing Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration program, the committee is confident that, while additional risk-reduction and experimentation appears necessary, low- to medium-risk acquisition of advanced carrier-based, unmanned combat aircraft could be feasible in the 2020–2025 timeframe.
The committee remains concerned, however, that the Navy’s current requirements for the UCLASS program place disproportionate emphasis on unrefueled endurance to support organic ISR support to the carrier strike group.
The committee sees great promise in the integration of unmanned combat aircraft into future carrier air wings. The committee notes with concern that absent a restructuring of the planned carrier air wing that incorporates unmanned combat aircraft in operationally significant numbers, the relevance of the aircraft carrier—the centerpiece of American global power projection capability—may increasingly be called into question by friends and prospective adversaries alike. (Pages 216-217)

Appendix A. 2014 ONI Testimony on China’s Navy
This appendix presents the prepared statement of Jesse L. Karotkin, ONI’s Senior Intelligence Officer for China, for a January 30, 2014, hearing before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China’s military modernization and its implications for the United States. The text of the statement is as follows:
At the dawn of the 21st Century, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA(N)) remained largely a littoral force. Though China’s maritime interests were rapidly changing, the vast majority of its naval platforms offered very limited capability and endurance, particularly in blue water. Over the past 15 years the PLA(N) has carried out an ambitious modernization effort, resulting in a more technologically advanced and flexible force. This transformation is evident not only the PLA(N)’s Gulf of Aden counter-piracy presence, which is now in its sixth year, but also in the navy’s more advanced regional operations and exercises. In contrast to its narrow focus a just decade ago, the PLA(N) is evolving to meet a wide range of missions including conflict with Taiwan, enforcement of maritime claims, protection of economic interests, as well as counter-piracy and humanitarian missions.
The PLA(N) currently possesses approximately 77 principal surface combatants, more than 60 submarines, 55 medium and large amphibious ships, and roughly 85 missile- equipped small combatants. Although overall order-of-battle has remained relatively constant in recent years, the PLA(N) is rapidly retiring legacy combatants in favor of larger, multi-mission ships, equipped with advanced anti-ship, anti-air, and anti- submarine weapons and sensors. During 2013 alone, over fifty naval ships were laid down, launched, or commissioned, with a similar number expected in 2014. Major qualitative improvements are occurring within naval aviation and the submarine force, which are increasingly capable of striking targets hundreds of miles from the Chinese mainland.
The introduction of long-range anti-ship cruise missiles across the force, coupled with non-PLA(N) weapons such as the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, and the requisite C4ISR architecture to support targeting, will allow China to significantly expand its “counter-intervention” capability further into the Philippine Sea and South China Sea over the next decade. Many of these capabilities are designed specifically to deter or prevent U.S. military intervention in the region.
Even if order-of-battle numbers remain relatively constant through 2020, the PLA(N) will possess far more combat capability due to the rapid rate of acquisition coupled with improving operational proficiency. Beijing characterizes its military modernization effort as a “three-step development strategy” that entails laying a “solid foundation” by 2010, making “major progress” by 2020, and being able to win “informationized wars by the mid-21st century.” Although the PLA(N) faces capability gaps in some key areas, including deep-water anti-submarine warfare and joint operations, they have achieved
their “strong foundation” and are emerging as a well equipped, competent, and more professional force.
A Multi-Mission Force

As China began devoting greater resources to naval modernization in the late 1990s, virtually all of its ships, submarines were essentially single-mission platforms, poorly equipped to operate beyond the support of land-based defenses. The PLA(N) has subsequently acquired larger, multi-mission platforms, capable of long-distance deployments and offshore operations. China’s latest Defense White Paper, released in 2013, noted that the PLA(N) “endeavors to accelerate the modernization of its forces for comprehensive offshore operations… [and] develop blue water capabilities.” The LUYANG III-class DDG (052D), which will likely enter service this year, embodies the trend towards a more flexible force with advanced air defenses and long-range strike capability.
China has made the most demonstrable progress in anti-surface warfare (ASuW), deploying advanced, long-range ASCMs throughout the force. With the support from improved C4ISR, this investment significantly expands the area that surface ships, submarines, and aircraft and are able to hold at risk. The PLA(N) has also made notable gains in anti-air warfare (AAW), enabling the recent expansion of blue-water operations. Just over a decade ago, just 20 percent of PLA(N) combatants were equipped with a rudimentary point air defense capability. As a result, the surface force was effectively tethered to the shore. Initially relying on Russian surface to air missiles (SAMs) to address this gap, newer PLA(N) combatants are equipped with indigenous medium-to- long range area air defense missiles, modern combat management systems, and air- surveillance sensors.
Although progress in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) is less pronounced, there are indications that the PLA(N) is committed to addressing this gap. More surface platforms are being equipped with modern sonar systems, to include towed arrays and hangars to support shipboard helicopters. Additionally, China appears to be developing aY-8 naval variant that is equipped with a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) boom, typical of ASW aircraft. Over the next decade, China is likely to make gains in ASW, both from improved sensors and operator proficiency.
China’s submarine force remains concentrated almost exclusively on ASuW, with exception of the JIN SSBN, which will likely commence deterrent patrols in 2014. The type-095 guided missile attack submarine, which China will likely construct over the next decade, may be equipped with a land-attack capability. The deployment of LACMs on future submarines and surface combatants could enhance China’s ability to strike key
U.S. bases throughout the region, including Guam.
Naval aviation is also expanding its mission set and capability in maritime strike, maritime patrols, anti-submarine warfare, airborne early warning, and logistics. Although it will be several years before the Liaoning aircraft carrier and its air wing can be considered fully operational, this development signals a new chapter in Chinese naval aviation. By 2020, carrier-based aircraft will be able to support fleet operations in a limited air-defense role. Although some older air platforms remain in the inventory, the PLA(N) is clearly shifting to a naval aviation force that is equipped to execute a wide variety of missions both near and far from home.
PLA(N) Surface Force
China analysts face a perpetual challenge over how to accurately convey the size and capability of China’s surface force. As U.S. Navy CAPT Dale Rielage noted in [the U.S. Naval Institute] Proceedings last year, key differences in the type of PLA(N) ships (in comparison to the U.S. Navy) make it extremely difficult to apply a common basis for comparing the order of battle. A comprehensive tally of ships that includes hundreds of small patrol craft, mine warfare craft, and coastal auxiliaries provides a deceptively inflated picture of China’s actual combat capability. Conversely, a metric based on ship displacement returns the opposite effect, given the fact that many of China’s modern

ships, such as the 1,500 ton JIANGDAO FFL, are small by U.S. standards, and equipped primarily for regional missions.
To accurately capture potential impact of China’s naval modernization, it is necessary to provide a more detailed examination of the ships and capabilities in relation to the missions they are likely intended to fulfill. For the sake of clarity, the term “modern” is used in this paper to describe a surface combatant that possesses a multi-mission capability, incorporates more than a point air defense capability, and has the ability to embark a helicopter. As of early 2014, the PLA(N) possesses 27 destroyers (17 of which are modern), 48 frigates (31 of which are modern), 10 new corvettes, 85 modern missile- armed patrol craft, 56 amphibious ships, 42 mine warfare ships, over 50 major auxiliary ships, and over 400 minor auxiliary ships and service/support craft.
During the 1990s, China began addressing immediate capability gaps by importing modern surface combatants, weapon systems, and sensors from Russia. Never intended as a long-term solution, the PLA(N) simultaneously sought to design and produce its own weapons and platforms from a mix of imported and domestic technology. Less than a decade ago China’s surface force could be characterized as an eclectic mix of vintage, modern, converted, imported, and domestic platforms utilizing a variety weapons and sensors and with widely ranging capabilities and varying reliability. By the second decade of the 2000s, surface ship acquisition had shifted entirely to Chinese designed units, equipped primarily with Chinese weapons and sensors, though some engineering components and subsystems remain imported or license-produced in-country.
Until recently, China tended to build small numbers of a large variety of ships, often changing classes rapidly as advancements were made. In the period between 1995 and 2005 alone, China constructed or purchased major surface combatants and submarines in at least different 15 classes. Using a combination of imported technology, reverse engineering, and indigenous development, the PRC has rapidly narrowed the technology and capability gap between itself and the world’s modern navies. Additionally, China is implementing much longer production runs of advanced surface combatants and conventional submarines, suggesting a greater satisfaction in their recent ship designs.
The PLA(N) surface force has made particularly strong gains in anti-surface warfare (ASuW), with sustained development of advanced anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and over-the-horizon targeting systems. Most PLA(N) combatants carry variants of the YJ- 8A ASCM (~65-120nm), while the LUYANG II-class (052D) destroyer is fitted with the YJ-62 (~120nm), and the newest class, LUYANG III-class destroyer is fitted with a new vertically-launched ASCM. As these extended range weapons require sophisticated over- the-horizon-targeting (OTH-T) capability to realize their full potential, China has invested heavily in maritime reconnaissance systems at the national and tactical levels, as well as communication systems and datalinks to enable the flow of accurate and timely targeting data.
In addition to extended range ASCMs, the LUYANG III DDG, which is expected to enter the force in 2014, may also be equipped with advanced SAMs, anti-submarine missiles, and possibly an eventual land-attack cruise missile (LACM) from its multipurpose vertical launch system. These modern, high-end combatants will likely provide increased weapons stores and overall flexibility as surface action groups venture more frequently into blue water in the coming years.
Further enabling this trend, China’s surface force has achieved sustained progress in shipboard air defense. The PLA(N) is retiring legacy destroyers and frigates that possess at most a point air defense capability, while constructing newer ships with medium-to- long range area air defense missiles. The PLA(N) has produced a total of six LUYANG II DDG with the HHQ-9 surface-to-air missile (~55nm), and the LUYANG III DDG will carry an extended-range variant of the HHQ-9. At least fifteen JIANGKAI II FFGs (054A), with the vertically-launched HHQ-16 (~20-40nm) are now operational, with

more under construction. Sometimes referred to as the “workhorse” of the PLA(N) these modern frigates have proven instrumental in sustaining China’s counter-piracy presence in the Gulf of Aden.
The new generation of destroyers and frigates utilize modern combat management systems and air-surveillance sensors, such as the Chinese SEA EAGLE and DRAGON EYE phased-array radars. While older platforms with little or no air defense capability remain in the inventory, the addition of these newer units allows the PLA(N)’s surface force to operate with increased confidence outside of shore-based air defense systems, as one or two ships can now provide air defense for the entire task group. Currently, approximately 65 percent of China’s destroyers and frigates are modern. By 2020 that figure will rise to an estimated 85 percent.
The PLA(N) has also phased out hundreds of Cold War-era missile patrol boats and patrol craft as they shifted from a coastal defense orientation to a more active, offshore orientation over the past two decades. During this period China acquired a modern coastal-defense and area-denial capability with 60 HOUBEI class guided missile patrol boats. The HOUBEI design integrates a high-speed wave-piercing catamaran hull, waterjet propulsion, considerable signature-reduction features, and the YJ-8A ASCM. While not equipped for coastal patrol duties, the HOUBEI is an essential component of the PLA(N)’s ability to react at short notice to threats within China’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and slightly beyond.
In 2012 China began producing the new JIANGDAO class corvette (FFL), which, in contrast to the HOUBEI, is optimized to serve as the primary naval patrol platform in China’s EEZ and potentially defend China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS). The 1500-ton JIANGDAO is equipped for littoral warfare with 76mm, 30mm, and 12.7mm guns, four YJ-8 ASCMs, torpedo tubes, and a helicopter landing area. The JIANGDAO is ideally-suited for general medium-endurance patrols, counter-piracy, and other littoral duties in regional waters, but is not sufficiently armed or equipped for major combat operations in blue-water. At least ten JIANGDAOs are already operational and thirty or more units may be built, replacing both older small patrol craft as well as some of the PLA(N)’s aging JIANGHU I frigates. The rapid construction of JIANGDAO FFLs accounts for a significant share of ship construction in 2012 and 2013.
In recent years, China’s amphibious acquisition has shifted decisively towards larger, high-end, ships. Since 2007 China has commissioned three YUZHAO class amphibious transport docks (LPD), which provide a considerably greater capacity and flexibility compared to previous landing ships. At 20,000 tons, the YUZHAO is the largest domestically produced Chinese warship and has deployed as far as the Gulf of Aden. The YUZHAO can carry up to four of the new air cushion landing craft YUYI LCUA (similar to LCAC), as well as four or more helicopters, armored vehicles, and troops on long- distance deployments. Additional YUZHAOs are expected to be built, as well as a follow-on amphibious assault ship (LHA) design that is larger and with a full-deck flight deck for additional helicopters.
The major investment in a large-deck LPD signaled the PLA(N)’s emerging interest in expeditionary warfare and over-the horizon amphibious assault capability, as well as a flexible platform for humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) and counter-piracy capabilities. In contrast, the PLA(N) appears to have suspended all construction of lower- end tank landing ships (LST/LSM) since 2006, following a spate of acquisition in the early 2000s.
The expanded set of missions further into the western Pacific and Indian Ocean, including counter-piracy deployments, HA/DR missions, survey voyages and goodwill port visits have increased demands on PLA(N)’s limited fleet of ocean-going replenishment and service vessels. In 2013 the PLA(N) added two new FUCHI

