A Worst-case Scenario for the New American Century


Richard Moore

The "Assassin's Mace":
A Worst-case Scenario for the New American Century
By Victor  N. Corpus
Asian Times
(March 30, 2006)

  Why worst case?  Because of hard lessons from history ' - '
  that's why.  The Romans did not consider the worst case
  scenario when Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants
  and routed them; or when Hannibal encircled and annihilated
  the numerically superior Roman army at the Battle of
  Cannae.  The French did not consider the worst case
  scenario at Dien Bien Phu and when they built the Maginot
  Line, and the French suffered disastrous defeats.  The
  Americans did not consider the worst case scenario at Pearl
  Harbor or in September 11, and the results were disastrous
  for the American people. Again, American planners did not
  consider the worst case scenario in its latest war in Iraq,
  but instead delved on the "best case scenario" such as
  considering the Iraq invasion as a "cake walk" and that the
  Iraqi people will be parading in the streets, throwing
  flowers, and welcoming American soldiers as "liberators",
  only to discover the opposite.

Scenario One: America Launches "Preventive War" vs. China

   "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. 
This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense 
strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power 
from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated 
control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions 
include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet 
Union, and Southwest Asia."
   - Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy 
and currently the President of World Bank

    Since 1978, China has averaged 9.4% annual GDP growth
    5-fold increase in total output per capita from 1982-2002
    $61 billion in Foreign Direct Investment in 2004 alone
    Foreign trade of $851 B; third largest in the world

    U.S. trade deficit with China exceeded $200 billion in     $750 
Billion in Foreign Exchange Reserves

    Second biggest oil importer
    442,000 new engineers a year; with 48,000 graduates with masters'
degrees and 8,000 Ph.D's annually (Howard French); compared to only
60,000 new engineers a year in the U.S.

   China for the first time (2004) has surpassed America to export the 
most technology wares around the world.  China enjoyed a $34B trade 
surplus w/US in advanced technology products in 2004 (The Economist, 
Dec 17, 2005). In 2005, the surplus has increased to $36 B

    20,000 new manufacturing facilities a year
    Low cost, vast manpower reserves combined with financial and
technological strengths of rich neighbors
    Holds $252 Billion in U.S. Treasury Bonds (plus $48 B held by Hong

   "Among the five basic food, energy, and industrial commodities ' - 
' grain and meat, oil and coal, and steel ' - ' consumption in China 
has eclipsed that of U.S. in all but oil."  (Lester Brown)

   China has also gone ahead of U.S. in consumption of TV sets, 
refrigerators and mobile phones

   In 1996 China had 7 m cell phones & the U.S. had 44 m.  Now "China 
has more mobile phone users than the U.S. has people."  (Jeff Sloan)

  China has about $1 trillion in personal savings and a savings rate of close
   to 50%;  U.S. has about $158 billion in personal savings and a 
savings rate of about 2% (The Wall Street Journal, Nov 19, 2005)

    Shanghai boasts 4,000 skyscrapers ' - ' double the number in New York
City (The Wall Street Journal, Nov 19, 2005)

   Songbei, Harbin City in North China is building a city as big as 
New York City

  Goldman Sachs predicts that China will surpass U.S. economy by 2041.

Before China's economy catches up with America, and before China 
builds a military machine that can challenge American superpower 
status and world dominance, American top strategic planners ("Project 
for the New American Century") decide to launch a "preventive war" 
against China.  As a pretext for its "preventive war", the U.S. 
instigates Taiwan to declare independence.

Taiwan declares independence!

China has anticipated and long prepared itself for this event.  After 
observing "Operation Summer Pulse ' - ' 04" when seven U.S. aircraft 
carrier battle groups converged in the waters off China's coast in 
mid-July through August of 2004, Chinese planners began preparing to 
face its own worst-case scenario:  the possibility of confronting a 
total of fifteen carrier battle groups composed of twelve from 
America and three from its close British ally. China's strategists 
refer to its counter-strategy to defeat 15 or more aircraft carrier 
battle groups as the "assassin's mace".

