All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2007 - Art Bell
02:36:03
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - China and Military Technology - Charles R. Smith
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in the world's time zones, prolific as they are, and each one covered like a blanket by this program, the largest of its kind in the world, Coast to Coast AM.
It is my honor and my privilege to be escorting you through the weekend, this being the second half of the weekend.
And tonight I've got an announcement that I would like to make.
And here it is.
I would like to announce tonight that for the... Actually, I'm not sure how many times it is now.
Somebody's counting.
That following tonight's broadcast, I am retiring from regular weekend programming.
Now, Unlike the past, thank God, the reasons are not following some tragedy or emergency or something like that.
The reasons actually are stated by nearly everybody who ever makes such an announcement.
Only now I very clearly understand them in a very personal way.
God has blessed me with love in my life.
At a time, frankly, when I thought I had lost any reason to live following Mona's death.
My wonderful wife, Erin, and now our daughter, Asia.
I would really... I really want what time the Lord has left for me to be with them.
Now, this doesn't mean that you're never going to hear my voice again in these late hours.
My association with Premier Radio Networks will continue.
You know, with an occasional special of some sort, or a fill-in show, or what have you.
So I hope that you understand that at this stage in my life, June 17th, I became eligible for Social Security.
I really do want to spend my time With my wife and my new daughter.
Both of whom I love dearly.
It's rare that you get a second chance in life.
And I came back after Ramona passed.
I came back on the air because, well frankly because I had to.
Meaning you all were the only familiar You were my family, I guess.
In a way, you're my family.
You were my family at that point.
All I had left at that dark time in my life was all of you, and I have, I do.
I'm a very public person who is very private, if that makes sense.
I understand that I've all my life been a very public person, but in my private life, I'm private.
And I have a very small Close circle of friends, and that's about it.
So, when Mona left me, I had to come back.
You all were my family.
Now, it's a new stage in life.
And so, this is it, folks.
And I know I've said that in the past, this time it's for real, though.
It's for real.
So, after tonight, I will indeed retire from regular Weekend duties, but you can bet There will be very very good voices in here very good intellects filling the night With the same kind of material that you've become accustomed to hearing in these in these late hours As I mentioned my association will continue so from time to time.
I'll do a fill-in show or Come and talk about what's going to happen the next year or whatever it is that that I do Let's look quickly at the world news Never exactly a pleasure.
British officials intensified the hunt Sunday for what they called an Al-Qaeda-linked network behind three attempted terrorist attacks, announcing a fifth arrest and conducting pinpoint raids across the country on a very highest level of alert now.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, quote, it is clear that we are dealing in general terms with people who are associated with Al-Qaeda.
He warned Britons the threat would be long-term and sustained, and said the country would not be cowed by the plot targeting London and Glasgow's airport.
You know, and again I want to say, it seems to me that by Al-Qaeda standards, that Horrible as it was, it wasn't much of an attack.
So, maybe that's what Al-Qaeda's got left.
People who can drive individual vehicles into an airport or something, dump gasoline on themselves, and... Not quite 9-11, huh?
That's good news, if true.
I mean, it means Al-Qaeda obviously has spread their abilities thin, and that's good news for the world, our country in particular.
Flooding is horrible, just horrible, in the middle of the country.
Sunday, across parts of Kansas and Missouri, forcing more people from their homes.
And those who predict the weather say it could be days before rivers return to anything resembling normal, following days of drenching rainfall on the plains.
The Kansas Guard was sent to help with a mandatory evacuation.
Of a town of 4,600 as the overflowing creek inundated neighborhoods and workers struggling to reinforce a levee on the river.
A Saudi religious police face backlash.
Well, I would think.
Religious police?
Yes.
As the car stopped outside a Riyadh amusement park, two bearded men dragged the driver from the wheel Took the three women on a wild ride of more than an hour, bouncing over sidewalks, finally abandoning them on a darkened street.
The women at first thought they had been kidnapped by some kind of terrorist.
The two, however, said, no, we are the religious police.
A top U.S.
commander in South Korea on Monday criticized last week's missile test launches by North Korea, gotta remember it's Monday there, saying, The country remains a threat despite its recent moves toward dismantling its nuclear program.
General B.B.
Bell said he welcomed Pyongyang's efforts to live up to a February commitment to shut down its nuclear reactor.
Part of a program he called extremely provocative.
Fidel Castro said Sunday the U.S.
government continues to be a killing machine.
Really?
After revelations that nearly 50 years ago it tried to use American mobsters to kill him with poison pills.
It's an old story.
And I understand that they also tried to cause his beard to fall off.
The Empire has created a real killing machine, made up not only, he says, of the CIA and its methods.
And finally, While blogs continue to simmer with complaints from people who waited virtually months to buy an iPhone, and are now experiencing problems activating it, AT&T said Sunday the situation's improved somewhat now.
We're working on any issues on an individual basis with customers who were impacted.
Now, I don't exactly know what an iPhone is.
Maybe, I haven't looked it up yet.
Usually I'm up on the very latest whatever.
But, uh, I actually don't know what an iPhone is.
Why everybody's rushing to get one?
Somebody, perhaps, can give me a bit of a capsule idea of what an iPhone actually is.
All right, just before we break, there is, uh, you know, a lot of stuff comes and goes on the website, coasttocoastam.com, that is kind of, uh, well, You'd tend to put it in your gray box.
You go, well, you know, that's fuzzy, who knows.
And this one is not an exception to that, but it's really good.
I swear, I think what we've got on the website tonight is a real... Do you remember once I called for a broom-riding, cauldron-stirring witch?
Remember that?
Long-time listeners will recall that.
Well, I'll be damned.
This is a witch.
I think it's a witch anyway.
It's a flying... human... flying something.
And it looks like a witch.
Pointy hat and all.
It was filmed in Mexico.
Somebody took video of it in Mexico.
All I can say is go up there, go to the link, watch the video, and you tell me.
Is that a witch or what?
I think it's a witch.
So, it's definitely worth a ride up to coasttocoastam.com.
Take the ride, let me know what you think.
Alright, back in a moment with more.
Alright, this is something new under the sun and therefore it is worth noting.
A new NASA satellite has recorded the first detailed images from space of a mysterious kind of cloud called night
shining or not NOCTILUCENT.
you said, I guess.
The clouds are on the move.
These are clouds.
They're brightening and they're creeping out of the polar regions, and researchers have no idea why.
It is clear these clouds are changing, a sign that a part of our atmosphere is changing, and we do not understand how, why, Or what it means.
That comes from atmospheric scientist James Russell III of Hampton University in Virginia.
These observations suggest a connection with global change in the lower atmosphere and could represent an early warning that our Earth environment is being changed.
It's the mesosphere, I believe.
And the satellite first imaged these clouds May 25th.
People on the ground began actually seeing them June 6th over northern Europe.
The clouds form 50 miles above the Earth's surface in an upper layer of the atmosphere called the mesosphere.
The puffs of water vapor and crystals appear during the summer months above the Northern Hemisphere's pole as well as the Southern Hemisphere's pole in summer.
AIM will record two complete cloud seasons over both regions, effectively documenting an entire life cycle of the shiny clouds for the first time.
Researchers hope to figure out why these clouds form and how they might be related to global climate change.
So that is pretty weird stuff.
New clouds, not just seen from space, but being seen in northern Europe as well, in a portion of the atmosphere that normally does not contain clouds.
What is going on?
What on earth, or just above it, is going on?
An international environmental organization is opposed to a plan to dump iron dust into the ocean near the Galapagos Islands where it's going to encourage the growth of plankton which absorbs carbon dioxide from the air.