replenishment oilers (AORs) bringing the total AOR force level to seven ships. These ships constantly rotate in support of Gulf of Aden (GOA) counter-piracy deployments.
In addition, the PLA(N) recently added three state-of-the-art DALAO submarine rescue ships (ASR) and three DASAN fast-response rescue ships (ARS). Other recent additions include the ANWEI hospital ship (AH), the DANYAO AF (island resupply), YUAN WANG 5&6 (satellite and rocket launch telemetry), three KANHAI AG (SWATH-hull survey ships), two YUAN WANG 21 missile tenders (AEM), and the large DAGUAN AG, which provides berthing and logistical support to the KUZNETSOV aircraft carrier Liaoning.
Traditionally, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) has lagged behind ASuW and AAW as a priority for the PLA(N). Some moderate progress still continues, with more surface ships possessing modern sonars, to include towed arrays, as well as hangars to support shipboard helicopters. Given these developments, the PLA(N) surface force may be more capable of identifying adversary submarines in limited areas by 2020.
Over the past decade, China’s surface force has made steady proficiency gains and become much more operationally focused. Beginning in 2009, the Gulf of Aden deployments have provided naval commanders and crews with their first real experience with extended deployments and overseas logistics. We have also witnessed an increase in the complexity of training and exercises and an expansion of operating areas both within and beyond the First Island Chain. To increase realism, the force engages in opposing force training and employs advanced training aids. In 2012 the surface force conducted an unprecedented seven deployments to the Philippine Sea. This was followed by nine Philippine Sea deployments in 2013. Extended surface deployments and more advanced training build core warfare proficiency in ASuW, ASW and AAW. Furthermore, these deployments reflect efforts to “normalize” distant seas training in line with General Staff Department (GSD) guidelines.
China’s Aircraft Carrier Program
With spectacular ceremony in September 2012, China commissioned its first carrier, the Liaoning. China is currently engaged in the long and complicated path of learning to operate fixed wing aircraft from the carrier’s deck. The first launches and recoveries of the J-15 aircraft occurred in November 2012, with additional testing and training occurring in 2013. Despite recent progress, it will take several years before Chinese carrier-based air regiments are operational. The PLA’s newspaper, Jiefangjun Bao recently noted, “Aircraft Carrier development is core to the PLA(N), and could serve as a deterrent to countries who provoke trouble at sea, against the backdrop of the U.S. pivot to Asia and growing territorial disputes in the South China Sea and East China Sea.”
The Liaoning is much less capable of power projection than the U.S. Navy’s NIMITZ- class carriers. Not only does Liaoning’s smaller size limit the total number of aircraft it can carry, but also the ski-jump configuration significantly limits aircraft fuel and ordnance load for take offs. Furthermore, China does not yet possess specialized supporting aircraft such as the E-2C Hawkeye, which provides tactical airborne early warning (AEW). The Liaoning is suited for fleet air defense missions, rather than US- style, long range power projection. Although it has a full suite of weapons and combat systems, Liaoning’s primary role for the coming years will be to develop the skills required for carrier aviation and to train its first groups of pilots and deck crews.
China’s initial carrier air regiment will consist of the Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark, which is externally similar to the Russian Su-33 Flanker D. However, the aircraft is thought to possess many of the domestic avionics and armament capabilities of the Chinese J-11B Flanker. Likely armament for the J-15 includes PL-8 and PL-12 air-to-air missiles and modern ASCMs. Six J-15 prototypes are currently involved in testing and at least one two-seat J-15S operational trainer has been observed.

China is fully aware of the inherent limitations of the mid-sized, ski-jump carrier. While Beijing has provided no public information on the size and configuration of its next carrier, there is intense speculation that China may adopt a catapult launching system. Recent media reports suggest that China recently commenced construction of its first indigenously produced carrier.
Finally, as China expands carrier operations beyond the immediate region, it will almost certainly be constrained by a lack of distant bases and support infrastructure. Although commercial ports can provide some peacetime support, Beijing may eventually find it expedient to abandon its longstanding, self-imposed prohibition on foreign basing.
PLA(N) Submarine Force
China has long regarded its submarine force as a critical element of regional deterrence, particularly when conducting “counter-intervention” against modern adversary. The large, but poorly equipped force of the 1980s has given way to a more modern submarine force, optimized primarily for regional anti-surface warfare missions near major sea lines of communication. Currently, the submarine force consists of five nuclear attack submarines, four nuclear ballistic missile submarines, and 53 diesel attack submarines.
In reference to the submarine force, the term “modern” applies to second generation submarines, capable of employing anti-ship cruise missiles or submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles. By 2015 approximately 70 percent of China’s entire submarine force will be modern. By 2020, 75 percent of the conventional force will be modern and 100 percent of the SSN force will be modern.
Currently, most of the force is conventionally powered, without towed arrays, but equipped with increasingly long range ASCMs. Submarine launched ASCMs with ranges well in excess of 100nm not only enhance survivability of the shooter, but also enable a small number of units to hold a large maritime area at risk. A decade ago, only a few of China’s submarines were equipped to launch a modern anti-ship cruise missile. Given the rapid pace of acquisition, well over half of China’s nuclear and conventional attack submarines are now ASCM equipped, and by 2020, the vast majority of China’s submarine force will be armed with advanced, long-range ASCMs.
China’s small nuclear attack submarine force is capable of operating further from the Chinese mainland, conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), as well as ASuW missions. Currently, China’s submarines are not optimized for either anti- submarine warfare or land attack missions.
Like the surface force, China’s submarine force is trending towards a more streamlined mix of units, suggesting the PLA(N) is relatively satisfied with recent designs. For its diesel-electric force alone, between 2000 and 2005, China constructed MING SS, SONG SS, the first YUAN SSP, and purchased 8 KILO SS from Russia. While all of these classes remain in the force, only the YUAN SSP is currently in production. Reducing the number of different classes in service helps streamline maintenance, training and interoperability.
The YUAN SSP is China’s most modern conventionally powered submarine. Eight are currently in service, with as many as 12 more anticipated. Its combat capability is similar to the SONG SS, as both are capable of launching Chinese-built anti-ship cruise missiles, but the YUAN SSP also possesses an air independent power (AIP) system and may have incorporated quieting technology from the Russian-designed KILO SS. The AIP system provides a submarine a source of power other than battery or diesel engines while still submerged, increasing its underwater endurance, thereby reducing its vulnerability to detection.
The remainder of the conventional submarine force is a mix of SONG SS, MING SS, and Russian-built KILO SS. Of these, only the MING SS and four of the older KILO SS lack

an ability to launch ASCMs. Eight of China’s 12 KILO SS are equipped with the SS-N- 27 ASCM, which provides a long-range anti-surface capability out to approximately 120nm. Although China’s indigenous YJ-82 ASCM has a much shorter range, trends in surface and air-launched cruise missiles suggest that a future indigenous submarine- launched ASCM will almost certainly match or exceed the range of the SS-N-27.
China is now modernizing its relatively small nuclear-powered attack submarine force, following a protracted hiatus. The SHANG SSN’s initial production run stopped after just two launches in 2002 and 2003. After nearly 10 years, China resumed production with four additional hulls of an improved variant, the first of which was launched in 2012. These six submarines will replace the aging HAN SSN on nearly a 1-for-1 basis over the next several years. Following the completion of the improved SHANG SSN, the PLA(N) will likely progress to the Type 095 SSN, which may provide a generational improvement in many areas such as quieting and weapon capacity, to include a possible land-attack capability.
Perhaps the most anticipated development in China’s submarine force is the expected operational deployment of the JIN SSBN in 2014, which would mark China’s first credible at-sea second-strike nuclear capability. With a range in excess of 4000nm, the JL-2 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM), will enable the JIN to strike Hawaii, Alaska, and possibly western portions of CONUS from East Asian waters. The three JIN SSBNs currently in service would be insufficient to maintain a constant at-sea presence for extended periods of time, but if the PLA Navy builds five units as some sources suggest, a continuous peacetime presence may become a viable option for the PLA(N).
Historically, the vast majority of Chinese submarine operations have been limited in duration. In recent years however, leadership emphasis on more realistic training and operational proficiency across the PLA appears to have catalyzed an increase in submarine patrol activity. Prior to 2008, the PLA(N) typically conducted a very small number of extended submarine patrols, typically fewer than 5 or 6 in a given year. Since that time, it has become common to see more than 12 patrols in a given year. This trend suggests the PLA(N) seeks to build operational proficiency, endurance, and training in ways that more accurately simulate combat missions.
PLA(N) Air Forces
The capabilities and role of the PLANAF have steadily evolved over the past decade. As navy combatants range further from shore and more effectively provide their own air defense, the PLANAF is able to concentrate on an expanded array of missions, including maritime strike, maritime patrols, anti-submarine warfare, airborne early warning, and logistics. Both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft will play an important role in enabling fleet operations over the next decade. Additionally, in the next few years the PLANAF will possess its first-ever sea-based component, with the Liaoning CV [aircraft carrier].
Every major PLA(N) surface combatant currently under construction is capable of embarking a helicopter, increasing platform capabilities in areas such as over the horizon targeting, anti-submarine warfare, and search and rescue (SAR). The PLA(N) operates three main helicopter variants: the Z-9, the Z-8, and the Helix. In order to keep pace with the rest of the PLA(N), the helicopter fleet will almost certainly expand in the near future.
The PLA(N)’s primary helicopter, the Z-9C, was originally obtained under licensed production from Aerospatiale (now Eurocopter) in the early 1980s. The Z-9C is capable of operating from any helicopter-capable PLA(N) combatant. It can be fitted with the KLC-1 search radar, dipping sonar, and is usually seen with a single lightweight torpedo. A new roof-mounted electro-optical (EO) turret, unguided rockets, and 12.7 mm machine gun pods have been observed on several Z-9Cs during counter piracy deployments. There are now approximately twenty operational Z-9Cs in the PLA(N) inventory and the