After proper coordination with Russia and Iran and activating their 
previously agreed strategic plan, involved troops and weapon systems 
are pre-positioned. China then launches a missile barrage on Taiwan. 
Command and control nodes, military bases, logistics centers, vital 
war industries, government centers, and air defense installations are 
simultaneously hit with short and medium range ballistic missiles 
armed with conventional, anti-radar, thermo baric, and 
electro-magnetic pulse warheads.

At the North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) Command and Control 
Center, ranking defense officials watch huge electronic monitor 
screens show seven U.S. and two British aircraft carrier battle 
groups converging towards China Sea with another three U.S. carrier 
battle groups entering the Persian Gulf, while the remaining two U.S. 
and one British battle groups remain in the Indian Ocean to serve as 
strategic reserve.

As the aircraft carrier battle groups advance, China draws out one of 
its "trump cards" by leaking to the world media that it is dumping 
its holdings of U.S. treasury bonds and shifting to gold and euro 

Meanwhile, strategic planners at NORAD watch with glee as they 
observe on the screen as monitored by their radar satellites that 
Chinese surface ships make a hasty retreat as nine allied carrier 
battle groups advance toward the Philippine Sea and Chinese waters 
near Taiwan.

The "Assassin's Mace"

China's anti-satellite weapons - Glee and ecstasy soon turn to shock 
as monitor screens suddenly go blank!  Then all communication via 
satellites goes dead!  China has drawn its second "trump card" (the 
"assassin's mace") by activating its maneuverable "parasite" micro- 
satellites that have unknowingly clung to vital (NORAD) radar and 
communication satellites and have either jammed, blinded, or 
physically destroyed their hosts. This is complemented by space mines 
that maneuver near adversary satellites and explode. Secret Chinese 
and Russian ground- based anti-satellite laser weapons also blind or 
bring down  U.S and British satellites used for C4ISR (command, 
control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance).  And to ensure redundancy and make sure that the 
adversary C4ISR system is completely "blinded" even temporarily, 
hundreds of select Chinese and Russian information warriors (hackers) 
specifically trained to attack their adversary's C4ISR systems 
simultaneously launch their cyber offensive.

For a few precious minutes, U.S. and U.K. advancing carrier battle 
groups are stunned and blinded by the "mace" i.e., a defensive weapon 
used to temporarily blind a stronger opponent.  But the word "mace" 
has another meaning; one which is deadlier and used in combination 
with the first. The other meaning of "mace" is a spiked war club used 
in olden times to knock out an opponent. Applied in modern times, the 
"spikes" of the "assassin's mace" refer to currently unstoppable 
supersonic cruise missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers that 
are in China's inventory; complemented by equally unstoppable 
"squall" or SHKVAL rocket torpedoes and regular 65 cm.-diameter 
wake-homing torpedoes, bottom- rising rocket-propelled mines, and 
"obsolete" warplanes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles 
(UCAVs) firing  anti-ship missiles from standoff positions and 
finally dive-bombing into the heart of the U.S. and U.K. aircraft 
carrier battle groups armada.

Missile Barrage on Advancing Carrier Battle Groups - A few seconds 
after the "blackout", literally hundreds of short and medium range 
ballistic missiles (DF7/9/11/15s, DF4s, DF21X/As) pre-positioned in 
the China mainland, and stealthy, sea-skimming and highly-accurate 
cruise missiles (YJ12s, YJ22s, KH31A/Ps, YJ83s, C301s, C802s, SS-N- 
22s,  SS-NX-26/27s, 3M54s & HN3s) delivered from platforms on land, 
sea, and air race toward their respective designated targets at 
supersonic speed. Aircraft carriers are allotted a barrage of more 
than two dozen cruise missiles each, followed by a barrage of short 
and medium range ballistic missiles timed to arrive in rapid 

Supersonic cruise missiles constitute China's third deadly "trump 
card" against the United States ' - ' part of the so-call "assassin's 
mace" (or spiked war club of old used to bludgeon the adversary). 
These unstoppable cruise missiles may be armed with 440-lb to 750-lb 
conventional warheads (or 200-kiloton tactical nuclear warheads ten 
times stronger than Hiroshima) traveling at more than twice the speed 
of sound (or "faster than a rifle bullet").  The cruise missiles, 
together with the SRBMs and MRBMs (short & medium range ballistic 
missiles) may also be armed with radio frequency weapons that can 
simulate the electro-magnetic pulse of nuclear explosions to fry 
computer chips, or fuel-air explosives that can annihilate the 
personnel in aircraft carriers and battleships without destroying the 
platforms. Their effective range varies from less than 100 to 1800 
kilometers from stand-off positions. Delivered by long-range 
fighter-bombers and submarines, their range can be extended even 
further. In fact, stealthy Chinese and Russian submarines can deliver 
such nuclear payloads to the U.S. mainland itself.