The tiny sea creatures known as plankton are the main food consumed by whales and they're considered to be the bottom rung in the marine food chain.
Now the dumping would be done as a test by a company called Planktos Inc.
Which is obviously conducting this test in hopes of being hired to do similar iron dumps in the future.
In LiveScience.com, Andrea Thompson quotes Laura Hansen of the World Wildlife Fund as saying, They're much safer and much better proven ways of preventing or lowering carbon dioxide levels and dumping iron in the ocean.
This kind of experimentation with disregard for marine life and the lives of people who rely on the sea is unacceptable.
Of special concern is the fact that the Galapagos are home to species which are found nowhere else on the Earth.
But this may be because the ocean area around the islands already are filled with iron which comes from the islands themselves.
Four years ago, this comes from Whitley Streber's Unknown Country, it was reported that taking too many vitamins might be bad for you.
Now, scientists are saying that taking certain vitamins may indeed shorten your lifespan, may even make you more likely to get cancer.
God.
BBC News reports that a study in Denmark reveals that antioxidant vitamins like A, E, and C may actually increase the risk of early death.
Beta carotene produced an approximate 7% increased risk of health.
Death, rather.
Health.
Death.
Unbelievable.
Vitamin E, a 4% increase.
Vitamin A, a 16% increase.
Considering that 10-20% of the adult population in Europe and North America may consume the supplements, the public health consequences may be pretty big.
One day, something is good for you, and the next day, it kills you.
That's what I love about science.
One day, everything is just spiffy, and whatever it is, is great for you.
Drink it.
Eat it.
Or avoid it.
Live longer.
But then the next day, whatever it was, is gonna kill you!
The government has announced it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either one on the science curriculum.
It has also defined intelligent design, the idea that life is simply too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of greater intelligence, as a religion Along with creationism.
Now why?
What's the matter with intelligent design?
I would say a good portion of this audience probably at least considers the possibility, don't you, that we were intelligently designed by God or by extraterrestrials.
Somebody may have come down, there may have been a sphere as in The movie.
Who knows?
But why do they want to rule out the possibility of intelligent design by somebody?
A commercial airline pilot has reported seeing two unidentified objects near the sky in Guernsey.
Bright yellow flat disc shape, estimated to be twice the size of a Boeing 737, spotted on Monday 12 to 15 miles northeast of the island.
Captain Ray Boyer was flying a plane from Southampton to Alderney when he saw the objects through binoculars.
Mr. Boyer said he was pretty shaken up by the sighting.
Quote, this is not something you see every day of the week.
It was pretty scary, said he at first.
He thought it was the sun simply reflecting off greenhouses in Guernsey.
He said the objects were bright like the sun, but did not hurt his eyes when he looked at them.
The stationary objects were also observed by other aircraft and other passengers on the plane.
So there you have it.
Yet another big UFO sighting.
I still want you to go look at the witch.
What really does look like a witch?
Unless, unless kind of like the scientists they interview, this is in Spanish, mind you, on Spanish TV, so you'll just, but there's subtitles, and they interview a scientist who puts on a silly little hat, makes fun of the whole thing, but I don't think you can watch that video and make fun of it.
Whatever it is, it doesn't belong flying in those skies.
Alright, listen, we're going to go to unscreened open line calls in just very few moments here.
Let me give you the numbers.
If you're west of the Rockies, 800-618-8255.
Anywhere east of the Rockies, 800-825-5033.
That's 800-825-5033.
If you're actually on the Rockies, I have no idea what you do.
east of the Rockies. 800-825-5033. That's 800-825-5033. If you're actually on the Rockies,
I have no idea what you do. First Time Callers, area code 825-5033.
That's 818-501-4721 wildcard line.
We've got a lot of those.
Area code 818-501-4109.
Once again, area code 818-501-4109.
The international line.
We've got a lot of those.
Area code 8185014109.
Once again, area code 8185014109.
The international line.
Simply call your operator if you're outside the U.S., your international operator, and
tell her you want to call a toll-free international number.
It is toll-free.
800-893-0903.
That's 800-893-0903.
Just a word, quick word, about last night's program.
That's 800-893-0903.
Just a word, quick word about last night's program.
I thought it was spectacular.
And I thought I made it clear last night, but if I didn't, let me make it clear now,
and you can go back and clear it up by listening.
I said it was breaking news, and it certainly was.
And what I said was, it was breaking around the world.
And that is to say, we got an article from Australia, Within the hour, we received two more articles from Great Britain, and by the time I'd gone off the air last night, it was beginning to hit the press here in the U.S.
And my guess is that if you watch very carefully and listen very carefully to the U.S.
media over the next week, you're going to hear that story breaking all over the place.
That's strangely the way the media in this country works.
Even after an event.
Months after an event.
Boom, boom, boom.
It's like somebody threw a switch.
We'll be right back.
And here's a little bit of perhaps good news.
You all heard, I'm sure, that the autism numbers in human beings have alarmingly risen.
Indeed, it has.
Something like 101 in every 171 children now.
Well, this is not a cure, but it's on the way.
Symptoms of mental retardation and autism have been reversed for the first time in a laboratory in mice.
U.S.
scientists created mice that showed symptoms of Fragile X Syndrome, the leading cause of mental retardation and autism in humans.
Then, they reverse symptoms of the condition by inhibiting the action of an enzyme in the brain.
The study by MIT appears in proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This implies that future treatment may still be effective even after symptoms are already pronounced.
Fragile X syndrome is linked to a mutation in a gene carried on the X chromosome called the FMR1.
It can cause symptoms ranging from mild learning disabilities to severe autism.
The researchers based at MIT's Institute for Learning and Memory targeted an enzyme called PAK, P-A-K, which affects the number, size, and shape of connection between brain cells.
They found that by inhibiting the enzyme, stopped mice with fragile X syndrome behaving in erratic ways.
Prior to treatment, they showed signs of hyperactivity, Not having purpose, repetitive movements, abnormalities were corrected.
Further analysis rather showed that not only were structural abnormalities in connection between brain cells righted, but proper electronic communication was restored between the cells.
So maybe there is hope.
We'll be right back.
Top of the coming hour, Charles R. Smith, who has written a book called Deception.
And it's going to be about the state of the world right now.
And what we face, and the whole world is facing, as you know, as they're experiencing in England right now.
I suspect we're eventually going to have that kind of terrorism here.
So, we'll talk about that.
First time caller line, you're on the air.
Hi.
Oh, hey Art.
We're really sorry to hear you going.
Oh, well thank you.
We just really love you.
So, but we'll hear from you soon, Ron.
I wanted to tell you, you were talking about what happened to the birds, you know?
Yes.
How the smaller birds were disappearing.
Birds and the bees.
Well, yeah, I have bees around my house.
I live in Los Angeles.
And we have a major amount of crows in the area, overpopulation.
And we've been trying to get the agriculture department and call the media.
We've watched them swallow a lot of the small birds.
owls, so they just seem to be taking over. They're so overpopulated, but we don't know
what to do. Maybe we could try something.
You think it's birds eating birds? I mean, we're talking about significant reduction
in population of the smaller birds, you know, like up to 70%.
Well it is. It is the larger birds eating the smaller birds.
They're known to it and they're so overpopulated. One town in the U.S. a couple
years back had such an overpopulation and they had to, I don't know what they did to get rid of
them.
Thank you.
But it's really bad.
Well, you've now seen to it that a lot of people have heard about it, so... Maybe we can call our congressman?