helicopters are still under production. An upgraded naval version of the Z-9, designated the Z-9D, has been observed with ASCMs.
Like the Z-9, the Z-8 is a Chinese-produced helicopter based on a French design. In the late 1970s, the PLA(N) purchased and reverse engineered the SA 321 Super Frelon. This medium lift helicopter is capable of performing a wide variety of missions but is most often utilized for SAR, troop transport, and logistical support roles. It is usually observed with a rescue hoist and a nose radome and typically operates unarmed. The Z-8’s size provides a greater cargo capacity compared to other PLA(N) helicopters, but is limited in its ability to deploy from most PLA(N) combatants. An AEW variant of the Z-8 has been observed operating with the Liaoning.
In 1999, the PLA(N) took delivery of an initial batch of eight Russian-built Ka-28 Helix helicopters. The PLA(N) typically uses the Ka-28 for ASW. They are fitted with a search radar, dipping sonar and can employ sonobuoys, torpedoes, depth charges, or mines. In 2010 China also ordered nine Ka-31 Helix AEW helicopters.
Fixed-wing Aircraft
Over the last two decades, the PLANAF has significantly upgraded its fighters and expanded the type of aircraft it operates. As a consequence, it can successfully perform a wide range of missions including offshore air defense, maritime strike, maritime patrol/antisubmarine warfare, and in the not too distant future, carrier-based operations. A decade ago, this modernization was largely reliant on exports from Russia, however, the PLANAF has recently benefited from the same domestic combat aircraft production that has propelled earlier PLAAF modernization.
Historically, the PLA(N) relied on older Chengdu J-7 variants and Shenyang J-8B/D Finback fighters for the offshore air defense mission. These aircraft were limited in range, avionics, and armament. The J-8 is perhaps best known in the West as the aircraft that collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft in 2001. In 2002, the PLA(N) purchased 24 Su-30MK2, making it the first 4th generation fighter fielded with the navy. These aircraft feature an extended range and maritime radar systems, enabling the Su-
30MK2 to strike enemy ships at long distances, while still maintaining a robust air-to-air capability.
Several years later, the PLA(N) began replacing older J-8B/Ds with the newer J-8F variant. The J-8F featured improved armament such as the PL-12 radar-guided air-to-air missile, upgraded avionics, and an improved engine with higher thrust. Today, the PLA(N) is taking deliveries of modern domestically produced 4th generation fighter aircraft such as the J-10A Vigorous Dragon and the J-11B Flanker. Equipped with modern radars, glass cockpits, and armed with PL-8 and PL-12 air-to-air missiles, PLA(N) J-10A and J-11B aircraft are among the most modern aircraft in China’s inventory.
For maritime strike, the PLA(N) has relied on the H-6 Badger for decades. The H-6 is a licensed copy of the ex-Soviet Tu-16 Badger, which can employ advanced ASCMs against surface targets. As many as 30 Badgers likely remain in service with the PLA(N). Despite the older platform design, Chinese H-6 Badgers benefit from upgraded electronics and payloads. Noted improvements include the ability to carry a maximum of four ASCMs, compared with two on earlier H-6D variants. Some H-6s have been modified as tankers, increasing the PLA(N)’s flexibility and range. The JH-7 Flounder, with at least five regiments fielded across the three fleets also provides a maritime strike capability. The JH-7 is a domestically produced tandem-seat fighter/bomber, developed as a replacement for obsolete Q-5 Fantan light attack aircraft and H-5 Beagle bombers. The JH-7 can carry up to four ASCMs and two PL-5 or PL-8 short-range air-to-air missiles, providing it with considerable payload for maritime strike missions.

In addition to combat aircraft, the PLANAF is expanding its inventory of fixed-wing Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA), Airborne Early Warning (AEW), and surveillance aircraft. The Y-8, a Chinese license-produced version of the ex-Soviet An-12 Cub, forms the basic airframe for several PLA(N) special mission variants. As the navy pushes farther from the coast, long-range aircraft play a key role in providing a clear picture of surface and air contacts in the maritime environment.
Internet photos from 2012 suggest that the PLA(N) is also developing a Y-8 naval variant, equipped with a MAD (magnetic anomaly detector) boom, typical of ASW aircraft. This ASW aircraft features a large surface search radar mounted under the nose and multiple blade antennae on the fuselage for probable electronic surveillance. It also appears to incorporate a small EO/IR turret and an internal weapons bay forward of the main landing gear. The aircraft appeared in a primer yellow paint scheme, suggesting that it remains under development.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
In recent years China has developed several multi-mission UAVs for the maritime environment. There are some indications the PLA(N) has begun to integrate UAVs into their operations to enhance situational awareness. For well over a decade, China has actively pursued UAV technology and they are emerging among the worldwide leaders in UAV development. China’s latest achievement was the unveiling of their first prototype unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV), the Lijan, which features a blended-wing design as well as low observable technologies.
The PLA(N) will probably employ significant numbers of land and ship based UAVs to supplement manned ISR aircraft and aid targeting for various long-range weapons systems. UAVs will probably become one of the PLA(N)’s most valuable ISR assets in on-going and future maritime disputes and protection of maritime claims. UAVs are ideally suited for this mission set due to their long loiter time, slow cruising speed, and ability to provide near real-time information through the use of a variety of onboard sensors. The PLA(N) has been identified operating the Austrian Camcopter S-100 rotary- wing UAV from several combatants. Following initial evaluation and deployment of the Camcopter S-100, the PLA(N) will likely adopt a domestically produced UAV into ship- based operations.
Naval Mines
China has a robust mining capability and currently maintains a varied inventory estimated at over 50,000 mines. China also has developed a robust infrastructure for naval mine related research, development, testing, evaluation, and production. During the past few years China has gone from an obsolete mine inventory, consisting primarily of pre-WWII vintage moored contact and basic bottom influence mines, to a robust mine inventory consisting of a large variety of mine types including moored, bottom, drifting, rocket propelled and intelligent mines. China will continue to develop more advanced mines in the future, possibly including extended-range propelled-warhead mines, anti-helicopter mines, and bottom influence mines equipped to counter minesweeping efforts.
Maritime C4ISR (Command, Control, Computers, Communication, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance)
China’s steady expansion of naval missions beyond the littoral, including counter- intervention missions are enabled by a dramatic improvement in maritime C4ISR over the past decade. The ranges of China’s modern anti-ship cruise missiles extend well beyond the range of a ship’s own sensors. Emerging land-based weapons, such as the DF- 21D anti-ship ballistic missile, with a range of more than 810nm are even more dependent on remote targeting. Modern navies depend heavily on their ability to build and disseminate a picture of all activities occurring in the air and sea.

For China, this provides a formidable challenge. In order to characterize activities in the “near seas,” China must build a maritime and air picture covering nearly 875,000 square nautical miles (sqnm). The Philippine Sea, which could become a key interdiction area in a regional conflict, expands the battlespace by another 1.5 million sqnm. In this vast space, many navies and coast guards converge along with tens of thousands of fishing boats, cargo ships, oil tankers, and other commercial vessels.
In order to sort through this complex environment and enable more sophisticated operations, China has invested in a wide array of sensors. Direct reporting from Chinese ships and aircraft provides the most detailed and reliable information, but can only cover a fraction of the regional environment. A number of ground-based coastal radars provide overlapping coverage of coastal areas, but their range is limited.
To gain a broader view of activity in its near and far seas, China requires more sophisticated sensors. The skywave over-the-horizon radar provides awareness of a much larger area than conventional radars by bouncing signals off the ionosphere. China also operates a growing array of reconnaissance satellites, which allow observation of maritime activity virtually anywhere on the earth.
The PLA(N) is strengthening its ability to execute a range of regional missions in a “complex electromagnetic environment” as it simultaneously lays a foundation for sustained, blue water operations. Over the next decade, China will complete its transition from a coastal navy to a navy capable of multiple missions around the world. Current acquisition patterns, training, and operations provide a window into how the PLA(N) might pursue these objectives.
Given the pace of PLA(N) modernization, the gap in military capability between the mainland and Taiwan will continue to widen in China’s favor over the coming years. The PRC views reunification with Taiwan as an immutable, long-term goal and hopes to prevent any other actor from intervening in a Taiwan scenario. While Taiwan remains a top-tier priority, the PLA(N) is simultaneously focusing resources on a growing array of potential challenges.
China’s interests in the East and South China Seas include protecting its vast maritime claims and preserving access to regional resources. Beijing prefers to use diplomacy and economic influence to protect maritime sovereignty, and generally relies on patrols by the recently-consolidated China Coast Guard. However, ensuring maritime sovereignty will remain a fundamental mission for the PLA(N). PLA(N) assets regularly patrol in most of China’s claimed territory to conduct surveillance and provide a security guarantee to China’s Coast Guard.
In the event of a crisis, the PLA(N) has a variety of options to defend its claimed territorial sovereignty and maritime interests. The PLA(N) could lead an amphibious campaign to seize key disputed island features, or conduct blockade or SLOC interdiction campaigns to secure strategic operating areas. China’s realization of an operational aircraft carrier in the coming years may also enable Beijing to exert greater pressure on its SCS rivals. Recent acquisitions speak to a future in which the PLA(N) will be expected to perform a wide variety of tasks including assuring the nation’s economic lifelines, asserting China’s regional territorial interests, conducting humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and demonstrating a Chinese presence beyond region waters.203

203 [Hearing on] Trends in China’s Naval Modernization [before] U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission[,] Testimony [of] Jesse L. Karotkin, [Senior Intelligence Officer for China, Office of Naval Intelligence,
January 30, 2014], accessed February 12, 2014, 12 pp., at (continued…)

Appendix B. 2015 DOD Report on Asia-Pacific
Maritime Security Strategy
This appendix presents additional material from the report on Asia-Pacific maritime security strategy that DOD submitted to Congress in August 2015. Regarding DOD’s efforts to enhance
U.S. military capacity in maritime Asia, the report states:
Investments and Capabilities
For decades, the United States has stood with its allies and partners to help maintain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. During this period, the U.S. military has enjoyed and depended upon the ability to project power and maintain freedom of action in the maritime domain. Increasingly, we see countries developing new technologies that appear designed to counter these advantages. The Department is therefore working to maintain the necessary capabilities to deter conflict and reassure allies and partners, while protecting our ability to respond decisively if required. This includes investing in new capabilities and concepts that will allow U.S. forces to operate freely even in contested environments.
The Department is enhancing U.S. capabilities to project power from the sea, in the air, and under the water. As part of this effort, we are deploying some of our most advanced surface ships to the region, including replacing the aircraft carrier USS George Washington in 2015 with the newer USS Ronald Reagan; sending our newest air operations-oriented amphibious assault ship, the USS America, to the region by 2020; deploying two additional Aegis-capable destroyers to Japan; and home-porting all three of our newest class of stealth destroyers, the DDG-1000, with the Pacific fleet. We are complementing these surface capabilities with some of our most capable air assets, including F-22s, continuous deployments of B-2 and B-52 strategic bombers, additional tilt rotor aircraft for the Marine Corps and Special Forces, and, in 2017, the first forward- stationing of F-35s to Iwakuni, Japan. The Department will also procure 395 F-35 aircraft over the next several years, many of which will be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. For the subsurface environment, the Department is basing an additional attack submarine in Guam and funding two additional Virginia class submarines and the Virginia Payload Module, a compartment added to our new attack submarines that will increase dramatically their capacity to carry weapons and other payloads. These capabilities will help protect and add versatility to our advantages at sea, in the air, and under the water.
In support of these assets, the Department is investing in a comprehensive weapons modernization program, including plans for new or updated land-, sea-, and air-launched missiles relevant to the maritime domain. DoD is procuring advanced precision munitions that will allow our forces to strike adversaries from greater stand-off distances, like the new extended-range Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER), and a new long- range antiship cruise missile that will improve the ability of U.S. aircraft to engage surface combatants in defended airspace. And we are finding new ways to use existing weapons systems, including by enhancing the capabilities resident in our current inventory of Tomahawk cruise missiles.
In addition to enhancing our power projection capabilities, the Department is investing in flexible capabilities that will allow us to respond more rapidly and effectively to a wider range of potential maritime challenges. The rotational deployment of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) in Singapore provides the U.S. Navy with a flexible, nimble asset that can
(…continued) Karotkin_Testimony1.30.14.pdf.