No U.S. Defense versus Supersonic Cruise Missiles - The U.S. and U.K. 
aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against 
the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and 
Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise 
missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic 
missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and 
supersonic Granits,  Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types 
(Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx NATO codenames) of modern anti-ship 
missiles in China's inventory. Not only China and Russia have these 
modern cruise missiles, but Iran, India and North Korea have them 
too. These missiles can be delivered by SU 27 variants, SU30s, Tu22M 
Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s,   surface ships, 
diesel submarines, or common trucks.

China's Rocket Torpedoes - Adding to the problem of aircraft carriers 
are the "SHKVAL" or "squall" rocket torpedoes installed in some 
Chinese and Russian submarines and surface ships.  At 6,000 lbs. 
apiece, these rocket torpedoes travel at 200 knots (or 230 mph) with 
a range of 7,500 yards and guided by autopilot.  They are designed to 
sink aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.  Again, it is 
unfortunate for the U.S. and U.K. to have no known or existing 
defense against this new generation of rocket torpedoes.

China's Sea Mines ' - ' Complicating matters for the U.S. aircraft 
carrier battle groups are the hundreds of hard-to-detect, 
rocket-propelled, bottom-rising sea mines that are anchored and 
hidden in the sea bottom covering the pre-selected battle site in the 
China Sea and Philippine Sea designed to home in on submarines and 
surface ships, particularly aircraft carriers. These sophisticated 
sea mines (EM-52s) have been deployed by Chinese and Russian 
submarines before the missile attack on Taiwan in anticipation of the 
major event that is to follow.

Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles ' - ' Finally, on top of all these 
asymmetric weapons, the U.S. and U.K. aircraft carrier battle groups 
will have to contend with the thousands of "obsolete" Chinese fighter 
planes converted into Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) 
launching missiles at stand-off positions and finally diving 
"kamikaze" style into the heart of the carrier battle groups.

Submarines Complete Encirclement - Chinese and Russian submarines 
fire their inventory of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and 
"squall" rocket torpedoes at the aircraft carriers and submarines of 
the U.S. and U.K. as the carrier battle groups come within range.  As 
the battle progresses, the Chinese and Russian submarines maneuver to 
the rear of the carrier battle groups to complete the encirclement.

In less than an hour after the launching of the saturation barrage of 
missiles that rained on the U.S. and U.K. naval armada, all the 
aircraft carriers and their escorts of cruisers, battleships, and 
several of the accompanying submarines are in flames, sinking, or 
sunk, turning the China Sea and Philippine Sea into a modern-day 
"Battle of Cannae".

Meanwhile, the Chinese fleet that conducted a strategic retreat forms 
a phalanx along the forward positions of China's coast, ready to 
augment the hundreds or thousands of land-based long-range 
surface-to- air missiles of China (SA-10s, SA-15s, & SA-20s) with 
their own short, medium, and long-range air defense missile systems.

Applying its long-held military doctrine of "active defense", China 
also launches simultaneous missile attacks on the forces-in-being and 
logistics-in-place of the U.S. and its allies in Japan, South Korea, 
Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan,  hitting 
these U.S. bases with missiles armed with radio frequency weapons, 
fuel-air explosives, and conventional warheads. As another Chinese 
military doctrine states: "Win victory with one strike".