Get a crow debate.
Listen, you get it on the air like this, and that's the first step, okay?
Well, we love you, Art.
Thank you.
Bye.
And take care.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, Art!
I just called to thank you for 23 years.
It's been wonderful.
Thank you.
I haven't called since I was the first book reviewer out in Arkansas then.
I'm now in Gardnerville, Nevada.
You know, I'm not really sure how many talk radio hosts have had a career as long as the one I've had.
There are certainly some, a few, with longer careers, but not too many.
Uh, let's see, why did I call?
Other than to thank you.
Oh, um, I was wondering, uh, what does Art DeForest think of, uh, having a new little baby sister?
Um, for reasons that, uh, I'd rather not go into right now.
I don't talk about that.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
All right.
And, uh, uh, when you and Ramona saw the triangle, I called you about one in 87.
Did you have any missing time afterwards?
No.
None that I'm aware of.
I suppose you can have missing time and simply not look at a watch and not be aware of the fact that you've missed time.
I wonder how many people have ever thought about that one.
You could have missing time unless you had a reference.
You know, if you're having a fairly laid-back day, your time could just go and you wouldn't even know it.
But no, to the best of my knowledge, we did not.
We stood there and watched the damn thing float out across the valley.
And I mean float.
And then got in the car and came home in kind of a state of shock.
Now there was that.
We were in a state of shock for a while.
You cannot see something like that, that close.
It wasn't a close encounter of the third kind, but it was very close to it.
And not be in some kind of shock.
And we both were.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hi.
Hello.
Going once.
Rick in Toronto?
Yes, hello Rick.
I'd just like to thank you as well for all the years.
I first started listening to you the night of the Gulf War, first one.
Couldn't sleep that night and been listening ever since.
Believe me my friend, it is my pleasure.
Thank you.
One comment I'd like to make.
Yes.
And it really worries me, is this Ouija board experiment on a mass scale and I hate to say it, but I'm almost considering just not even listening, just because, I don't know, I've got this bad feeling about this.
This is like a mass consciousness experiment that could go, who knows?
Okay, well I'm not following it.
I'm aware of it, but I haven't been following it.
I'm going to have to get that out there.
Thanks, Art.
You're very welcome.
My advice would be not to do it.
But, you know, George is doing the weekday show, and he will do as he will do, and that's as it should be.
But a Ouija board is something that... Look, a Ouija board is only... There's nothing magical about a Ouija board.
Could be anything.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter.
Ouija board is just cardboard.
That's all it is.
It's the intent.
And you don't want to be opening doors.
In other words, you're sitting down with an intent to communicate with something you don't know what you're communicating with.
That's the whole problem.
That's the reason I'm not doing the consciousness experiments, because I don't know what I'm doing.
And when you go to a Ouija board and you're projecting an intent To be in contact with who the hell knows what.
And I intentionally used that word, because I could very well be the source of what you find yourself connected with, so... There you are.
My advice would be, and my action would be, not to do it.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hello.
Art Bell?
Yes, sir.
God bless you.
I'm gonna miss you.
This is Cornelius White on 970 AM out of Alexandria, Louisiana.
Okay, I can't include your last name, so I had to eliminate that.
We're not allowed to use last names on the air, but I appreciate your sentiment, that's for sure.
Yeah, I've been listening.
Okay, you've got your radio on, don't you?
Yes, sir.
Turn it off.
Wouldn't have to be saying that anymore anyway.
Off, off.
I'm back, Art.
There you go.
Um, but, uh, yeah, we're really going to miss you.
I hope you can come back sometime.
Well, as I mentioned, um, uh, thank you very much.
I, as I mentioned, my connection with the, uh, the network will continue to the degree that, you know, every now and then I'll come fill in or something of that order.
Uh, wildcard line, you're on the air.
Hello?
Hello?
Going once, going twice, gone.
Wildcard line, you're on the air.
Good morning.
Yes.
Turn your radio off, please.
Done.
Okay.
I think it's only fitting that you got to break that story last night regarding Roswell.
Well, I didn't.
Let me say it again.
I didn't break it.
And if you listen carefully, the author we had on last night had it as the last chapter in his book.
So, you know, some people have known about it since December.
What did happen last night was it began breaking in the world press, so... Well, one of the things I wanted to mention is I had a chance to speak with Doc Combshotter before he died.
Very credible guy.
He was there.
And from that point on, I've always believed that it was absolutely a fact.
And what did he tell you?
He said he saw the stuff, and as a matter of fact, he had a piece of the wreckage In his garage for years and his son threw it out while he was cleaning his garage one time.
Oh my god.
I suppose if you didn't know what it was.
Well some of the ancillary things that he spoke of along the way were real interesting about how they debriefed him and so on and so forth.
He was a young dentist and a rock hound and he had more to lose.
I must say last night's program was It cinched the whole thing for me.
If it was in my gray basket before, it isn't anymore.
I absolutely, I don't for one second think that this man wrote all of this, held on to the information during his entire life, and only upon his death would release it.
I don't believe that's a bogus story for one second.
Well, Comptroller was in his 80s and had absolutely no agenda when he was speaking about it.
Right.
And we got off on the subject because I had mentioned that my brother and I had seen an unidentified flying object when we were kids, and we ended up hiding under the bed for hours.
It freaked us out so bad.
And then, of course, he and I swore a death pact never to tell anybody, because they wouldn't have believed that, but they would have believed we were out on the roof.
Well, I hope he's not hunting you down now.
Oh, no.
No, but I'm just saying that having spoken with Combshutter and Listening to him chronicle his experience as a young man out there and what happened.
It was very believable, very honest guy.
I mean, no agenda, not trying to make a buck, not trying to impress some kid like myself at the time.
And I just, you know, it all fit.
It all fit.
You bet it fits.
Thank you very much.
This is sealed affidavit.
It's not sealed any longer.
To me, it's a clincher.
Believe me, this man, Walter Hout, could have taken this public when he was alive.
He could have written books, he could have made a ton of money, he could have done a lot of things.
Instead, he kept his oath, only writing this and only releasing this affidavit on his death.
No, I believe it.
And I think it's the most substantial piece of evidence that we've got that Roswell absolutely occurred.
Wild Card Line, you're on the air.
Hello, Art.
Yes.
Yes, hi.
You know the vitamin thing?
Yes.
You know, I'm a health care professional.
I've dealt with people my entire life, and when I see people that have gotten better, not gotten better, and I hate to say this, but I've watched people not Being healthy by not doing the right thing and when I hear reports about people saying that you cannot get better or you cannot flourish and be better by having not just a healthy lifestyle but having the vitamins in you.
You can do it.
You can do it.
But a lot of people... But you said doing the right thing.
And my complaint is, what the hell is the right thing?
We don't, you know, one day vitamins are good for you, the next day they're shortening your life.
Come on.
That's the thing, Art.
The thing is that people have a tendency to overdo, and then when it overdoes, then, I mean, you can get too much vitamin A, too much vitamin D, and then it overshadows how good things are When those things are good for you.
So you shouldn't... I think what's happening is that people overdo the vitamins and then it overshadows the goodness of what regular vitamins and the happy medium can do for you.
Well maybe then the person who said all things in moderation was right.
Exactly.
Absolutely exactly.
Art, take that to the bank.
All right.
I shall.
Thank you.
All things in moderation.
Makes sense, right?
Okay.
To the first time caller line, you are on the air.
Hello?
Oh, hello.
I'm sorry.
Turn your radio off, please.
Yeah, just a second.
I'm sorry for that.
Yes.
All right.