operate effectively in the region’s challenging littoral waters. The Department is currently conducting the second proof-of-concept deployment of the LCS to the region, a deployment that will not only include port calls and engagements with seven different Southeast Asian States, but also participation in one of our largest and most complex war-fighting exercises in the Republic of Korea (ROK), Foal Eagle. Additionally, we will deploy the Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) to the region, which will more effectively enable a range of missions, from counter-piracy efforts to special forces operations and disaster relief missions.
Finally, the Department of Defense is investing in critical enabling capabilities, including persistent, deep-look ISR platforms that will provide us with greater situational awareness and early warning of potential crises in the maritime domain. The U.S. Navy is procuring 24 E-2D Hawkeye carrier-based airborne early warning and control aircraft, and as stated in the President’s most recent budget submission, investing $9.9 billion over the next four years to procure the final 47 P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft, many of which will be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. The Department is also making substantial investments to develop the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial system, which will provide broad area situational awareness to our operational commanders. The first deployment of MQ-4Cs will arrive in the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR) in FY 2017.
These enhanced capabilities are already making a difference in improving the Department’s ability to respond to humanitarian crises in maritime Asia. In March 2011, when an earthquake and tsunami devastated parts of Japan and damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station, the U.S. military was able to deploy state-of-the-art maritime capabilities, including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to assess the damage. Similarly, when Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 disappeared in March 2014, the U.S. Navy dispatched a newly arrived P-8A Poseidon aircraft along with a P-3C Orion aircraft to search for the missing plane. The P-8A’s transit speed to the search area was so much higher and its expected fuel burn so much lower, a second P-8A was added to the search in place of the P-3C, allowing for more time spent actively searching. And in December 2014, when AirAsia flight 8501 crashed into the Java Sea, the U.S. Navy was able to quickly dispatch the LCS USS Fort Worth quickly to help search for the wreckage.
Over the longer-term, the Department of Defense is also developing a suite of innovative ideas and capabilities – known as the third offset – to advance U.S. military dominance in the 21st century and ensure the United States can deter adversaries and prevail in conflict, including in maritime Asia. To offset advances in anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) weapons that we see proliferating in maritime Asia and beyond, the Department will identify, develop, and field breakthroughs in cutting-edge technologies and systems – especially in the fields of robotics, autonomous systems, miniaturization, big data, and additive manufacturing, and will draw these together in innovative operational and organizational constructs to ensure freedom of access for United States’ forces in a contested A2/AD environment.
Force Posture
One of the most important efforts the Department of Defense has underway is to enhance our forward presence by bringing our finest capabilities, assets, and people to the Asia- Pacific region. The U.S. military presence has underwritten security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region for more than 60 years. Our forward presence not only serves to deter regional conflict and coercion, it also allows us to respond rapidly to maritime crises. Working in concert with regional allies and partners enables us to respond more effectively to these crises.
The United States maintains 368,000 military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region, of which approximately 97,000 are west of the International Date Line. Over the next five

years, the U.S. Navy will increase the number of ships assigned to Pacific Fleet outside of
U.S. territory by approximately 30 percent, greatly improving our ability to maintain a more regular and persistent maritime presence in the Pacific. And by 2020, 60 percent of naval and overseas air assets will be home-ported in the Pacific region. The Department will also enhance Marine Corps presence by developing a more distributed and sustainable laydown model.
Enhancing our forward presence also involves using existing assets in new ways, across the entire region, with an emphasis on operational flexibility and maximizing the value of
U.S. assets despite the tyranny of distance. This is why the Department is working to develop a more distributed, resilient, and sustainable posture. As part of this effort, the United States will maintain its presence in Northeast Asia, while enhancing defense posture across the Western Pacific, Southeast Asia, and the Indian Ocean.
The cornerstone of our forward presence will continue to be our presence in Japan, where the United States maintains approximately 50,000 military personnel, including the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet and the only forward-stationed Carrier Strike Group in the world, as well as U.S. Marine Corps III Marine Expeditionary Force and significant Air Force assets. DoD is working more closely than ever with our Japanese allies, forward progress that will accelerate in future years under the new revised defense guidelines. In an effort to ensure that this presence is sustainable, we have worked with Japan to develop a new laydown for the U.S. Marine Corps in the Pacific. As a result, the Department of Defense will be able to shift its concentrated presence on Okinawa toward a more distributed model that includes Australia, Hawaii, Guam, and mainland Japan. As part of this program, the Department will develop new training ranges in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to enhance the readiness of our forward forces to respond to regional crises. The footprint associated with this laydown will support the arrival of next-generation capabilities and joint training and readiness in the USPACOM AOR.
Through the bilateral Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with Australia and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the Philippines, the Department will be able to increase our routine and persistent rotational presence in Southeast Asia for expanded training with regional partners. In Australia, the FPA will enable full implementation of the rotational presence for training and access for the U.S. Air Force and a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) of up to 2,500 Marines. Additionally, the Department is on track to achieve its stated goal of simultaneous rotation of 4 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) through Singapore by 2017, which will provide the first persistent
U.S. naval presence in Southeast Asia in more than 20 years.
DoD is also modernizing our maritime presence in Guam, as part of our efforts to develop Guam into a strategic hub for our joint military presence in the region. This includes forward-stationing a fourth attack submarine to Guam this year and deploying the Joint High Speed Vessel by 2018, while making investments in the resilience of the infrastructure supporting these capabilities. Guam is the regional hub for Air Force’s Global Hawk fleet and the Navy will operate the MQ-4C Triton unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicle from Andersen Air Base by 2017. The Air Force continues a program to modernize hangars and other support structures to augment those and other
U.S. military capabilities.
Operations, Exercises, and Training
These efforts to enhance our force posture and presence allow the Department to maintain a higher tempo of routine and persistent maritime presence activities. U.S. Pacific Command maintains a robust shaping presence in and around the South China Sea, with activities ranging from training and exercises with allies and partners to port calls to Freedom of Navigation Operations and other routine operations. They are central to our efforts to dissuade conflict or coercion, preserve the freedom of the seas and our

access to the region, encourage peaceful resolution of maritime disputes and adherence to the rule of law, and to strengthen our relationships with partners and allies.
As part of the Department’s routine presence activities, the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Coast Guard conduct Freedom of Navigation operations. These operational activities serve to protect the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations in international law by challenging the full range of excessive maritime claims asserted by some coastal States in the region. The importance of these operations cannot be overstated. Numerous countries across the Asia-Pacific region assert excessive maritime claims that, if left unchallenged, could restrict the freedom of the seas. These excessive claims include, for example, improperly-drawn straight baselines, improper restrictions on the right of warships to conduct innocent passage through the territorial seas of other States, and the freedom to conduct military activities within the EEZs of other States. Added together, EEZs in the USPACOM region constitute 38 percent of the world’s oceans. If these excessive maritime claims were left unchallenged, they could restrict the ability of the United States and other countries to conduct routine military operations or exercises in more than one-third of the world’s oceans.
Over the past two years, the Department has undertaken an effort to reinvigorate our Freedom of Navigation program, in concert with the Department of State, to ensure that we regularly and consistently challenge excessive maritime claims. For example, in 2013, the Department challenged 19 excessive maritime claims around the world. In 2014, the Department challenged 35 excessive claims – an 84 percent increase. Among those 35 excessive maritime claims challenged in 2014, 19 are located in U.S. Pacific Command’s geographic area of responsibility, and this robust Freedom of Navigation program will continue through 2015 and beyond.
The Department is also pursuing a robust slate of training exercises and engagements with our allies and partners that will allow us to explore new areas of practical bilateral and multilateral maritime security cooperation, build the necessary interoperability to execute multilateral operations, and promote regional trust and transparency. We are increasing the size, frequency, and sophistication of our regional exercise program, with a particular focus on developing new exercises with Southeast Asian partners and expanding our multilateral exercise program. We have also begun incorporating a maritime focus into many of these engagements in order to tailor our training to address regional partners’ evolving requirements.
In Northeast Asia, the Department conducts several regular maritime exercises with Japan and South Korea focusing on enhancing our combined capabilities to counter provocations and manage the changing Northeast Asian security environment. Though its original purpose was to counter special operations forces, the annual bilateral Key Resolve/Foal Eagle exercise with the ROK now includes amphibious operations and anti- submarine warfare in recognition of the importance of the maritime domain in defending South Korea. Similarly, the U.S.-Japan Shin Kame anti-submarine warfare exercise is designed to improve how U.S. and Japanese forces counter diesel submarines, a concern in the region.
In Southeast Asia, the Department is honing an already robust bilateral exercise program with our treaty ally, the Republic of the Philippines, to assist it with establishing a minimum credible defense more effectively. We are conducting more than 400 planned events with the Philippines in 2015, including our premier joint exercise, Balikatan, which this year was the largest and most sophisticated ever. During this year’s Balikatan, more than 15,000 U.S., Philippine, and Australian military personnel exercised operations involving a territorial defense scenario in the Sulu Sea, with personnel from Japan observing.
We are also expanding our maritime engagements with partners like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. In Indonesia, the April 2015 iteration of the Sea Surveillance Exercises

(SEASURVEX) included a flight portion over the South China Sea for the first time, and this past spring, our navies concluded their first tabletop Simulated Submarine Casualty Exercise (SMASHEX). We also established a new joint exercise with Malaysia, which is scheduled to occur for the first time in 2015, and in 2014, the Marine Corps participated in an amphibious exercise with the Malaysian Armed Forces, during which our forces trained side-by-side in eastern Sabah. In Vietnam, we are rapidly growing our maritime training, having recently concluded our sixth-annual Naval Engagement Activity (NEA) in March 2015, a historic five-day engagement that included a full day of at-sea operations. In just six years, our naval cooperation with Vietnam has grown from a simple port visit to multi-day engagements that allow our sailors to develop a better understanding of each other’s operations and procedures.
The Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, hosted since 1971, is the largest international military exercise in the world. The 2014 iteration was the largest on record, with participation from 22 nations, including 49 surface ships, 6 submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California. The exercise’s objectives are to enhance the interoperability of the combined RIMPAC forces as well as to integrate new participants in the employment of multinational command and control at the tactical and operational levels.
In 2014, China participated for the first time in RIMPAC, though at a limited level, and the Department has invited China to portions of the 2016 exercise, at a level similar to its 2014 participation. As the largest naval exercise in the world, RIMPAC provides an opportunity for the United States, China, and countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region to exercise key operational practices and procedures that are essential to ensuring that tactical misunderstandings do not escalate into crises.204

204 Department of Defense, Asia-Pacific Maritime Security Strategy, undated but released August 2015, pp. 20-25.

Appendix C. Joint Concept for Access and
Maneuver in Global Commons (JAM-GC) (Previously Air-Sea Battle)
This appendix provides additional background information Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), previously known as Air-Sea Battle (ASB).

October 10, 2013, Hearing
On October 10, 2013, the Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee held a hearing with several DOD officials as the witnesses that focused to a large degree on the Air-Sea Battle concept.205 One of the witnesses—Rear Admiral Upper Half James G. Foggo III, Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Operations, Plans and Strategy) (N3/N5B)—provided the following overview of ASB in his opening remarks:
So let me begin by answering the question, what is the AirSea Battle concept? The AirSea Battle concept was approved by the Secretary of Defense in 2011. It is designed to assure access to parts of the global commons, those areas of the AirSea, Cyberspace, and Space that no one necessarily owns but which we all depend on such as sea lines of communication.
Our adversaries’ Anti-Access/Area Denial strategies employ a range of military capabilities that impede the free use of these ungoverned spaces. These military capabilities include new generations of cruise, ballistic, air to air, surface to air missiles with improved range, accuracy and lethality that are being produced and proliferated.
Quiet, modern submarines and stealthy fighter aircraft are being procured by many nations while naval mines are being equipped with mobility, discrimination and autonomy. Both space and cyberspace are becoming increasingly important and contested.
Accordingly, AirSea Battle in its concept is intended to defeat such threats to access and provide options to national leaders and military commanders to enable follow-on operations which could include military activities as well as humanitarian assistance and disaster response. In short, it is a new approach to warfare.
The AirSea Battle concept is also about force development in the face of rising technological challenges. We seek to build at the service level a pre-integrated joint force which empowers U.S. combatant commanders, along with allies and partners to engage in ways that are cooperative and networked across multiple domains—the land, maritime, air, space and cyber domains.
And our goal includes continually refining and institutionalizing these practices. When implemented, the AirSea Battle concept will create and codify synergies within and among our services that will enhance our collective war fighting capability and effectiveness.
So that’s, in a nutshell, what the AirSea Battle concept is. But now, what is it not? Sir, you pointed out the AirSea Battle concept is not a strategy—to answer your question on
205 The title of the hearing as posted on the House Armed Services Committee website was: “USAF, USN and USMC Development and Integration of Air/Sea Battle Strategy, Governance and Policy into the Services’ Annual Program, Planning, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) Process.”