Chinese/Russian ICBMs/SLBMs are Cocked ' - ' Both Chinese and Russian 
inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine- launched 
ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and the two countries' extensive air 
defense systems have been coordinated and ready to respond in the 
event that the U.S. and U.K. decide to retaliate with a nuclear 

China's deadly "trump cards" (i.e., the huge holdings of U.S. 
treasury bonds, the anti-satellite weapons system, the supersonic 
anti-ship cruise missiles, SRBMs, MRBMs, "squall" rocket torpedoes, 
sea mines, UCAVs, DF31A and DF41 road-mobile ICBMs, JL2 SLBMs, air 
defense system, IO/EW/IW, and other RMA weapons) are the key 
ingredients of the "assassin's mace".  China may not possess any of 
those expensive aircraft carriers of the superpower, but it can wipe 
out those carrier battle groups with a "single blow" of its so-called 
"assassin's mace" ' - ' its major tool for conducting asymmetric 
warfare to defeat the United States in a major confrontation over the 
Taiwan issue or other issues in the future. The United States may 
possess the most powerful war machine in the world, but it can be 
defeated by an inferior force by avoiding the superpower's strength 
and exploiting its weaknesses.  Again, an integral part of Chinese 
doctrine is: "Victory through inferiority over superiority". One 
famous Chinese strategist, Chang Mengxiong, compared asymmetric 
warfare to "a Chinese boxer with a keen knowledge of vital body 
points who can bring a stronger opponent to his knees with a minimum 
of movement."

The sad part is that even if U.S. planners come to realize that the 
aircraft carrier battle groups (which are the mainstay of the U.S. 
Navy and the main instrument of U.S. power projection worldwide), 
have been rendered vulnerable or obsolete by China's "assassin's 
mace", the U.S. cannot simply change strategy or discard such weapons 
system. To change strategy or "retool" would mean the loss of 
hundreds of billions of dollars invested into those highly 
sophisticated systems; the strong lobbying of influential defense 
contractors making those systems would make change extremely 
difficult; for defense authorities to admit the strategic blunder 
would also be a big barrier to change of strategy; and the loss of 
hundreds of thousands of jobs related to those systems may be 
politically and economically unbearable for any U.S. sitting 
administration to bear if the program for the aircraft carrier battle 
groups is scrapped. Because of these factors, America may be stuck 
with an obsolete system that is too expensive to maintain but will 
lose the war for the U.S. when employed in a major conflict.

Middle East Front

Meanwhile, in another major front, upon previously coordinated 
signals with China and Russia, Iran lets loose her own barrage of 
supersonic Granit, Moskit, Brahmos, and Yakhont cruise missiles 
carried by common trucks or hidden in man-made tunnels all along the 
mountainous shoreline of Iran fronting the Persian Gulf. The three 
U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups that entered the Persian Gulf to 
ensure the unhindered flow of Arab oil are likened to helpless 
"sitting ducks" against the bottom-rising sea mines and low-flying, 
supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles in Iranian hands. In the 
process, a couple of U.S. oil tankers about to exit the Strait of 
Hormuz are also hit, thus effectively blockading the narrow strait 
and blocking U.S. oil supply coming out of the Middle East with the 
aid of rocket-propelled sea mines.

A "weak" nation like China or Iran, without a single aircraft carrier 
in their respective navies, can thus obliterate the carrier battle 
groups of a superpower. Here, one can see the hidden and often 
unnoticed power of asymmetric warfare, which may well spell the end 
of "gunboat diplomacy" in the not so distant future.

Central Asian Front

Also, in yet another major front, this time in Central Asia, Russian 
troops lead the other member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation 
Organization (SCO - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and 
Tajikistan) into a major offensive against U.S. military bases in 
Central Asia.  The target bases are first subjected to a simultaneous 
barrage of missiles with fuel-air explosives and EMP warheads before 
they are over- run and occupied by the SCO coalition forces.  The 
missile attack on the U.S. bases is followed by a lightning 
"blitzkrieg" attack by 4 mechanized armored divisions coming from the 
"Yili Korgas Pass" of China's Xinjiang province, linking up with 
Russia's own armored divisions in a pincer offensive against U.S. 
forces in Central Asia and the Middle East.