Yes.
Proceed.
Oh, this is John and, uh, here in Texas.
And I just wanted to say, you know, it's, uh, sad to see you go.
I've been listening to you only for A couple of weeks now, and I just love the program.
Thank you, John.
It's an amazing program, and like I said, I'm sad to see you leave, but I know you gotta do what you gotta do.
Right, and the program will continue, John.
It's a unique program.
I hope it doesn't change.
It presents material that other talk shows don't even touch.
It does, and that's what I love about it.
It just covers everything, and it's not discriminatory in any way.
It's an awesome program.
Thank you.
I just want to talk for a second about the whole Scotland-London bombing thing.
Yes.
It seems that, in my opinion, and I'm not trying to diss America or anything, but it seems in my opinion that the London terrorist group, MI5 and everything, they have a better handle on things sometimes, it seems.
How do you feel about that?
Well, look, things have been pretty quiet since 9-11, if you're talking about this country, and I've said this.
Not long ago, you know, Homeland Security deserves a little bit of credit.
FBI, CIA, whoever, whatever the numbered letter agencies are, nothing awful, not to say it won't happen, but nothing awful has happened.
Now, many times, the authorities stop something, and for reasons of not disclosing technology we have that might have been involved in stopping it.
We don't make those claims.
So you don't find out the good things that are done by these agencies.
You only hear, and boy do you hear, about the failures.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
Hello.
This is so perfect.
Are you there?
I'm here.
Okay, this is Shane from New Orleans and I just want to thank you for the five years of service that I've been Devoted and I also want to thank you personally for making such momentous decisions in your life Regarding other people, you know, like moving your family back from the you know to New Mexico and also Also, thank you for such a momentous decision to retire I
For your family.
You're very welcome.
It is something that I'm kind of happy to do now.
It's a happy decision this time.
And as you know, in the past, I've led a pretty wild life.
There's no two ways about it.
I have led an incredible life.
And you know, at times like this, when you're getting ready to retire, when you're retiring, you spend time in reflection.
And I've been anything but a perfect person, that's for sure.
But what a life.
What an incredible up and down, well actually ride, it has been.
It really has been a ride.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Yes.
My name's Kayla.
Yes.
I was calling to congratulate you on your new addition to the family.
Oh, thank you.
Have you seen her picture?
Huh?
Have you seen her picture?
No, I haven't.
It's on the website.
Yeah, I haven't visited the website.
Okay.
But me and my husband have listened to you for some years now and we've appreciated your shows and it's kind of sad to hear you're leaving.
Well, it's just another step in life, Caleb, but thank you very, very much for the wishes, the good wishes, and the call.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello, Art.
I want to tell you four things for your retirement.
Well, real quick.
Okay.
A common vehicle can go 80 miles on a gallon of straight gasoline.
A common car can be converted to run off of water.
If the U.S.
really wanted to extend its fuel supply, our gasoline could be mixed with 50% water.
This is existing technology.
And the other one slips my mind.
Oh, we can run our vehicles with the current technology closed-loop.
The exhaust could go back into the intake.
There's no need to test cars for emissions.
It's all a scam.
Do you have a car that does this?
These are documented.
Do you have a car that does this?
I do not.
Yeah, my 4,000 pound car can get 30 miles to a gallon with a simple device that's available to anyone.
Alright, email me.
We've got a break.
Sorry, the hour is over.
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell.
We'll be right back.
Yes, indeed.
Here I am.
Cyber war columnist Charles R. Smith is one of America's leading experts on cyber technology and its implications for war, terrorism, privacy, and Every Way Technology actually interacts with our lives.
He's an exclusive columnist for Newsmax.com as its cyber war expert and is currently president and CEO of Softwar, his own consulting company.
He currently provides security software for medical information services and hospitals, encryption software for secure email, direct communications, electronic commerce, and internet website services.
So, it should be a very, a very interesting interview ahead indeed.
In a moment, Charles Smith, welcome to Coast to Coast AM.
Thank you for having me on board, I appreciate it.
Great to have you.
A very timely Subject with, you know, what's going on in Great Britain and so forth right now.
I guess... Maybe I ought to ask you this.
Charles, do you think that terrorism is going to be a part of our lives from now on?
Yes, I do.
I believe it's a generational type of thing.
We've seen the various groups Individuals as well as organized sects pick this up.
We'll probably see terrorism for the next 40 or 50 years, I would say at very least.
Think of it as an insurgent kind of war at all fronts.
Terrorism is not a winning combination.
It has to be combined With a political and an informational type of warfare in order to make it a success.
And I think a very good example would be the PLO was probably one of the first to take terrorism and combine it with a political and propaganda war to eventually become viewed as a legitimate political force.
Right.
They did do that.
That's a good point.
What is China selling to the Taliban?
At the moment, the Chinese are selling some fairly advanced equipment to the Taliban.
One good piece of equipment is the HN-5.
This is a manned, portable, surface-to-air missile.
Very similar to the Russian SA-7 Grail.
It has some improvements that have been modified by the Chinese, of course, in a classic format.
The Chinese are very well known for taking weapon systems that are reliable, upgrading them, modifying them, and of course, selling them without a license.
The HN-5 is quite capable of bringing down helicopters, small transport aircraft, Even going after combat aircraft, such as jet fighters.
So, there is some worry.
We already know that they have supplied a large number of these manned portable surface-to-air missiles to the Taliban.
In addition to some fairly low-tech type of equipment, like the RPG-7, which they have improved, there is some indication that they may have also supplied The Taliban with what is referred to as a fuel-air munition.
There is a shoulder-launched version of this fuel-air munition.
Basically, instead of a standardized explosive, the device is designed to shoot a shell into a room or bunker or facility, release very quickly a explosive mist and detonate it.
The fuel-air munition type of system, of course, is quite capable of leveling an entire building in comparison.
Actually, fuel-air explosions, if they're big, are rated right up there next to nuclear explosions, aren't they?
The original fuel-air munition, yes, it was something on the order of 6,000 to 7,000 pounds.
Better known as the cheeseburger in the military vernacular, used during the Vietnam War to actually, not to knock out enemy locations, but more or less to level whole areas of jungle so they could turn them into landing zones.
Right.
The BLU unit, also known as Big Blue, was generally rolled out the rear end of a C-130 On a pallet with a parachute would detonate itself at a relatively low altitude above a target.
And of course, it was an extremely large explosive.
Well, the fuel air munition has actually been improved with electronics and miniaturized into the form of a hand portable type of system, very similar to an RPG-7.
It's a large extended kind of rocket.
Instead of exploding on contact, it's designed to be shot through a window or through a fragile area into a building where the mist is therefore dispersed inside a confined space and then detonated.
Wow.
Why are the Chinese doing this?
In other words, I guess I'm asking what their motives are.
Political motives?
Are they economic motives?
Why would they want to upset us, as in the US or the West, by selling to the Taliban?
The Chinese actually were one of the main suppliers to the Taliban, and I think we probably should have taken a warning after the invasion of Afghanistan and the Taliban government had been ejected.
The Taliban foreign minister and their defense minister ended up in Beijing.
There were a number of publications with the PRC's foreign minister and the Taliban foreign minister making statements.
The Chinese, in essence, view our presence in Central Asia as competition, and therefore it's kind of a natural political reaction for them to supply weapon systems to an insurgency that they see where they could pin us down.
The flip side to that is, of course, As you well pointed out, the Chinese military, you can think of it as PLA Inc., the People's Liberation Army, Incorporated.
It's pretty hard for them to turn down good money.