the difference between AirLand Battle and the AirSea Battle concept. National or military strategies employs ways and means to a particular and/or end-state, such as deterring conflict, containing conflict or winning conflict.
A concept in contrast is a description of a method or a scheme for employing military capabilities to attain specific objectives at the operational level of war. The overarching objective of the AirSea Battle concept is to gain and maintain freedom of action in the global commons.
The AirSea Battle does not focus on a particular adversary or a region. It is universally applicable across all geographic locations, and by addressing access challenges wherever, however, and whenever we confront them.
I said earlier that the AirSea Battle represents a new approach to warfare. Here’s what I meant by that. Historically, when deterrence fails, it’s our custom to amass large numbers of resources, leverage our allies for a coalition support and base access or over flight and build up an iron mountain of logistics, weapons and troops to apply overwhelming force at a particular space and time of our choosing.
This approach of build up, rehearse and roll back has proven successful from Operation Overlord in the beaches of Normandy in 1944 to Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Middle East. But the 21st Century operating environment is changing. Future generations of American service men and women will not fight their parents’ wars.
And so I’ll borrow a quote from Abraham Lincoln, written in a letter to this House on 1 December, 1862 when he said, “We must think anew, act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves from the past, and then we shall save our country.”
New military approaches are emerging specifically intended to counter our historical methods of projecting power. Adversaries employing such an approach would seek to prevent or deny our ability to aggregate forces by denying us a safe haven from which to build up, rehearse, and roll back.
Anti-Access is defined as an action intended to slow deployment of friendly forces into a theater or cause us to operate from longer distances than preferred. Area Denial impedes friendly operations or maneuver in a theater where access cannot be prevented.
The AirSea Battle concept mitigates the threat of Anti-Access and Area Denial by creating pockets and corridors under our control. The reason conflict in Libya, Operation Odyssey Dawn in 2011, is a good example of this paradigm shift.
Though AirSea Battle was still in development, the fundamental idea of leveraging access in one domain to provide advantage to our forces in another was understood and employed against Libya’s modest Anti-Access/Area Denial capability.
On day one of combat operations, cruise missiles launched from submarines and surface ships in the maritime domain targeted and destroyed Libya’s lethal air defense missile systems; thereby enabling coalition forces to conduct unfettered follow-on strikes and destroy the Libyan Air Force and control the air domain.
Establishing a no-fly zone, key to interdicting hostile regime actions against innocent civilians—and that was our mission, to protect civilians—was effectively accomplished within 48 hours of receiving the execution order from the President. I was the J3 or the operations officer for Admiral Sam Locklear, Commander of Joint Task Force, Odyssey Dawn. And I transitioned from U.S.-led coalition operations to Operation Unified Protector as a taskforce commander for NATO.
During the entire campaign which lasted seven months, NATO reported in its UN After Action Report that there were just under 18,000 sorties flown, employing 7,900 precision guided munitions. That’s a lot. More than 200 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles were used, over half of which came from submarines.

The majority of the Libyan Regime Order of Battle, which included 800 main battle tanks, 2,500 artillery pieces, 2,000 armored personnel carriers, 360 fixed wing fighters and 85 transports were either disabled or destroyed during the campaign.
Not one American boot set foot on the ground; no Americans were killed in combat operations. We lost one F-15 due to mechanical failure but we recovered both pilots safely. Muammar Gaddafi, as you know, was killed by Libyan rebels in October. 2011.
The AirSea Battle Concept, in its classified form, was completed in November 2011, one month later. I provided Admiral Locklear with a copy of the AirSea Battle concept and we reviewed it on a trip to United Kingdom. Upon reading it, I thought back to the Libya campaign plan and I wondered how I might leverage the concepts of AirSea Battle to fight differently, to fight smarter.
Operation Odyssey Dawn accelerated from a non-combatant evacuation operation and humanitarian assistance to kinetic operations in a very short period. There was very little time for build-up and rehearse our forces. To coin a phrase from my boss, this was like a pickup game of basketball. And we relied on the flexibility, innovation and resiliency of the commanders of the forces assigned to the joint taskforce.
The Libyan regime’s Anti Access Area Denial capability was limited as I said. And we were able to overwhelm and defeat it with the tools that we had. But we must prepare for a more stressing environment in the future. AirSea Battle does so, by providing commanders with a range of options, both kinetic and non-kinetic to mitigate or neutralize challenges to access in one or many domains simultaneously.
This is accomplished through development of networked integrated forces capable of attack in-depth to disrupt, destroy and defeat the adversary. And it provides maximum operational advantage to friendly joint and coalition forces. I’m a believer and so are the rest of the flag and general officers here at the table with me.206

DOD Unclassified Summary Released June 2013
On June 3, 2013, DOD released an unclassified summary of the Air-Sea Battle concept.207 The following pages reprint the document.

206 Source: transcript of hearing.
207 Air-Sea Battle Office, Air-Sea Battle[:] Service Collaboration to Address Anti-Access & Area Denial Challenges, May 2013, 12 pp., accessed July 5, 2013, at May-2013.pdf, and at The latter of these two URLs provided a version with a smaller file size. For a DOD announcement of the document’s release, see Jason Kelly, “Overview of the Air-Sea Battle Concept,” Navy Live, June 3, 2013, accessed July 5, 2013, at
DOD officials had discussed the ASB concept in earlier statements; for example:
Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, and General Mark Welsh, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, discussed the ASB concept in a May 16, 2013, blog post; see Jonathan Greenert and Mark Welsh, “Breaking the Kill Chain[:] How to Keep America in the Game When Our Enemies Are Trying to Shut Us Out,” Foreign Policy, May 16, 2013, accessed July 5, 2013, at breaking_the_kill_chain_air_sea_battle.
• General Norton Schwartz, then-Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, discussed the ASB concept in a February 20, 2012, journal article; see Norton A. Schwartz and Jonathan W. Greenert, “Air-Sea Battle, Promoting Stability In An Era of Uncertainty,” The American Interest, February 20, 2012, accessed July 5, 2013, at piece=1212.
• The Air-Sea Battle Office released a statement on the ASB concept on November 9, 2011; see “The Air-Sea Battle Concept Summary,” accessed July 5, 2013, at
(continued…)11-9-2015 9-32-42 AM11-9-2015 9-33-59 AM11-9-2015 9-34-54 AM11-9-2015 9-35-46 AM11-9-2015 9-36-18 AM11-9-2015 9-38-17 AM11-9-2015 9-38-52 AM11-9-2015 9-39-26 AM11-9-2015 9-40-20 AM11-9-2015 9-41-05 AM

11-9-2015 9-41-40 AM

11-9-2015 9-42-25 AM

11-9-2015 9-42-59 AM

11-9-2015 9-43-38 AM

11-9-2015 9-44-25 AM

Press Reports
An August 20, 2012, press report stated that the ASB concept has prompted Navy officials to make significant shifts in the service’s FY2014-FY2018 budget plan, including new investments in ASW, electronic attack and electronic warfare, cyber warfare, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, and the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV (a maritime version of the Global Hawk UAV). The report quoted Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert as saying that the total value of the budget shifts was certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and perhaps in the “low billions” of dollars.208
An August 2, 2012, press report on the ASB concept states:
When President Obama called on the U.S. military to shift its focus to Asia earlier this year, Andrew Marshall, a 91-year-old futurist, had a vision of what to do.
Marshall’s small office in the Pentagon has spent the past two decades planning for a war against an angry, aggressive and heavily armed China.
No one had any idea how the war would start. But the American response, laid out in a concept that one of Marshall’s longtime proteges dubbed “Air-Sea Battle,” was clear.
Stealthy American bombers and submarines would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems located deep inside the country. The initial “blinding campaign” would be followed by a larger air and naval assault.
The concept, the details of which are classified, has angered the Chinese military and has been pilloried by some Army and Marine Corps officers as excessively expensive. Some Asia analysts worry that conventional strikes aimed at China could spark a nuclear war.
Air-Sea Battle drew little attention when U.S. troops were fighting and dying in large numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the military’s decade of battling insurgencies is ending, defense budgets are being cut, and top military officials, ordered to pivot toward Asia, are looking to Marshall’s office for ideas.
In recent months, the Air Force and Navy have come up with more than 200 initiatives they say they need to realize Air-Sea Battle. The list emerged, in part, from war games conducted by Marshall’s office and includes new weaponry and proposals to deepen cooperation between the Navy and the Air Force….
Even as it has embraced Air-Sea Battle, the Pentagon has struggled to explain it without inflaming already tense relations with China. The result has been an information vacuum that has sown confusion and controversy.
Senior Chinese military officials warn that the Pentagon’s new effort could spark an arms race….
Privately, senior Pentagon officials concede that Air-Sea Battle’s goal is to help U.S. forces weather an initial Chinese assault and counterattack to destroy sophisticated radar and missile systems built to keep U.S. ships away from China’s coastline.
Their concern is fueled by the steady growth in China’s defense spending, which has increased to as much as $180 billion a year, or about one-third of the Pentagon’s budget, and China’s increasingly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea.
208 Christopher J. Castelli, “CNO: Air-Sea Battle Driving Acceleration Of Key Programs In POM-14,” Inside the Navy, August 20, 2012. POM-14 is the Program Objective Memorandum (an internal DOD budget-planning document) for the FY2014 DOD budget.

“We want to put enough uncertainty in the minds of Chinese military planners that they would not want to take us on,” said a senior Navy official overseeing the service’s modernization efforts. “Air-Sea Battle is all about convincing the Chinese that we will win this competition.”
Inside the Pentagon, the Army and Marine Corps have mounted offensives against the concept, which could lead to less spending on ground combat.
An internal assessment, prepared for the Marine Corps commandant and obtained by The Washington Post, warns that “an Air-Sea Battle-focused Navy and Air Force would be preposterously expensive to build in peace time” and would result in “incalculable human and economic destruction” if ever used in a major war with China.
The concept, however, aligns with Obama’s broader effort to shift the U.S. military’s focus toward Asia and provides a framework for preserving some of the Pentagon’s most sophisticated weapons programs, many of which have strong backing in Congress.209
An April 2012 press report that provides a historical account of the ASB concept states: “In truth, the Air Sea Battle Concept is the culmination of a strategy fight that began nearly two decades ago inside the Pentagon and U.S. government at large over how to deal with a single actor: the People’s Republic of China.”210 A November 10, 2011, press report states:
Military officials from the three services told reporters during a [November 9, 2011, DOD] background briefing that the concept is not directed at a single country. But they did not answer when asked what country other than China has developed advanced anti- access arms.
A senior Obama administration official was more blunt, saying the new concept is a significant milestone signaling a new Cold War-style approach to China.
“Air Sea Battle is to China what the [U.S. Navy’s mid-1980s] maritime strategy was to the Soviet Union,” the official said.
During the Cold War, U.S. naval forces around the world used a strategy of global presence and shows of force to deter Moscow’s advances.
“It is a very forward-deployed, assertive strategy that says we will not sit back and be punished,” the senior official said. “We will initiate.”
The concept, according to defense officials, grew out of concerns that China’s new precision-strike weapons threaten freedom of navigation in strategic waterways and other global commons.
Defense officials familiar with the concept said among the ideas under consideration are:
• Building a new long-range bomber.
• Conducting joint submarine and stealth aircraft operations.
• New jointly operated, long-range unmanned strike aircraft with up to 1,000-mile ranges.
• Using Air Force forces to protect naval bases and deployed naval forces.
• Conducting joint Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force strikes inside China.
209 Greg Jaffe, “Real Tensions Over A Theoretical War,” Washington Post, August 2, 2012: 1.
210 Bill Gertz, “China’s High-Tech Military Threat and What We’re Doing About It,” Commentary, April 2012: 15-21. The quoted passage is from page 16. See also Yoichi Kato, “Japan’s Response to New U.S. Defense Strategy: “Welcome, But … ” Asahi Shimbun, March 9, 2012, accessed online at politics/AJ201203090025.