America Crippled in Three Major Fronts

In just a few hours (or days) after the outbreak of general 
hostilities, America, the world's lone superpower, finds itself badly 
crippled militarily in three major regions of the world:  Southeast 
Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

Impossible?  Unfortunately the answer is: NO. China now has the 
know-how and the financial resources to mass-produce hundreds, if not 
thousands of Moskit, Yakhont, and Granit-types of supersonic 
anti-ship cruise missiles and "squall"-type rocket torpedoes against 
which U.S. and U.K. aircraft carriers and submarines have no known 
defense. Iran, on the other hand, is already in possession of the 
same supersonic cruise missiles that can destroy any ship in the 
Persia Gulf, including U.S. aircraft carriers.  Russia and China, 
meanwhile, are operating on familiar grounds close to its territory, 
compared to the U.S. that needs to cross the Atlantic and Pacific to 
replenish troops and logistics.

A Geopolitical Reality America has to Face

An important consideration in a U.S.-China conflict is the 
geopolitical reality that the U.S. and its allies will be operating 
on exterior lines while China will operate on interior lines. This 
gives China a huge advantage in a major war in Asia against U.S 
allied forces.

Consider the long sea lanes of communication (10,000 kilometers) that 
the U.S. alliance will be forced to cross each time its forces will 
re- supply and you get an idea of the huge logistics problem that the 
US will face in its confrontation with China. Such lengthy sea lanes 
of communication (SLOC) are highly vulnerable to a gauntlet of 
Chinese and Russian submarines lying in ambush along the route laden 
with underwater sea mines . This will make the transport of personnel 
and equipment by the United States over the Pacific or the Atlantic 
extremely dangerous and expensive.

Compare this U.S. handicap with troop movement by Chinese troops 
using heavy-lift aircraft, railways and highways within the China 
mainland.  China's interior lines of communication are shorter and 
protected, with little chance for enemy interdiction. Chinese troops 
can concentrate numerically superior forces rapidly at any given 
point to defeat the invading U.S. forces one by one with much shorter 
and less vulnerable lines of communications.

And in the event that the U.S. forces and its allies are lucky enough 
to land their forces on the Chinese mainland, they will be faced not 
only with a conventional People's Liberation Army of more than two 
million strong, but also with a people's militia conducting 
asymmetric warfare and people's war in their teeming millions! U.S 
forces and their allies will be likened to a raging bull charging and 
goring a hive of killer bees. U.S. forces may be able to set foot in 
China, but it is highly doubtful if they can come out of it alive.

Grimmer Scenarios

There is a scenario grimmer than described above, however, and that 
is if strategic planners belonging to that elite group called the 
"Project for the New American Century" (or PNAC) decide to launch a 
nuclear "first strike" against China and Russia and risk a mutually- 
assured destruction: 1) in defense of Taiwan... or 2) in launching a 
"preventive war" to prevent China from catching up economically and 
militarily.  Or, if China decides to start the offensive against 
Taiwan with a one-megaton nuclear burst 40 kilometers above the 
center of the island. Or, if China and Russia decide to arm a number 
of their short and medium range ballistic missiles and supersonic 
cruise missiles with tactical nuclear warheads in defending 
themselves against the U.S. and U.K. aircraft carrier battle groups. 
Land-attack versions of these supersonic cruise missiles armed with 
nuclear warheads carried by stealthy Chinese and Russian submarines 
can also put American coastal cities at great risk to nuclear 
devastation. Strategic planners must also consider these worst-case 

Scenario Two: America versus a Medium Power

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to 
remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. 
and Western access to the region's oil."   -  Paul Wolfowitz "I 
cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly 
to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.  But the oil 
and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which 
makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan." ' - 
' Dick Cheney in 1998 as Chief Executive of a major oil services 
company History is replete with vivid examples where a much stronger 
and larger force was defeated by a weaker and smaller force. The 
French were defeated by Vietminh Guerrillas in Dien Bien Phu.  The 
Soviet Union forces, still a superpower at that time, were defeated 
in Afghanistan.  And another superpower, the United States, was 
defeated by "ill-clad, ill-fed, and ill-armed" Vietcong guerrillas in 

Asymmetric Warfare

If the United States will push through its plan of world domination 
in what is called the "Project for the New American Century", then it 
should expect all the smaller and weaker countries that do not wish 
to be pushed around to fight back using a method of fighting called 
asymmetric warfare.  Asymmetric warfare is a form of warfare that 
allows the weak to fight and defeat a much stronger foe by "attacking 
the enemy's weakness while avoiding his strength".