The Taliban does have good money in the form of extensive opium trade, so they can actually come forward with multi-million dollar purchases, and that's again not too unusual.
For the Chinese Army Incorporated to step forward and say, okay, we'll supply you.
What do you want?
Are the Chinese doing this directly with the Taliban or is there an arms dealer or an intermediary seeing to it that this gets done?
The primary intermediary was the Iranians.
They actually approached the Chinese originally.
And made the request that the Taliban were in desperate need of some more advanced equipment to face off with the Western and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
The Chinese not only agreed to supply some of this equipment, but they've actually gone so far as to directly fly in shipments into Afghanistan into Taliban controlled areas.
Really, really?
Oh, yeah.
So this is a pretty overt kind of action.
I was going to say, that's awfully overt, and it seems to me the Bush administration would be having cats and dogs.
Well, you would think, and the reality is it's dead silence at Foggy Bottom.
You won't hear any reaction out of the White House.
There have been statements accusing the Iranians of supplying weapons, but when it came to talking about the Chinese, It was, well, we're not sure, or we can't make any comment, or no, we're not aware of anything in particular.
Well, we're probably getting ready to face off with the Iranians anyway, so that would make sense.
But I don't think we're prepared to be facing off with the Chinese.
I think it's more along the lines of certain commercial interests are stepping on the administration To make sure to emphasize the peaceful nature of our relationship with Beijing.
Well, we do have a lot of economic interest, don't we?
Well, we could say Walmart.
You can... We can say a lot more than that.
Oh, absolutely.
There's all kinds of factories.
If you look at how much is made, not just stuff you buy at Walmart, but almost all the way across the U.S.
If you look carefully at labels, you'll find it comes from China.
Most disturbingly, many of the organizations, the companies that we're dealing with in China, are exactly the same firms that are selling these weapons.
That's one of the things that kind of bothers a lot of our national security analysts.
They do recognize very clearly that the Chinese military owns a large number of factories, Many of them are weapons-producing facilities, but at the same time they also produce a wide line of commercial goods for sale here in the United States.
I think part of the administration's hope is that China's kind of in a, I don't know, transitional period, it would seem.
Certainly, economically, and perhaps even eventually politically, and I think the administration is hoping that the economic gains will turn into political change eventually, and it may indeed occur.
What do you think?
We've been saying this since 1990, and they haven't gotten any nicer, they haven't been any less belligerent in the world stage, in fact more so, They have not dedicated any less money towards their military.
In fact, they've actually dedicated more.
The growing Chinese middle class is very anti-U.S.
and extremely anti-freedom from the point of view of democracy.
They certainly do not see at all any advantage to going to a democracy simply because that would undercut any Sort of profit or motive that they've got.
So the net result of the policies that we're looking at are, we've actually seen it go in the exact opposite direction.
China is definitely not getting any nicer.
For example, the supplying of weapons to the Taliban in an overt fashion is just simply one area in a global context.
And at the same time, we have to look at it in the form of, well, okay, if we trade with them, maybe they'll become more democratic, because they certainly have become more capitalistic.
Well, instead, what we've seen is this wonderful mix of Marxism, one-party totalitarian rule, and, of course, a good dab of capitalism under those restrictions.
For those of us who are familiar with history, we actually see the same system, historically speaking, existing in fascist Germany and fascist Italy prior to World War II.
So, you can say China has morphed itself from this agrarian, peasant, communist state into a modern, fascist, socialist state.
Freedom is certainly not an issue that we're going to be dealing with when we look at the upcoming Olympics.
If anything, what we've seen is a crackdown on dissidents, a wide effort to remove people who could possibly interfere in any form, way, or format, even by happening to live in the wrong spot.
The most recent example of The crackdown in Tibet.
Don't think that we're the only ones that are reaping the global benefits of our engagement policy here.
The Chinese have been extremely belligerent with India, with Japan, with Korea, and with Taiwan as well.
With the Japanese, we've seen the Chinese nuclear submarine literally Incur into their national waters, that could be construed as an act of war.
What do you think?
Let's talk about Taiwan for a moment.
I'm curious what your feelings are.
If China decided that's it, Taiwan is now part of China, period.
All of this freedom and whatever else Taiwan has, it's all over.
You're now part of China.
What do you think, if anything, the U.S.
would do to prevent that?
Depends on how far they would do it.
If it's a political statement, they've already made that.
The economic realm, well, they're trying, but the Taiwanese, of course, have a pretty good-sized economy on their own.
If it's a military statement, like a blockade, A missile barrage?
Something like that, yeah.
Yeah, short of an invasion, but a blockade, for example, which would be a general violation of international law.
I'm sure that we'd see an American task force in the form of one or two or perhaps up to five or six carrier battle groups move into the area.
It would be one of those, let's draw the line in the sand sort of thing.
Let me play devil's advocate with you a little bit.
The United States has a long reach.
We control outside of Cuba, and that's by prior agreement.
We pretty much control all within our sphere of influence.
I mean, wouldn't you agree?
Outside of Cuba?
Well, vis-a-vis Cuba, we could easily shut it off if we wish, but... Oh, we could change it any time we wanted.
But there's an agreement there.
I think everybody knows that.
But aside from Cuba, we pretty much control everything within our realm.
And there are some people who would say that China, being a world power, and it is a world power, may indeed, in effect, have a right To control their sphere of influence.
And I don't know if there's a hell of a lot we can or should do about that.
Now, what do you say to that kind of thinking?
We have to look towards a couple of issues here.
First and foremost, Taiwan is centrally located to control all the oil that would go towards Korea and Japan.
We're not the only ones with a lot at stake here.
Obviously, slinging ballistic missiles or putting a naval blockade around Taiwan would bump directly into Japanese self-interest, and that bumps into U.S.
self-interest.
We also have a written agreement with the Taiwanese.
Granted, if they wanted to peacefully rejoin with the mainland, that's one thing.
On the other hand, if they wish to declare independence, we've been telling them, no, you should not do that.
Which is, of course, an ultimate irony.
Here we are, fighting a war in Iraq, allowing people to vote, and touting as if that is some sort of gigantic achievement.
Well, I guess we assume that... Don't do that.
Yeah, I guess we assume that if they declared independence, that would light the fuse.
That would cause China to act, I guess?
Possible.
It would be a face thing.
Keep in mind, the Straits of Taiwan are not necessarily an easy transit.
As one submariner once said to me very recently, they may have a million man army, but how long can you tread water?
The reality of the situation is that A blockade by the Chinese Navy would be a futile effort.
The Navy that they have is minuscule.
It would be devastating to their naval forces.
Remember, China is... The People's Liberation Army controls all of the military.
It is known as the People's Liberation Army Navy.
That's the exact acronym, the PLAN.
The reality of the situation is they probably start flinging ballistic missiles.
What would Americans do if innocent people are dying simply because somebody sitting on the other side of a very short street of water hurling missiles at them in a la Scud style, except much more accurate and much more deadly?
Do you think we would go to war with China over Taiwan?
There's a very good possibility.
We nearly did in 96.
There was an American carrier battle group that was sent there.
Remember, the Chinese started flinging ballistic missiles.
I do recall, yes.
Right.
We sent a carrier battle group.
The Chinese mustered their nuclear submarines.
There was a general alert.
There were words exchanged.
The reality of the situation is that the question becomes, who's in charge here?
And that's where we have this problem with the supplies to the Taliban.
Is this a decision that's being made at Chinese Army headquarters, or is it actually being made... Alright, Charles, tell you what, hold it right there.
We'll be right back.