• Using Air Force aircraft to deploy sea mines.
• Joint Air Force and Navy attacks against Chinese anti-satellite missiles inside China.
• Increasing the mobility of satellites to make attacks more difficult.
• Launching joint Navy and Air Force cyber-attacks on Chinese anti-access forces.211
An October 12, 2011, press report states that
The Pentagon is engaged in a behind-the-scenes political fight over efforts to soften, or entirely block, a new military-approved program to bolster U.S. forces in Asia.
The program is called the Air Sea Battle concept and was developed in response to more than 100 war games since the 1990s that showed U.S. forces, mainly air and naval power, are not aligned to win a future war with China.
A senior defense official said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is reviewing the new strategy.
“We want to do this right,” the official said. “The concept is on track and is being refined to ensure that we are able to implement it wherever we need to—including in the Asia- Pacific region, where American force projection is essential to our alliances and interests.”
The official noted that the program is “the product of unprecedented collaboration by the services.”
Pro-defense Members of Congress aware of the political fight are ready to investigate. One aide said Congress knows very little about the concept and is awaiting details.
Officially, the Pentagon has said the new strategy is not directed at China.
But officials familiar with the classified details said it is designed to directly address the growing threat to the United States and allies in Asia posed by what the Pentagon calls China’s “anti-access” and “area denial” weapons—high-technology arms that China has been building in secret for the past several decades….
The U.S. response in the Air Sea Battle concept is said to be a comprehensive program to protect the “global commons” used by the United States and allies in Asia from Chinese military encroachment in places such as the South China Sea, western Pacific and areas of Northeast Asia.
The highly classified program, if approved in its current form, will call for new weapons and bases, along with non-military means. Plans for new weapons include a long-range bomber.
Other systems and elements of the program are not known….
However, defense officials said China’s government was alerted to some aspects of the concept earlier this year when the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank presented its own concept for a new warfighting strategy against China.
Andrew Krepinevich, the center’s director who recently left the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, could not be reached for comment.
As a result of the disclosure, China launched a major propaganda and influence campaign to derail it. The concept was raised in several meetings between Chinese and U.S. officials, with the Chinese asserting that the concept is a sign the Pentagon does not favor military relations and views China as an enemy.
211 Bill Gertz, “Battle Concept Signals Cold War Posture On China,” Washington Times, November 10, 2011: 13.

Officials in the Obama administration who fear upsetting China also are thought to have intervened, and their opposition led Mr. Panetta to hold up final approval.
The final directive in its current form would order the Air Force and the Navy to develop and implement specific programs as part of the concept. It also would include proposals for defense contractors to support the concept.212
An October 2011 magazine article stated:
AirSea Battle emerged from a memorandum between the air and sea services in 2009. The Air Force and Navy realized sophisticated threats involving high technology, networked air defenses, modern ballistic missile, and sea and air capabilities, and anti- space weapons required the services to marry up many of their respective strengths. The plan, which has received a great amount of attention since the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, mandated the creation of an operations concept to protect US and allied access to certain areas in the world while also protecting forward-based assets and bases….
Both services are said to be fully on board with the plan, and to weed out duplication, officers from each branch have been cleared to see “all the black programs,” or classified projects, of the other service as the ASB plan has matured….
The plan had been vetted by both services by June [2011], and is awaiting blessing from the Office of the Secretary of Defense…. Service officials have been predicting a formal release of more information on the doctrine for months as well.
As early as Feb. 17 [2011], Lt. Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements, had said a public document explaining the outlines of ASB in detail would occur “possibly within two weeks.” The now-retired Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told reporters in Washington in March he expected to release details on ASB in “a few weeks,” as the service Chiefs of the Marines Corps, USAF, and Navy were “basically done” with their work on the concept. The majority of the plan will remain classified, he added, “as it should be.”213
A sidebar to this magazine article stated:
The AirSea Battle rollout was repeatedly delayed over the course of 2011. According to Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials, new Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta is reviewing the ASB plan—a sort of executive summary of the overall operations concept (which, as of early September, remains classified).
However, then-Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, now the CNO, told the House Armed Services Committee in late July he expected a release of unclassified portions of the plan soon.
The AirSea Battle concept was signed by the USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps service Chiefs, and the Air Force and Navy Secretaries on June 2 and “forwarded to the [Secretary of Defense] for approval,” the Air Force said in a brief official statement Aug. 2.
Previous Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who departed July 1, had the document in his possession and had told senior Air Force officials he would sign it before his departure. In late July, however, Air Force and DOD officials privately indicated the concept was held up in OSD’s policy shop, and Gates did not sign the document before leaving the Pentagon.
212 Bill Gertz, “Inside the Ring,” Washington Times, October 12, 2011 (item entitled “Air Sea Battle Fight”).
213 Marc V. Schanz, “AirSea Battle’s Turbulent Year,” Air Force Magazine, October 2011: 32-33.

Air Force and defense officials have indicated both publicly and privately that there are strong international political considerations at play. Spin “concern” has likely contributed to the delay in officially rolling out the AirSea Battle concept. In late July, USAF officials privately indicated that there is a great deal of concern within OSD about how China will perceive and react to the concept.214
A September 29, 2011, press report on a reported new DOD Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) document quoted “a senior defense official” as stating: “It seems clear that there will be increased emphasis on [the] AirSea Battle approach going forward.”215
A July 26, 2011, press report, stated:
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is reviewing an Air Force-Navy battle concept that was ordered by the Pentagon last year in response to China’s military buildup and Iran’s advanced weapons, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said today.
The Navy and Air Force have submitted to Panetta the equivalent of an executive summary of the battle concept with the intent to release unclassified portions within weeks, depending on Panetta’s reaction, Greener told a House Armed Services readiness panel and a Bloomberg News reporter after the hearing.
The plan aims to combine the strengths of the Navy and Air Force to enable long-range strikes. It may employ a new generation of bombers, a new cruise missile and drones launched from aircraft carriers. The Navy also is increasing funding to develop new unmanned submarines.216
A June 10, 2011, press report stated that “while defense officials publicly insist that the military’s new AirSea Battle concept, a study meant to reshape the way the U.S. military fights future wars, is not focused on China, one Navy team is quietly contradicting their claims. The group, called the China Integration Team, is hard at work applying the lessons of the study to a potential conflict with China, say sources familiar with the effort.” The report also stated that “though sources familiar with the study have said that the first draft of the concept has been completed, those same sources highlighted that the project is ongoing—something that official spokesmen have stressed as well.”217 A January 10, 2011, press report stated that “the AirSea Battle concept study, meant to outline the future of Navy and Air Force operations in anti-access environments, is near completion and is being briefed to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley this month, according to sources familiar with the study.”218
214 “An ASB Summer,” Air Force Magazine, October 2011: 33.
215 Christopher J. Castelli, “DOD Aims To Boost Investment In Capabilities For Major-Power War,” Inside the Pentagon, September 29, 2011.
216 Tony Capaccio, “Panetta Reviewing Air-Sea Battle Plan Summary, Greenert Says,” Bloomberg News, July 26, 2011.
217 Andrew Burt and Christopher J. Castelli, “Despite Improved Ties, China Weighs Heavily In Pentagon’s War Planning,” Inside the Navy, June 13, 2011.
218 Andrew Burt, “Final AirSea Study Being Briefed To Mabus And Donley This Month,” Inside the Navy, January 10, 2011. See also David Fulghum, “Money Walks? Service Leaders Fight to Explain, Justify AirSea Battle Strategy,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, June 4/11, 2012: 71; Philip DuPree and Jordan Thomas, “Air-Sea Battle: Clearing the Fog,” Armed Forces Journal, June 2012; John Callaway, “The Operational Art of Air-Sea Battle,” Center for International Maritime Security (, July 18, 2014.

Appendix D. 2012 Article on Navy’s Rebalancing
Toward Asia-Pacific
This appendix presents the text of a November 14, 2012, article by Admiral Jonathan Greenert, then Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), on Navy activities associated with the U.S. strategic rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific. The article states:
Our nation’s security priorities, and our military, are in transition. In the Middle East, we ended the war in Iraq and are reducing ground troops in Afghanistan with the shift of security responsibilities to Kabul. At home we are reassessing our military’s size and composition as we seek to align our spending with our resources. And around the world we face a range of new security challenges, from continued upheaval in the Arab world to the imperative of sustaining our leadership in the Asia-Pacific. These challenges place a premium on the flexibility and small ground footprint of naval forces, which are being deployed longer and more often to advance our nation’s interests.
The Department of Defense’s January 2012 strategic guidance, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership – Priorities for 21st Century Defense, addressed this new environment and our security priorities in it. Overall, the strategy focuses on important regions and current readiness and agility, while accepting reduced capacity and level of effort in less critical missions. In particular, the strategy directed that our military rebalance toward the Asia- Pacific while continuing to support our partners in the Middle East. Naval forces will be at the heart of both efforts.
After two decades of ground conflict in the Middle East, our security concerns and ability to project power in the region both center on the sea. U.S. ground forces continue to draw down in Afghanistan and around the region, so our commanders increasingly rely on naval aircraft to support and protect troops. Meanwhile, Iranian leaders speak provocatively about impacting maritime traffic throughout the Arabian Gulf. In response, we turned to maritime forces, doubling our minesweeping forces in the Gulf and deploying an additional carrier strike group to the region.
The focus of our rebalance, the Asia-Pacific, is fundamentally a maritime region. Our friends there depend on the sea for their food and energy, while more than 90 percent of trade by volume makes its way through the region over the water. Maritime security for Pacific nations is a matter of economic survival. Militarily, the vast maritime distances in the region make access via the sea essential to deterring and defeating aggression. Our fleet deployed in the Asia-Pacific will exploit the mobility of being at sea to project power against aggressors and avoid attacks, while their reinforcements and supplies will arrive via the ocean from the United States or regional bases.
The importance of the Asia-Pacific, and the Navy’s attention to it, is not new. Five of our seven treaty allies are in the region, as well as six of the world’s top 20 economies. We have maintained an active and robust presence in the Asia-Pacific for more than 70 years and built deep and enduring relationships with allies and partners there. While we remain present and engaged in the Middle East to address today’s challenges, the Navy will build on its longstanding Asia-Pacific focus by rebalancing in four main ways: deploying more forces to the Asia-Pacific; basing more ships and aircraft in the region; fielding new capabilities focused on Asia-Pacific challenges; and developing partnerships and intellectual capital across the region.
Deploying more forces to the Asia-Pacific
The most visible element of our rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region will be an increase in day-to-day military presence. Although it is not the only way we are rebalancing, forces operating in the region show our commitment to the Asia-Pacific and

provide a full-time capability to support our allies and partners. About half of the deployed fleet is in the Pacific—50 ships on any given day. These ships and their embarked Marines and aircraft train with our allies and partners, reinforce freedom of navigation, and deter conflict. They are also the “first responders” to large-scale crises such as the Great East Asian Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011.
The long distance between the continental United States and Asia makes it inefficient to rotate ships and aircraft overseas for six to nine months at a time. To avoid this transit time and build greater ties with our partners and allies, more than 90 percent of our forces in the Asia-Pacific are there permanently or semi-permanently. For example, about half of our 50 deployed ships are permanently home-ported in Japan and Guam along with their crews and families. Our logistics and support ships use rotating civilian or military crews to obtain more presence for the same number of ships.
Although we plan to reduce our future budgets, the Navy will continue to increase its presence in the Asia-Pacific region. The benchmark year of the Defense Strategic Guidance is 2020, and by then the Navy Fleet will grow to approximately 295 ships. This, combined with the impacts of our plans for operations and basing, will increase the day-to-day naval presence in the Asia-Pacific by about 20 percent, to 60 ships by 2020. In addition to growing the fleet, three factors will allow us to increase the number of ships in the Asia-Pacific by 2020:
First, we will permanently base four destroyers in Rota, Spain over the next several years to help defend our European allies from ballistic missiles. Today we do this mission with 10 destroyers that travel in rotation to the Mediterranean from the United States. The six destroyers freed up in the process will then be able to rotationally deploy to the Asia- Pacific.
Second, new Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) and Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) under construction today will enter the fleet and take on security cooperation and humanitarian assistance missions in South America and Africa, allowing the destroyers and amphibious ships we use today for those missions to deploy to the Asia-Pacific. These amphibious ships will begin deploying instead to the Asia-Pacific in the next few years to support Marine operations, including those from Darwin, Australia. Additionally, the new JHSV and LCS are also better suited to the needs of our partners in Africa and South America.
Third, we will field more ships that spend the majority of their time forward by using rotating civilian or military crews. These include the JHSV, LCS, and our new Mobile Landing Platforms and Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSB).
In addition to more ship presence in the Asia-Pacific, we will increase our deployments of aircraft there and expand cooperative air surveillance operations with regional partners. Today we fly cooperative missions from Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand, where we build our shared awareness of activities on the sea by either bringing partner personnel on board or sharing the surveillance information with them. We may expand these operations in the future to new partners concerned about threats from piracy, trafficking, and fisheries violations. To expand our surveillance capacity, the Navy version of the MQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned air vehicle will operate from Guam when it enters the fleet in the middle of this decade.
Basing more ships and aircraft in the region
To support our increased presence in the Asia-Pacific, we will grow the fraction of ships and aircraft based on the U.S. West Coast and in the Pacific from today’s 55 percent to 60 percent by 2020. This distribution will allow us to continue to meet the needs of Europe, South America, and West Africa while more efficiently providing additional presence and capacity in the Asia-Pacific.