The United States, for instance, may possess the most sophisticated 
weapons system on earth.  They may have the most modern planes, 
helicopters, ships, guns, precision-guided weapons, sophisticated 
sensors, and command and control systems, but if they cannot see 
their adversary, if they are fighting a shadowy and "invisible" enemy 
(like what the American and British forces are now experiencing in 
Iraq), such advanced and sophisticated weapons systems are rendered 

In asymmetric warfare, most of the fighting will be conducted at the 
team level. Thousands of agile and elusive teams consisting of 2 -5 
members equipped with man-portable surface-to-air missiles, portable 
anti-tank guided weapons, .50 cal sniper rifles, man-portable 
mortars, anti-tank mines, anti-personnel mines, sea mines, C4 
explosives (for making car bombs, booby-traps, and improvised 
explosive devices or IEDs) riding in bicycles, motorcycles, tricycles 
and  fast boats  will make the lives of any invading or occupying 
forces extremely miserable and deadly.

These "invisible" agile teams merge with the population most of the 
time and come out only when there is a vulnerable target to strike 
at. Then, they disappear again into the shadows.  They communicate 
via runners bringing coded written messages, so there are no 
electronic signals to track down.  They operate semi-autonomously, so 
there are no centers of gravity that can be targeted. And since they 
are indigenous to the area and united with the local people, their 
human intelligence (HUMINT) is far more superior to the hated foreign 
invaders.  They will also enjoy a tremendous advantage in 
psychological operations (PSYOPS), for it is much easier to mobilize 
the nationalist sentiments against a foreign occupier than for an 
aggressor to justify occupation.

Asymmetric warfare may be compared to a fierce lion invading the 
territory of a school of piranhas; or a king cobra encroaching into a 
colony of fire ants.  The lion may be the king of beasts, mighty and 
strong but it is no match against the tiny piranhas in their own 
territory.  The sharp fangs and claws of the lion are rendered 
useless.  The same is true with the cobra's venom.  The analogy 
applies to the French in Dien Bien Phu, the Soviets in Afghanistan, 
and the Americans in Vietnam and now in Iraq.

Asynchronous Warfare

Aside from asymmetric warfare, weak nations fighting the strong can 
also avail of asynchronous warfare.  If a strong nation invades or 
occupies a weak one, the weak bides its time to strike back.  And it 
strikes at a time and place when and where the adversary least 
expects and least prepared.  An example is Iraq.  The underground 
resistance movement in Iraq may recruit Iraqi scientists or 
sympathetic scientists of other nationalities to infiltrate the 
United States (via the Mexican border, for instance) and manufacture 
dirty bombs as well as chemical and biological weapons inside the 
U.S. borders.  Such weapons may be brought to Washington D.C. and 
detonated in or near the U.S. Congress during the U.S. President's 
State of the Union address, for example.

They can also hire a private plane, or buy one themselves, and use it 
to spread biological or chemical weapons they have manufactured in- 
country over New York or Washington D.C. They can mail letters 
containing anthrax to key offices of vital services all over the U.S. 
and paralyze utilities and other government functions nationwide. Or 
they can smuggle, say, the components of a hundred portable 
surface-to-air missiles, assemble them in the U.S., and employ them 
simultaneously in all of the major airports in America. Or they can 
employ those portable surface-to-air missiles to simultaneously 
target American airlines taking off or landing in different 
international airports all over the world. Some major powers may pass 
on their research on RMA (revolution in military affairs) to the 
Iraqi resistance movement to be tested inside the U.S. mainland. 
These weapons include laser weapons, ultrahigh frequency weapons, 
ultrasonic wave weapons, stealth weapons, high-powered microwave 
weapons, and electromagnetic guns. They include miniature robot ants 
that infiltrate computers, stay dormant, and then activate on signal 
to destroy their hosts.