We've got a break at the half hour point.
From the high desert, I'm Art Bell.
Good evening, everybody.
My guest is Charles R. Smith, and we're talking about China right now, what they're doing, selling weapons to the Taliban, and actually a lot more.
We'll get to that.
So, Charles, back with us in a moment.
Now, here's another very serious question, Charles.
Do you believe that China is selling weapons and materials To terrorists who are using them inside the United States or will be?
The answer is a definitive yes.
We've already caught two guys last year as part of a operation.
It was essentially designed, initially designed to catch people who were working with the North Koreans to smuggle in counterfeit $100 bills.
And it suddenly expanded very rapidly into a nightmarish story of advanced surface-to-air missiles and terrorism.
The operation known as Smoking Dragon got two guys who were using these counterfeit $100 bills and the funding that they were going to obtain from this to purchase probably the most sophisticated man portable system that the Chinese developed quite capable of bringing down an airliner.
They were lured into a deal by American law enforcement into believing that they were selling these systems to a terrorist organization here in the U.S.
who would use them to shoot down airliners.
And these guys made it very clear that they had connections not only at the highest level, they even put the agents in contact, direct contact, with the Chinese general who would supply them with the weapons.
So you're saying we caught them?
We caught them red-handed.
They're convicted.
Two of them are, they're both currently serving time.
They were caught in California.
So, Lepunte and Rosemead.
You're looking at Chow Tung Wu.
And they were planning on selling some of the most sophisticated surface-to-air systems, man-portable surface-to-air systems available.
They were going to bribe an intermediary, essentially a foreign country, and a couple of officials were going to allow the missiles to be trans-shipped through their country, re-marked as machine parts, And be brought in in regular shipping containers here into the U.S.
to be supplied directly to U.S.
agents who are posing as terrorists who wish to shoot down American airliners.
And that's the point I was trying to make a little bit earlier.
Nothing awful has happened in the country since 9-11.
Now, one would have expected they would have followed up after 9-11 with quite a bit.
I'm trying to give some credit to some of these agencies that really have prevented terrorism from occurring in the U.S.
since 9-11.
I think they've been doing a reasonably decent job, but they don't get credit, nor do they even really announce many times when they do catch something underway for intelligence reasons, and so they don't get credit for the good stuff they do.
What about that?
No question about it.
Part of it is to try to keep it quiet so they can continue other operations.
That's right.
The other half of this, of course, is they try to keep it quiet because we're implicating members of the Chinese government directly in terrorist operations, and therefore that would certainly hurt someone's bottom line, especially when they want to cut a major deal in China.
The Chinese, they can't afford to go too far, particularly with something that would end up being a domestic catastrophe in the US, because then we would implement trade sanctions, we'd have no choice politically, and they'd be cutting off their own Chinese nose despite the face, right?
You would think, but the point being here is The Chinese do believe in waging war at multiple levels, and occasionally they get caught at it.
Do not, at any point, think that the Chinese military, or even the hierarchy at the CCP level, would not sit down and devise something along these lines.
Just look at the reaction to 9-11 that we had that came out of Beijing, or even here in the United States.
One of the most under-publicized events was when 9-11 took place.
The State Department was hosting some top Chinese officials, including members of their state-controlled press, and they witnessed the 9-11 events on TV like the rest of us.
Unfortunately, when the second plane struck at the Twin Towers, The room of Chinese officials broke into applause with high fives.
And I'm just trying to bring this to you, at least to give you a general understanding.
Where did you, just for the record, where did you get that information?
That came from Bill Gertz.
Who?
Bill Gertz, the national security reporter for the Washington Times.
Okay.
He was in the room with them.
Okay.
It wasn't a pleasant event.
No.
Now... No, and it's hard to believe, but I guess... It's hard to believe, but quite true.
And it's also extremely devastating, from the point of view that if you look very carefully here, last year we catch two guys pedaling the Kuwait 2, which is better than any Stinger we've ever developed, because it's a modern missile.
Right.
There's a Chinese general involved in this, he's an unindicted co-conspirator, our government would not release his name, and the Chinese government never prosecuted anyone.
Well, again, my point though, I can see how far they would go, and then I can also see that if they went past a certain point, they would trigger what would hurt them, it would be devastating to their economy.
And they are concerned about their economy.
There's no doubt about that, but they don't believe that we would ever do it.
They hold one trillion dollars in treasury bills.
They know full well that if we start playing these little games with, let's dance around the maypole and what can we cut off today, all they have to do is start dumping treasury bills.
So at their highest level, they certainly do not believe in at any one point And we're not reinforcing any sort of strong message back to them.
Well, Treasury bills notwithstanding, I mean, they wouldn't want to escalate past a certain point.
They're not, the Chinese are not currently a military competition for us at all.
Well, once again, you have to keep in mind, one of the reasons why we got involved in the Korean War was because of a misperception on both parts.
We did not anticipate that the Chinese would have the capability of flying the MiG-15, then the most sophisticated aircraft in the world, and it came as a rude shock that they were quite capable of dealing at the high-tech level.
Do not, under any circumstances, underestimate their capabilities or a determination.
They would quite willingly sacrifice at a 9 or 10 to 1 ratio if they could bring, say, 50 to 100,000 casualties.
They do not, and this is right out of the OCMC, that's the Office of Military Command in TLA headquarter doctrine.
They do not believe that we have the guts to take that kind of loss without walking away.
They've witnessed us more than once do that.
So, do you think we would absorb 50,000 casualties, especially in, say, a three to six month period?
Well, I think that the 10 or 20 to 1 or 100 to 1 ratio that you say they can absorb, they would be absorbing that and more if they let it escalate too far.
You know, I'm pointing out that they're, you know, in an endgame, they're no competition.
This is where, again, we have to be very careful about what is their capabilities. Keep in mind the Chinese are fielding
the DF-31, which is a road-mobile, intercontinental ballistic missile. We also have the
wonderful event that followed 1996, where General Zong Gang Kai, then the number two commander
of the PLA, said, basically, you would not want to lose Los Angeles if you get into a
scrap with us.
Yeah, I remember that. I remember that. But they'd lose a lot more than L.A.
They'd lose a lot more than L.A.
They'd lose virtually their entire country.
That's what I say.
They wouldn't play an endgame with us.
Like the Russians, the Soviet bloc, they're not suicidal.
The Chinese are not suicidal.
I'm much more concerned about those who are suicidal, and I'm talking about the terrorists now.
If they're funding the terrorists, that's one thing, but they're not going to take us on head-on, Charles.
I don't believe that for a second.
Well, that's why when we're looking at the kind of weapons systems that they're buying and building, With the kind of money that we've been giving them that we've had so much concern inside the Pentagon.
Well the concern I have is indeed for them funding or providing arms to those who are suicidal.
Now that kind of terrorism you really do have to worry about.
People who are willing to give their lives to take yours are a big concern and if they're funding these people or giving them weapons we've got a problem.
We have to look at exactly what kind of things have been proliferated.
And a fine example of that, remember when Gaddafi came clean?
Yes.
He decided to turn over all of the good things that he had.
That's right.
One of the things that he gave to us was some plans that a guy by the name of Dr. Khan from Pakistan had sold to them.
Those were A-bomb plans.
Those blueprints were Chinese blueprints.
If you want to know where the proliferation came from, all you have to do is look back right directly at Beijing.
Well, you can get plans for an atomic bomb on the internet.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Not those kind of plans.
These are the kind of plans for a delivery device that you can build in a sophisticated format for either air or missile delivery type of systems.