Each ship that operates from an overseas port provides full-time presence and engagement in the region and delivers more options for Combatant Commanders and political leaders. It also frees up ships that would otherwise be needed to support a rotational deployment. Today, we have about two dozen ships home-ported in Guam and Japan. In 2013, with the USS Freedom, we will begin operating Littoral Combat Ships from Singapore, eventually growing to four ships by 2017. The LCS will conduct maritime security operations with partner navies throughout Southeast Asia and instead of rotationally deploying to the region, the ships will stay overseas and their crews will rotate in from the United States, increasing the presence delivered by each ship.
Fielding new capabilities focused on Asia-Pacific challenges
We will also bolster the capabilities we send to the Asia-Pacific. Using the approach described in the Air-Sea Battle concept and in concert with the U.S. Air Force, we will sustain our ability to project power in the face of access challenges such as cruise and ballistic missiles, submarines, and sophisticated anti-air weapons. Air-Sea Battle’s operations to disrupt, destroy, and defeat anti-access threats will be essential to maintain the credibility of our security commitments and ability to deter aggression around the world. Our improved capabilities will span the undersea, surface, and air environments.
The Navy’s dominance in the undersea domain provides the United States a significant advantage over potential adversaries. Our undersea capabilities enable strike and anti- surface warfare in otherwise denied areas and exploit the relative lack of capability of our potential adversaries at anti-submarine warfare. We will sustain our undersea advantage in part through continued improvements in our own anti-submarine warfare capability, such as replacing the 1960s-era P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft with the longer range and greatly improved sensors of the P-8A Poseidon.
We will also field improved platforms and systems that exploit the undersea domain for power projection and surveillance. In the coming years, newer, multi-mission Virginia- class submarines with dramatically improved sensors and combat systems will continue to replace aging Los Angeles-class submarines. With their conversion from Cold War-era ballistic missile submarines, our four Ohio-class guided missile submarines (SSGN) are now our most significant power projection platforms. During Operation Unified Protector, USS Florida launched over 100 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan air defenses to help establish a “no-fly” zone. When she and her counterparts retire in the mid 2020s, the Virginia-class submarine “payload module” will replace their striking capacity with the ability to carry up to 40 precision-strike cruise missiles, unmanned vehicles, or a mix of other payloads.
Improved sensors and new unmanned systems allow us to augment the reach and persistence of manned submarines, and are essential to our continued domination of the undersea environment. These unmanned vehicles will enhance the persistence of undersea sensing, and expand its reach into confined and shallow waters that are currently inaccessible to other systems. This will enable detection of threats, for example, to undersea infrastructure.
But undersea forces have limited effectiveness at visible, day-to-day missions such as security cooperation, humanitarian assistance, missile defense, and freedom of navigation. Surface ships will continue to conduct these operations and show our presence in the Asia-Pacific. Our surface fleet and embarked personnel will continue to be the most versatile element of the naval force, building partner capacity and improving security in peacetime and transitioning to sea control and power projection in conflict.

Their credibility and their ability to execute these missions depends on their ability to defeat improving threats, especially anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM).
We will defeat ASCMs at long range using an integrated fire control system that combines the proven Aegis weapon system and upgraded airborne early warning aircraft with new long-range anti-air missiles on cruisers and destroyers. To defeat ASCMs at short range, the Navy is upgrading point-defense missiles and electronic warfare systems to destroy incoming missiles or cause them to miss by deceiving and jamming their seekers.
Navy forces will defeat ASBMs by countering each link in the operational chain of events required for an adversary to find, target, launch, and complete an attack on a ship with a ballistic missile. The Navy is fielding new systems that jam, decoy, or confuse the wide-area surveillance systems needed to find and target ships at long range. To shoot down an ASBM once launched, the fleet will employ the Aegis ballistic missile defense system and SM-3 missile. And, to prevent an ASBM from completing an attack, the Navy is fielding new missiles and electronic warfare systems over the next several years that will destroy, jam, or decoy the ASBM warhead as it approaches the ship.
To improve the ability of surface forces to project power, we will field new long-range surface-to-surface missiles aboard cruisers and destroyers in the next decade and improve our ability to send troops ashore as new San Antonio-class amphibious ships replace their smaller and less-capable 30-year-old predecessors over the next two years.
The Navy and Air Force will improve their integrated ability to defeat air threats and project power in the face of improving surveillance and air defense systems. This evolution involves the blending of new and existing technology and the complementary use of electronic warfare, stealth, and improved, longer-range munitions. The carrier air wing in Japan recently finished upgrading to F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet strike fighters with improved jamming and sensor systems and the new E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft. This air wing will also be the first to incorporate the F-35C Lightning II, which will enable new operational concepts that combine the F-35C’s stealth and sensor capability with the payload capacity of the F/A-18 E/F to project power against the most capable air defense systems.
Developing partnerships and intellectual capital
Perhaps most importantly, rebalancing the Navy’s emphasis toward the Asia-Pacific region includes efforts to expand and mature our partnerships and establish greater intellectual focus on Asia-Pacific security challenges.
First, we are increasing the depth and breadth of our alliances and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific. Our relationships in the region are the reason for our engagement there and are the foundation of our rebalanced national security efforts. Our connection with Asia- Pacific allies starts at the top. Our naval headquarters and command facilities are integrated with those of Japan and South Korea and we are increasing the integration of our operating forces by regularly conducting combined missions in areas including anti- submarine warfare and ballistic missile defense. We are also establishing over the next year a headquarters in Singapore for our ships that will operate there.
We build our relationships with operational experience. The Navy conducts more than 170 exercises and 600 training events there every year with more than 20 allies and partners—and the number of events and partners continues to grow. Our 2012 Rim of the Pacific Exercise, or “RIMPAC,” was the world’s largest international maritime exercise, involving more than 40 ships and submarines, 200 aircraft, and more than 25,000 sailors from two dozen Asia-Pacific countries. This year RIMPAC included several new

partners, such as Russia and India. It also incorporated naval officers from Canada, Australia, and Chile as leaders of exercise task forces. Like our other exercises, RIMPAC practices a range of operations, building partner capacity in missions such as maritime security and humanitarian assistance while enhancing interoperability with allies in sophisticated missions such as anti-submarine and surface warfare and missile defense.
Second, we are refocusing attention on the Asia-Pacific in developing and deploying our intellectual talent. The Naval War College is the nation’s premier academic center on the region and continues to grow its programs on Asian security, while the Naval Postgraduate School expanded its programs devoted to developing political and technical expertise relevant to the Asia-Pacific. We continue to carefully screen and send our most talented people to operate and command ships and squadrons in the Asia-Pacific.
Third, as described above, the Navy is sharpening its focus on military capabilities needed in the Asia-Pacific. Most important is the ability to assure access, given the distances involved in the region and our treaty alliances there. Having a credible ability to maintain operational access is critical to our security commitments in the region and the diplomatic and economic relationships those commitments underpin. We are developing the doctrine, training and know-how to defeat access threats such as submarines and cruise and ballistic missiles through our Air-Sea Battle concept. With Air-Sea Battle, we are pulling together the intellectual effort in needed areas, including intelligence and surveillance, cyber operations, anti-submarine warfare, ballistic missile defense, air defense, and electronic warfare. The Air-Sea Battle Office leads this effort with more than a dozen personnel representing each military service.
Our credibility in these missions rests on the proficiency our forces deployed every day in the Asia-Pacific. We increased our live-fire training in air defense and in surface and anti-submarine warfare by more than 50 percent, and expanded the number and sophistication of training events we conduct in theater with our partners and allies. For example, in RIMPAC 2012, U.S. allies and partners shot 26 torpedoes and more than 50 missiles from aircraft and ships against a range of targets and decommissioned ships.
A Global Fleet
Even as we rebalance to the Asia-Pacific, the Navy will remain engaged around the world. We will maintain our presence to deter and respond to aggression in support of our partners in the Middle East. In Europe we will build our alliance relationships. Our basing of ballistic missile defense destroyers to Spain is part of this effort, as an element of the overall European Phased Adaptive Approach. The home-porting of U.S. ships in Europe will yield greater opportunities for integration with European forces as well.
In South America and Africa we will shift, as the Defense Strategic Guidance directs, to “innovative, low-cost approaches,” including JHSV, AFSB, and LCS. In contrast to our approach today, which is to send the destroyers and amphibious ships we have when available, these new ships will be better suited to operations in these regions and will be available full-time thanks to their rotational crews.
The Asia-Pacific will become increasingly important to our national prosperity and security. It is home to the world’s largest and most dynamic economies, growing reserves of natural resources, and emerging security concerns. Naval forces, with their mobility and relevance in peacetime and conflict, are uniquely poised to address these challenges and opportunities and sustain our leadership in the region. With our focus on partnerships and innovative approaches, including new ships, forward homeporting, and rotational crewing, the Navy can rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific while being judicious with the nation’s resources. We will grow our fleet in the Asia-Pacific, rebalance our basing, improve our capabilities, and focus intellectually on the region. This will sustain our

credibility to deter aggression, preserve freedom of maritime access, and protect the economic livelihood of America and our friends.219
Author Contact Information

Ronald O’Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs, 7-7610
Jonathan Greenert, “Sea Change, The Navy Pivots to Asia,” Foreign Policy (, November 14, 2012


Using a foreign policy of tyranny our United States Corporation kills two birds with one stone buy spending us into further debt so the Banking Cartel is justified when they foreclose on us. Our existing debt is impossible to ever pay off, and any further debt is really unnecessary. But they do love to rub it in! Pray that there are enough patriots left in the Military to rid the world of these unspeakable tyrants, and the people come together and rebuild America around a fireproof Constitution. Unless the majority of a country is going in the same direction, the people will soon be scattered and disillusioned. Diversity in theology equals pandemonium.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM


Does U. S. Russia Military Movements Signal War In Syria Soon?


11-7-2015 3-17-30 PM

By Brandon Turbeville

Over the last few years, the world has witnessed the gradual positioning on the Grand Chessboard by the United States, NATO, and Russian forces in the Middle East, most notably in Syria. The aggressive push by the U.S. to overthrow Assad and destroy a Syrian government capable of resisting the will of the Anglo-American powers resulted in a defensive Russian response that soon morphed into an out-maneuvering of Washington on the Syrian front. However, the West is not ready to take its ball and go home just yet and it has now mounted yet another escalation in Syria.

In the past several days, a number of announcements have been made by both the United States and Russia suggesting that we are now witnessing more than a mere placement of chess pieces on the board but the forward motion to some greater confrontation between two nuclear superpowers.
Throughout most of the Syrian crisis, the situation was one of semi-covert proxy war. However, with recent developments the situation is now more of semi-open conflict between the United States and Russia.

For instance, the potential for direct military conflict between the two superpowers became a much greater possibility earlier in the month when Russia “announced” that it was sending a number of Special Forces soldiers to Syria. The Wall Street Journal has since tried to represent these troops as having been transferred from Eastern Ukraine, a claim backed up by an anonymous “Russian official.” However, while it is clear that Russia is indeed operating via Special Forces in Ukraine, the likelihood that a loyal “Russian official” would reveal such sensitive information to the U.S. media is highly suspect.