The Iraqi underground can also recruit hackers who can work inside 
and/or outside the United States to hack the U.S. banking system, 
financial system, stock exchange, airport tower control systems, 
train control system, power supply system, water control system, dam 
control system, ballistic missile system, C4ISR system, and other key 
systems critical to the U.S. economy.  At a given signal, assigned 
hackers simultaneously do their thing.  The U.S., which is considered 
the most advanced country when it comes to Information Technology, 
has become too dependent on computers and related high-tech equipment 
that its inherent strength has, ironically, turned into its own 
"Achilles heel". Here, we are talking only of Iraq.  What if the U.S. 
tries to impose its will and dominance on 5 or 10 other sovereign 
nations? Can the U.S. hope to "fight and win" an asymmetric war 
against smaller nations fighting against hegemony?  Can America 
afford or survive 10 Iraqs ... or 10 Vietnams?  Can America win an 
asymmetric war against an "invisible" army even in Iraq alone?

  American Crossroad

As the sole remaining superpower in the world today, the United 
States stands at a critical crossroad.  One road leads to world 
domination. Using its pre-eminent military war machine with no equal 
in the world, it can strike at any perceived threat, change foreign 
sovereign regimes at will, grab precious mineral resources anywhere 
in the world, and control local economies with its hosts of 
transnational corporations.  It can also sabotage the economy of 
up-coming rivals, or launch preventive wars to preempt prospective 
competitors and try to defeat them militarily while they are still 
weak compared to America.

Such a course of action is very tempting indeed, especially to 
leaders with global ambitions of becoming "Lords of the Earth". But 
such a road is full of risks and what is planned on paper, as what 
was done in Iraq, may not turn out as planned. And such path will 
necessarily ignite the outrage of most right-thinking people. 
America will earn for itself the enmity and hatred of people all over 
the world.

America had outlined its blueprint for world domination, by force if 
necessary, in the following documents:

"National Security Strategy of the United States of America", September 2001

President George W. Bush's speech at the Graduation Ceremony at West 
Point, June 1, 2002;

"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for 
the New Century",  A Report of the Project for the New American 
Century,  September "Defense Planning Guidance" written by then 
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in Feb 18, 1992

In these documents, the U.S. outlined some of its new doctrines and 
policies such as: preventive war, pre-emptive military actions, 
unilateralism, regime change, acting as the world's constabulary or 
"cavalry", establishment of military bases and spreading U.S. forces 
all over the world, control of  outer space and the global commons of 
cyberspace, and control of the world's oil resources.

The alternate road, on the other hand, leads to world leadership. The 
U.S. can choose to use its power, wealth, and influence to sincerely 
do good for the people on this planet. It can lead in easing or 
obliterating the debt burden of poor nations, or in promoting the 
spread of quality education through distance learning in remote 
villages of developing countries.  It can focus in the fight against 
poverty, or the fight against drugs, or the effort to save the 
deteriorating environment of planet earth. It can lead the fight 
against HIV/AIDS, or malaria, and other deadly diseases. The whole 
world is waiting for the U.S. to lead in these important battles.

If the U.S. chooses to focus its huge resources on the latter, I am 
confident that it will gain the hearts and minds of people all over 
the world. Then it can be a true world leader.  Then, it can maintain 
its preeminent world status. By gaining the world's sympathy and 
support, terrorism directed against Americans and the U.S. mainland 
will be greatly minimized.  The alternate road, in fact, is the key 
to defeating the phenomenon of "terrorism" gripping the world today.

Let us pray that God or Allah will guide America as it decides what 
road to take for the 21st century.


1. Keeping the U.S. First; Pentagon Would Preclude a Rival Superpower 
by Barton Gellman,The Washington Post March 11, 1992

2. How U.S. Business has Adapted to Globalization by Lee Brudvig June

4, 2002

3. A Bush vision of Pax Americana By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff 
writer of The Christian Science Monitor

4. Anti-Americanism and its threat to transatlantic cooperation and 
security by Christian Jokinen* 31.5.2004;Published originally in 
Turkish Policy Quarterly, June 2004

5. Is it good for the world to have the U.S. as the sole superpower? 
Written by: Joe Messerli 05/05/2004

6.  Balancing Ties by Wang Yi

7. Free Reign for the Sole Superpower? by Carl Conetta, Charles 
Knight, and Robert Leavitt  January 1994 issue of Boston Review

8. President Bush Speech at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United 
States Military Academy, West Point, New York

9.  How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer by Bernard 
Weiner, May 26, 2003, The Crisis Papers

10.  The New Regionalism: Drifting Toward Multi-Polarity by Dr. 
Michael A. Weinstein, June 7, 2004

11.  Pax Americana? By Anthony Aman, Published on Oct 18,2002 in the 
Bangor Daily News

12.  East Asian New Regionalism: Toward Economic Integration? By Shee 
Poon Kim, Ritsumeikan International Affairs Vol. 1, pp 57-87

13.  Challenge of and Response to Globalization: The Case of 
Southeast Asia by Prasert Chittiwatanapong, Thammasat University, 
Bangkok, Thailand, Sept 1996

14.  China's Regional Trade Agreements: The Law, Geopolitics, and 
Impact on the Multilateral Trading System by Jiangyu Wang, 2004 
Singapore Year Book of International Law and Contributors

15.  Trilateral Priorities in Regional and Global Economic Relations 
by Zhang Li

16.  Trade Policy in East Asia: Regionalism Triumphant? By Razeen Sally

17  Globalization by Yogesh Ambekar, 8/18/2004

18   East Asian Trade Relations in the Wake of China's WTO Accession 
by David Roland-Holst

19.  Globalism and Regionalism, Selected Papers Delivered at the 
United Nations University, 2-6 Sept 1996, Edited by Toshiro Tanaka 
and Takashi Inoguchi

20. Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources,  A 
Report of the Project for a New American Century, September 2000

21.  The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 
September 2002

22.  Regional Economic Cooperation in East Asia After the Crisis by 
Dr Kiyokatsu Nishiguchi, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan

23.  China Rocks the Geopolitical Boat with Iran Oil Deals by Kavah L Afrasiabi

24. China Debates the Future Security Environment by Michael 
Pillsbury, National Defense University Press, January 2000

25.    14 'Enduring Bases' set in Iraq ' - ' Long-term military 
presence planned, Christine Spolar, Chicago Tribune, March 23, 2004

26.   Clinton's flawed defense shield not designed to stop new 
Russian cruise missiles, Charles Smith, World Net Daily, June 6, 2000

27.   After 9/11, U.S. policy built on world bases, James Sterngold, 
SFGate.com, March 21, 2004

28.   China beefs up it navy by George Anzera, Asia Times Online, 
September 14, 2005

29.    Global Economic Paper No. 99, Goldman Sachs "Dreaming with 
BRICs: the Path to 2050, October 1, 2003

30.    Iran: a Bridge Too Far? by Mark Gaffney, Information Clearing 
House, October 26, 2004

31.    Caspian Sea Region: Reserves and Pipelines, Energy Information 
Administration, July 2002

32.     Central Asian Backlash against U.S. Franchised Revolutions by 
Gahendra Singh, Paper No. 1449, March 7, 2005

33.    Missile Survey: Ballistic and Cruise Missiles of Foreign 
Countries by Andrew Feichart, March 5, 2004

34.     The Ties the Bind China, Russia and Iran by Jephraim 
P.Gundzik, Asia Times Online, June 4, 2005

35.    Military Exercise by Russia, China has message for U.S. by 
Mark Magnier and Kim Murphy, Dawn the Internet Edition, August 19, 

36.    Submarines:  The Chinese Submarine Building Program, Sid 
Travethan, Strategy Page, May 24, 2004

37.    China-ASEAN Sign Pact for Biggest Free Trade Zone, Dawn- 
Business, Nov 30, 2004

38.     China, Russia Strengthening Strategic Alliance by Patrick 
Goodenough, CNS News.com, March 6, 2000

39.     China Luring Foreign Scholars to Make Its Universities Great 
by Howard W. French, The New York Times, October 28, 2005

40.    China's New Stealth Missiles Could Nuke U.S. Without Warning 
by Charles R. Smith, World Net Daily. com, Nov 30, 1999

41.     China Tests Supersonic Cruise Missiles, Bill Coertz, The 
Washington Times, Sept 25, 2001

Escaping the Matrix website     http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website            http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives                http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
   cyberjournal forum           http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
   Achieving real democracy     http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
   for readers of ETM           http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
   Community Empowerment        http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
   Blogger made easy            http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html