This is the kind of thing that Pakistan built for themselves Which is one of the reasons why you're seeing India looking at the United States these days in a much more favorable eye.
They know where the Pakistani inventory came from.
They know where the technology came from.
The same thing applies to the North Koreans.
The North Korean plans, they didn't get them from Japan.
They weren't stolen from Los Alamos.
It came directly from Beijing.
The North Koreans are so bad that I think even the Chinese are worried about them.
There's no doubt about that.
Kim Jong Il, I like to refer to him as still crazy after all these years.
The Chinese do worry that if his government collapses, they're going to have to step over the border.
The South Koreans are definitely afraid that his government is going to collapse.
Because they know how much money they would have to spend in order to bring North Korea back into civilization.
They have the same fear that the West Germans had when East Germany collapsed.
That's right.
They're bankrupt trying to reformat it.
Sure.
But that's not to take away from the other factor, which you put into quite distinctly.
You start distributing these kind of weapons to crazy people, they do crazy things.
Yeah, that's a different story.
Keep in mind, Hezbollah showed up last year with a Chinese C-801 cruise missile.
They skewered an Israeli warship with it.
They sunk an Egyptian freighter and killed everyone on board with one.
A cruise missile is not something that you normally hand to a terrorist organization.
This is a fairly large and extremely sophisticated weapon.
Charles, if you were the President of the United States, Charles, just out of curiosity, what would your policy be toward China?
The very first thing I'd do would be to shut down the 3,000 Chinese Army-owned companies operating here in the United States.
That's a number that comes right out of the FBI.
There are 3,000 front companies operating here in the United States, mainly for espionage.
Many of them do compete unfairly.
I would shut them down and send them home.
like loans and contracts, but for the most part, they're designed for economic
and military industrial espionage.
I would shut them down and send them home.
The- And how would you, how would you,
how would you, under the constitution do that?
These companies are owned by a foreign entity that is a foreign government.
Well, a lot of foreign... many, many, many, many countries own or entities in the countries own businesses here in the U.S.
Right now, there's a law on the books that states that the government is supposed to identify in the Federal Register the Chinese Army-owned companies operating here in the U.S.
Neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration have followed the law.
There has never been a publication of those entities.
Okay.
You can start off with that.
Then the number that you just came up with came from, I'm sorry, where?
That's actually a quote from the counterintelligence head at the FBI.
There's also been the same quote that came out of the counterintelligence people at the CIA in Langley.
3,000 businesses owned by the Chinese Army.
In here in the United States.
Their primary function is espionage.
And we have the laws on the books right now to shut them down and send them home.
Sure.
I would think so.
Now... Do we do it?
No.
We don't want to anger the guys in Beijing.
We might not be able to cut a deal for Chrysler or Ford or gosh golly, you know, we may not be able to buy our iPods or iPhones because of the chips or something that they're being made over there.
I recall many of the same arguments were made against Japan.
You remember that decade when Japan was sort of ruling everything and economically on top of the world?
The difference then between Japan and China is like night and day.
Japan, even then, is a democracy.
Japan was not militarily oriented to the United States, Japan was not armed with nuclear weapons, nor had Japan threatened to fry American cities like Los Angeles.
That's quite true.
And keep in mind, the guy who threatened to fry LA, what did they do to him?
They promoted him after he made the statement.
That sort of gives you a hint of how they feel about this.
What do you think would happen, Charles, if they, as you put it, fried L.A.?
The gut reaction of the United States is to retaliate in a massive format that's not going to solve anything.
Oh, but it would.
No, actually all it would do would be kill several hundred million Chinese uselessly, but the Chinese government and their missiles would pretty much remain.
No, the targeting we would do would be military first.
The only deterrent right now when you're looking at the Chinese government is not, we'll fry your cities with all your people in them, is we will fry you, your pets, your family, personally.
We will take out your front yard, we'll take out your summer home, We'll take out your girlfriend as well.
What?
Listen, if they were to set off a nuclear weapon... If the Chinese government set off a nuclear weapon in Los Angeles, by whatever means...
I can assure you, their infrastructure would be gone, their government would be gone, many of their important cities would be gone.
It would be suicide, and I do not believe the Chinese are suicidal, Charles.
Let's go back through this.
Once again, when you're talking about a totalitarian regime, you cannot relate to it in the same form that you and I feel about how our government operates.
The only way that we've been able to deter them hasn't been to threaten their population.
It's been to threaten the leadership.
It's the same thing that we applied when we looked at Saddam Hussein.
No, we would take out their leadership.
We'd take out their government, their infrastructure, and obviously many of their cities.
We wouldn't need to do that.
But the problem is... Politically, we would.
No, we wouldn't.
We would not need to kill 500 million Chinese.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say kill 500 million Chinese.
Hold on Charles, we're at the top of the hour.
What I am saying is that much like the Russians, much like the Soviet bloc, What kept us all from going to war and ending the world was a mutual disinterest in suicide, and I think that's true of the Chinese as well.
We'll be right back.
Here I am.
My guest is Charles R. Smith, and we'll try and get this straightened away here in a moment.
I think we have a fundamental, perhaps have a fundamental, Let's see if we can straighten this out a little bit.
I agree with you that China certainly does not have our best interests at heart by a long shot.
However, I think my area of concern is more, and you can straighten me out if I'm wrong, but I'm very concerned about them selling uh... high-tech weapons uh... to people who are willing to
commit suicide to uh... to deliver them onto u s targets or our friends of
ours however i don't for one second
think the chinese would ever really consider
any sort of nuclear uh... strike against any u s city, and the reason I believe that is that they're not suicidal.
They're kind of like the Russians in that regard.
They're not the Taliban.
They're not Al-Qaeda.
But they are the Chinese, and they don't want to virtually disappear from the face of the
earth.
I can fundamentally agree that they and their military policy is certainly not designed
to fight us in a one-on-one, thermonuclear, toe-to-toe type of experience, quoting your
classic Dr. Strangelove.
No, they're not going to do that.
On the other hand, what is disturbing is statements made by their hierarchy at the highest level
that indicates that If given the opportunity, or in a situation that they feel it would be necessary, they certainly would not hesitate.
And we've seen that come out of the general staff.
They would not hesitate to do what, Charles?
I'm going to give you an example.
Last year, we had the commander One of the top PLA generals, he was in charge of the equivalent of their West Point, publicly state that China would be very willing to use nuclear weapons in a first strike if they felt that there would be a conflict over Taiwan.
And he meant first strike against the continental United States.
He was not demoted or removed.
From his position.
Right, I'm aware of that.
Right.
If an American general made a similar statement, well, let's see, that he could kiss his career goodbye.
Listen, if the Chinese attacked Los Angeles, I can assure you, Charles, there wouldn't be talk.
There would be action.
And it would decapitate The Chinese political establishment, it would decapitate and destroy the Chinese military, it would take out their infrastructure, and it would take out cities.
It would be suicide.
Now, let's put this into the actual context of where combat would take place.
Would we, on the other hand, strike at one of their cities if they, say, detonated a nuclear weapon in low-altitude space, say, over one of our carrier battlegroups in the Pacific?
Same deal.
Same deal.
We'd take out their infrastructure, we'd take out their military, we'd decapitate them.
The problem with doing that is, again, when we're looking at things like the DF-31, we help them design and build that by selling them advanced U.S.
technology, radiation-pardoned computer chip technology in the 1990s.
If we retaliate To destroy mainland targets with nuclear weapons, they will be left with no alternative but to fire what they've got, use it or lose it.
Yeah, well, they would.
They'd fire what they have.