Regardless, it was reported by Chris Hughes of the UK Daily Mirror in early October that Russia’s Spetsnaz unit were being moved to Syria in order to combat ISIS and other assorted “relatively moderate cannibals” and it is certainly within the realm of possibility and reasonable military strategy that Russian Special Forces have been deployed to Syria. Russia has officially denied the presence of Special Forces troops in Syria for the record.

The United States, however, is not even attempting to deny the presence of U.S. Special Forces troops in Syria and instead is advertising the plan publicly. Last week, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would be deploying 50 US Special Forces troops to Syria under the guise of “fighting ISIS” and engaging in “aid and assist” missions with forces fighting ISIS and ostensibly the Syrian government.
Of course, US Special Forces have long been active in Syria. From taking place in direct combat support missions for terrorist actors to logistical organization and spotting maneuvers, Special Forces have been having an a cogent effect on the ability of terrorist forces to mount militarily sound attacks on government held positions for some time.

According to Sputnik, these Special Forces are not only operating far afield in the East where ISIS and “relatively moderate cannibals” have a tight grip on territory, they are operating in the West, where the Syrian government is the dominant force and where the Russian military is assisting in the mop up of terrorists most heavily. Sputnik reports,

US military advisors are alleged to have started training so-called moderate rebels near the city of Salma in the Latakia province in what amounts to breaking a pledge not to put US boots on the ground in Syria, Lebanon’s satellite television channel al-Mayadeen reported, citing an unnamed military source.
If the reports, attributed to an “unnamed Lebanese source,” are to be believed, then US Special Forces are right in the middle of some of the heaviest fighting between Syrian government/Russian military/PDF and Western-backed terrorists.

On November 4, Reuters reported that Russian military personnel stationed in Syria now numbers around 4,000.

All of this taken together suggests that there is a very real possibility that the United States and Russia will soon see an escalation from semi-covert proxy war via terrorists and Syrian government forces (though one can hardly call Assad’s forces proxies for Russia) to open conflict between U.S. and Russian Special Forces on the ground.

The question then becomes “what will happen if Russian Special Forces engage in combat against terrorists supported by and embedded with U.S. Special Forces?” How far will this conflict escalate? Will the Americans respond? Will the Russians and the Americans being firing on one another?
Indeed, if the United States commits itself to stay the course until the conflict is brought to an end, a confrontation between the two forces is almost inevitable since the Russian goal is to secure the territory currently held by the Assad government before moving East.
And then there is the air component.
The Air Component

While the United States has been bombing Syrian civilian infrastructure and, apparently, empty spaces and desert sand, the Russians have launched a brilliant move of bombing actually aimed at terrorists on the ground. The results are stunning. Only a few weeks of Russian airstrikes have revealed that, when an air force actually bombs ISIS, ISIS can be defeated. So far, the parallel bombing campaigns have taken place without a clash between Russian and American pilots. However, many have been wondering since the start of the Russian bombing just how long this period of conflict avoidance will continue?

After all, if the Russians continue to bomb terrorists in Syria and the Americans continue to bomb in support of them, particularly in terms of setting up a “No-Fly Zone,” then a clash is virtually inevitable. That is, unless someone gives way and backs down. The Russians are not likely to do so because, in addition to the moral high ground on this issue, Russia is acting in strategic self-defense. To back down now would mean to ensure an even more aggressive attack on Russian interests and Russia itself in the very near future.

The United States, despite being the aggressor and in clear violation of international law as well as having the most leeway in terms of being able to back down respectably, is aware that if it does so its terrorist proxies will be wiped off the Syrian map and its onslaught against the Syrian government, Syrian people, and Russia will have been routed. Of course, this assumes that the United States truly wants to avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia to begin with, an idea that is not necessarily guaranteed.
Signs that the U.S. and Russia may soon be fighting one another over the skies of Syria recently appeared with the announcement that the United States will be deploying around a dozen fighter jets designed specifically for air-to-air combat – essentially dogfights – to Syria. Since ISIS has no air force, one can only assume that the jets are there to combat other fighter jets belonging to Assad and Russia. As The Daily Beast reports,

The U.S. Air Force is deploying to Turkey up to a dozen jet fighters specializing in air-to-air combat—apparently to help protect other U.S. and allied jets from Russia’s own warplanes flying over Syria.
Officially, the deployment of F-15C Eagle twin-engine fighters to Incirlik, Turkey—which the Pentagon announced late last week—is meant to “ensure the safety” of America’s NATO allies, Laura Seal, a Defense Department spokesperson, told The Daily Beast.

That could mean that the single-seat F-15s and the eight air-to-air missiles they routinely carry will help the Turkish air force patrol Turkey’s border with Syria, intercepting Syrian planes and helicopters that periodically stray into Turkish territory.

But more likely, the F-15s will be escorting attack planes and bombers as they strike ISIS militants in close proximity to Syrian regime forces and the Russian warplanes that, since early October, have bombed ISIS and U.S.-backed rebels fighting the Syrian troops. [emphasis added]
In other words, the planes will be used to fight planes that are actually fighting ISIS. Even the notoriously deceptive Daily Beast was forced to report on the fact that these planes are indeed being deployed for the purpose of staving off Russian fighter jets. It reports,
Seal declined to discuss the deployment in detail, but hinted at its true purpose. “I didn’t say it wasn’t about Russia,” she said.

Russia’s air wing in western Syria is notable for including several Su-30 fighters that are primarily air-to-air fighters. The Su-30s’ arrival in Syria raised eyebrows, as Moscow insists its forces are only fighting ISIS, but ISIS has no aircraft of its own for the Su-30s to engage.
The F-15s the U.S. Air Force is sending to Turkey will be the first American warplanes in the region that are strictly aerial fighters. The other fighters, attack planes and bombers the Pentagon has deployed—including F-22s, F-16s, A-10s and B-1s—carry bombs and air-to-ground missiles and have focused on striking militants on the ground.

In stark contrast, the F-15s only carry air-to-air weaponry, and their pilots train exclusively for shooting down enemy warplanes. It’s worth noting that F-15Cs have never deployed to Afghanistan, nor did they participate in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. The war in Syria is different. [emphasis added]
It should be noted that, of the two parties, only the Russians are acting legally since Russia was invited in to Syria by the Syrian government while the United States is acting in violation of national sovereignty and international law as an aggressor.

Regardless, the recent U.S. escalation has now placed the world in a precarious position where two nuclear powers are acting in such close proximity to one another militarily that one trigger happy pilot or even one trigger happy soldier could now plunge the globe into a nuclear holocaust.

It is precisely this that the American people must begin to mobilize against before it is too late for us all.

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at)


It looks to me like the dirt bag war mongers in DC are going to put America in an economic collapse so the Banking Cartel can stick it in our ass with their ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Obuma must be having continuous orgasms.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

Is Washington Preparing For World War III?


Submitted by Tyler Durden
Submitted by Patrick Martin via,
The US military-intelligence complex is engaged in systematic preparations for World War III. As far as the Pentagon is concerned, a military conflict with China and/or Russia is inevitable, and this prospect has become the driving force of its tactical and strategic planning.

Three congressional hearings Tuesday demonstrated this reality. In the morning, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a lengthy hearing on cyberwarfare. In the afternoon, a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee discussed the present size and deployment of the US fleet of aircraft carriers, while another subcommittee of the same panel discussed the modernization of US nuclear weapons.
We will provide a more detailed account of these hearings, which were attended by a WSWS reporter. But certain preliminary observations can be made.

None of the hearings discussed the broader implications of the US preparations for war, or what a major war between nuclear-armed powers would mean for the survival of the human race, and even of life on our planet. On the contrary, the hearings were examples of what might be called the routinization of World War III. A US war with China and/or Russia was taken as given, and the testimony of witnesses and questions from senators and representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike, concerned the best methods for prevailing in such a conflict.

The hearings were component parts of an ongoing process. The witnesses referred to their past writings and statements. The senators and representatives referred to previous testimony by other witnesses. In other words, the preparations for world war, using cyber weapons, aircraft carriers, bombers, missiles and the rest of a vast array of weaponry, have been under way for a protracted period of time. They are not a response to recent events, whether in the South China Sea, Ukraine, Syria or anywhere else.

Each of the hearings presumed a major US conflict with another great power (sometimes unnamed, sometimes explicitly designated as China or Russia) within a relatively short time frame, years rather than decades. The danger of terrorism, hyped incessantly for the purposes of stampeding public opinion, was downplayed and to some extent discounted. At one point in the Senate hearing on cyberwarfare, in response to a direct question from Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the panel witnesses all declared that their greatest concern was nation-states, not terrorists.
One of the witnesses at that hearing was Dr. Peter W. Singer, listed as a “Strategist and Senior Fellow” for New America, a Washington think tank. He titled his presentation, “The Lessons of World War 3.” He began his prepared statement with the following description of that imagined conflict:

“US and Chinese warships battle at sea, firing everything from cannons to cruise missiles to lasers. Stealthy Russian and American fighter jets dogfight in the air, with robotic drones flying as their wingmen. Hackers in Shanghai and Silicon Valley duel in digital playgrounds. And fights in outer space decide who wins below on Earth. Are these scenes from a novel or what could actually take place in the real world the day after tomorrow? The answer is both.”
None of the hearings saw any debate about either the likelihood of a major war or the necessity of winning that war. No one challenged the assumption that “victory” in a world war between nuclear-armed powers is a meaningful concept. The discussion was entirely devoted to what technologies, assets and human resources were required for the US military to prevail.

This was just as true for the Democratic senators and representatives as for their Republican counterparts. By custom, the two parties are seated on opposite sides of the committee or subcommittee chairmen. Without that arrangement, there would be no way of detecting, from their questions and expressions of opinion, which party they belonged to.
Contrary to the media portrayal of Washington as deeply divided between parties with intransigently opposed political outlooks, there was bipartisan agreement on this most fundamental of issues, the preparation of a new imperialist world war.

The unanimity of the political representatives of big business by no means suggests that there are no obstacles in the path of this drive to war. Each of the hearings grappled, in different ways, with the profound crisis confronting American imperialism. This crisis has two major components: the declining economic power of the United States compared to its major rivals, and the internal contradictions of American society, with the deepening alienation of the working class and particularly the youth.

At the House subcommittee hearing on aircraft carriers, the chairman noted that one of the witnesses, a top Navy admiral, had expressed concern over having “an 11-carrier navy in a 15-carrier world.” There were so many challenges confronting Washington, he continued, that what was really needed was a navy of 21 aircraft carriers—double the present size, and one that would bankrupt even a country with far more resources than the United States.

The Senate hearing on cybersecurity touched briefly on the internal challenge to American militarism. The lead witness, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, former director of the National Security Agency and former head of the Pentagon’s CyberCommand, bemoaned the effect of leaks by NSA contractor Edward Snowden and Army private Chelsea Manning, declaring that “insider attacks” were one of the most serious threats facing the US military.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia asked him directly, referring to Snowden, “Should we treat him as a traitor?” Alexander responded, “He should be treated as a traitor and tried as such.” Manchin nodded heartily, in evident agreement.

While the witnesses and senators chose to use the names of Snowden and Manning to personify the “enemy within,” they were clearly conscious that the domestic opposition to war is far broader than a few individual whistleblowers.
This is not a matter simply of the deep-seated revulsion among working people in response to 14 years of bloody imperialist interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen and across North Africa, important as that is.

A war between the United States and a major power like China or Russia, even if it were possible to prevent its escalation into an all-out nuclear exchange, would involve a colossal mobilization of the resources of American society, both economic and human. It would mean further dramatic reductions in the living standards of the American people, combined with a huge blood toll that would inevitably fall mainly on the children of the working class.
Ever since the Vietnam War, the US military has operated as an all-volunteer force, avoiding conscription, which provoked widespread opposition and direct defiance in the 1960s and early 1970s. A non-nuclear war with China or Russia would mean the restoration of the draft and bring the human cost of war home to every family in America.

Under those conditions, no matter how great the buildup of police powers and the resort to repressive measures against antiwar sentiments, the stability of American society would be put to the test. The US ruling elite is deeply afraid of the political consequences. And it should be.

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM