Nuclear weapon designs handed over by Libya to US authorities have been found to have originated in China. Could this mean that the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states/terrorist groups is part of a US/Chinese proxy war? If so, that suggests a few other possibilities: what if, for example, the movement known as al-Qaeda is funded behind the scenes by China; what if, say, 9/11 was intended as a stern warning from China in some acrimonious underground negotiation (would the gerontocrats who ordered the Tienanmen massacre have any qualms about killing thousands of innocent foreigners to make a point?), and the invasion of Iraq (whose WMDs and terrorist links remain elusive) was intended as the reply? Or is that too far-fetched? (Paging Mitch...)

Posted by: mitch | http:// | Tue Feb 17 10:41:23 2004

Here's one version, dating from the early 1990s: http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/newaxis.htm

Posted by: Nostradamus | | Wed Feb 18 03:23:28 2004

While i understand and appreciate the humor of this remark...I just felt it necessary to point out its absolute absurdity.

If anything, relations between the US and China are growing warmer and warmer recently. China has no interest in conflict with the US, proxy or not, it relies on US investment and trade agreements too much.

As far as Al-Qaeda...im sure the ethnic Uighurs in western China would be surprised that China supports and/or controls one of their islamist resistence tools.

Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Wed Feb 18 03:43:11 2004

Though isn't the US missile defense programme intended primarily to defend against a bellicose China at some time in the future? It's next to useless against terrorists and there aren't any rogue Islamofascist states within missile range of the US. Of course, it would be extremely undiplomatic to admit that China is considered as a threat.

Posted by: se26 | | Wed Feb 18 03:56:04 2004

<snip> US and China are growing warmer and warmer recently </snip>

Regimes like Bush's need an enemy. They started with China - but that was a little more that they could chew. Fair enough, the largely cartoon smoke & mirrors enemy of Al-Q might suffice for a while, but if that proves less than productive in the FUD stakes, or heaven forbid, Chinese manufacturers start making profits not routed through Wall Street, guess what...

Posted by: Nostradamus | http:// | Wed Feb 18 23:28:05 2004

Listen buddy, i hate to use this cliche, but 3000 people dead in the WTC, 200+ dead in Bali, countless others in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Afghanistan is no "smoke and mirrors" enemy. I'm sorry if no one YOU know has been effected by Terrorism, but please keep your ignorant rhetoric to yourself in the future.

Moving on...Although I believe that missile defense is prepostrously expensive and misguided, the justification of it is shown through rogue states like North Korea testing 3-stage missiles over Japan...missiles that could potentially reach the West Coast of the US...

Posted by: Nostradamus | http:// | Wed Feb 18 23:31:04 2004

Also...by the time American Missile Defense is working...if ever...it is very possible that Pakistan or Iran could have intercontinental ballistic missile technology. Lets not forget the Russians either...with their current state of affairs, a return to a militaristic autocracy is not too far-fetched an idea.

Posted by: Graham | http://grudnuk.com/ | Thu Feb 19 00:34:33 2004

Well, it's hardly the invasion of Poland...

Posted by: mark | http://donotuselifts.net/ | Thu Feb 19 05:02:26 2004

It's not the al Qaeda don't exist or aren't dangerous, Nostradamus. But Bush certainly seems to think it's safe enough to completely ignore them for a few months while he invades Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I supported the war (on the grounds that getting rid of Saddam was a Good Thing), but if we've got time to hang around there for a while, spreading the occasional lie to keep the punters interested, then al Qaeda can't be considered much of a threat!

I get the feeling that Bush and his cronies have no idea how to take them out. To be honest, I'm not sure I do, either; but one thing's for sure, running around in places where we *know* al Qaeda isn't particularly popular whilst treating with kid gloves those places where they do have support (like Pakistan -- to a degree -- and Saudi Arabia) isn't going to help any.

Want to say something? Do so here.

Note to spammers: This comment system applies the rel=nofollow attribute to the poster's URL and all links. Posting links to this page will not improve their search engine rankings.

Display name:
URL:(optional)
To prove that you are not a bot, please enter the text in the image on the right in the field below it.

Your Comment:

Remember my details.

Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.

Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.