So you would be looking at, say, 20 to 30 of the largest U.S.
cities.
Well, then you'd be looking at a full nuclear exchange and there would be no more China.
In their case, one of their tactical doctrine, this is right out of the PLA, headquarters directly from a conflict combat simulation,
one of the alternatives for them to prevent a carrier battle group from reinforcing Taiwan
is detonating nuclear weapons in space above the battle group.
You would not be destroying anything, but the EMP pulse certainly would knock out a
lot of things.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I'm sure that's true.
I guess we're going to have to live to disagree on this subject.
What I am concerned about is the Chinese getting weapons to people who would use them in the continental United States, if they could.
And that's something we're looking at.
That fits what they refer to as asymmetrical warfare.
That's right.
The Chinese actually refer to it under a codename called Assassin's Mace.
Okay, whatever.
Asymmetrical warfare.
We call it asymmetrical warfare.
Assassin's base is essentially, let's use some proxies, let's distribute some technology.
A good example would be, let's sell ballistic missile technology through our proxies to, say, Iran.
The current upper stages of the Iranian version of the Nodong missile, which they purchased from the North Koreans, Which they know is the Shahab Tree.
The current upper stages are designed and built by China Great Wall Industries and China North Industries.
Those two upper stages have extended the range and provided the Iranians with the capability of either a chemical or nuclear warhead with great accuracy, which is, let's compare that to the difference of flinging one, or maybe we can hit a city to now Flinging one to the point where we can pick the building where we want to hit.
Alright, it's your position that engagement is not working, is that correct?
It's been the policy since 1990 and I see no advantage to it at all.
Explain the policy of engagement.
Engagement is the firm belief by those who are currently in power that by engaging in trade with China And therefore, forcing them into a capitalist mode, that China will become less belligerent and more democratic.
Eventually, yeah.
Eventually.
Now, what is the evidence that that is not working?
Now, it's not something that's going to happen right away.
It may be even a generational policy before you can judge whether or not it's working.
Well, first and foremost, we can see For example, the proliferation, as you refer to it.
Intentional proliferation.
The Chinese policies also in regards to their borders.
We can talk about Taiwan, we can talk about the India border.
Things that don't necessarily directly reflect upon us, but we can see how, for example, the relationship between America and India Has improved rather dramatically, and we can say we can actually put that at the feet of Beijing, because they've actually gotten more belligerent, not less.
We can also look at the fact that the expansion of trade with China has enabled them to literally triple over the period of time their defense budget, and are now basically purchasing state-of-the-art weapon systems.
In fact, even building them.
So, in essence, we are building the military-industrial complex that's facing us with our own cash.
Then we could actually go into, let's see, is it actually making them politically nicer?
Well, what we've done is we've built a fairly narrow middle class, which is directly dependent upon the exploitation of some seven to eight hundred million Very impoverished people that they use essentially as low-cost labor.
That's fair.
The net result of that is, would this narrow middle class want a democratic or a liberty-based government?
Well, the answer, of course, is no.
So, in essence, what we've built is a fairly technical middle class that is actually dedicated to totalitarian, one-party rule.
They don't necessarily have to be members of the party, but they have reaped the benefits to the point where they have a vested interest in that format.
So, not only are we building a military, political, and economic competitor, we're also building a generation of Chinese who look upon us as the enemy.
I'm not sure the general Chinese people look at us as the enemy.
I want to take that apart.
I'm looking at the middle class and the ruling class.
That would be the middle and uppers.
When you go beyond the 50 to 80 million middle class citizens and you look at the rest of the 2.5 or 1.5 billion that reside there, Now, I can agree, and you can find right down at the grassroots level a lot of people who still love the United States.
But the counter to that, for example, is just last year we've had a number of conflicts in the format where the Chinese government was putting out an extensive amount of propaganda, especially in reference to the U.S.
in japan and therefore there were organized protest when you look at the hierarchy
the controlling elements they are not very
fond of the united states they make it very clear in their military political documentation
that the united states we are the enemy
well i'm just suggesting to you that it might be a little early to be suggesting
engagement is not working
and it might it might be an entire generation before we know whether or not
it's working There's two edges to this sword.
On the one hand, you're saying engagement is not working.
On the other hand, in another 20 years, it may indeed work.
It may culminate in some sort of abrupt political change in China.
The MTV revolution, which was, frankly, one of the real reasons why the Soviet Union fell, Okay.
The problem when we look at China is, for example, Google and Yahoo, people who are allowing their systems to be manipulated and used in an informational context to reinforce the propaganda.
If that information is twisted, is used in a totalitarian regime, It is actually worse, not better.
We're actually creating the venue that is allowing them to put electronic chains on their own society.
Yeah, there certainly is some of that going on.
...Warned about when I interviewed him back in the 1990s.
He's currently the head of the National Intelligence, and I have a great deal of respect for Admiral McConnell.
He was very clear about what was going on and how the Chinese are using our own technology in very much the same fashion that we could say South Africa was applying technology to control their citizens before apartheid.
Well, they're absolutely doing it.
They're controlling information.
However, the information age itself I have exactly the same point.
That's our biggest weapon.
The question is, is it too late?
It's kind of like trying to stop the Internet.
Well, they've stopped some of it, but it's a very tall order indeed, Charles.
Information has a way...
I have exactly the same point.
That's our biggest weapon.
The question is, is it too late?
When you're referring to the Chinese society and the Chinese hierarchy, the leadership
realm, in order to continue to retain power, would they not start a war?
Thank you.
That's exactly what Galtieri did in Argentina.
That was exactly what the Falklands War was all about.
He knew that they would potentially lose, but the idea was, in the loss, he would retain power.
Well, of course, it was a gamble, and he failed in both contexts.
But the point of remaining in power is to remain in power.
Well, when you say start a war, again, you've got to define what you mean by starting a war.
It depends if it's going to be a low-level type of thing, or if it's going to grind its way into something much larger.
Well, I'm willing to acknowledge we're already in a low-level kind of asymmetrical situation with China.
They're supplying some people we don't like.
There's no question about it.
Right.
And we're already seeing a backlash here in the United States.
Well, where do you think this is going to lead?
I mean, do you really honestly believe this is going to lead to Los Angeles going up in nuclear smoke?
The two alternatives are either explosion or implosion.
We prefer the implosion, which in essence is the Chinese government would collapse and a new state would be formed out of this.
Of course, the problem with that is, remember Right.
Of course.
we're dealing with a totalitarian regime with nuclear weapons.
You could think of it in these terms.
Whatever party is in power puts their troops in charge, their personal troops in charge
of the nuclear weapons.
Right now the Politburo controls all nukes in China, Politburo troops.
So one of the reasons why we can tell when they're really deadly serious is when the
Politburo troops start mobilizing.
The same thing applies when you're looking at their organizational structure.
If you want to watch what's going on, watch the People's Armed Police and the Politburo troops.
We've seen them recently, because of the high level of the Olympics, move in and around Beijing.
What do I see them doing?
Do I see them going into a toe-to-toe nuke with us?
No.
What I do see them do is All right, one day, let's go ahead and declare a blockade around China, around Taiwan, and go ahead, make our day.
Bring it on.
We'll take your navy on.
We're not going to fry an American city, but we're going to do battle with you close to the mainland with ballistic missiles aimed at your systems coming to threaten us.
I'm not sure.
There was a day, certainly, when we would have sent carrier battle groups to the rescue of Taiwan.
I'm not sure that day remains.
I'm not sure that we would go to the mat for Taiwan.
Well, we're also looking at other aspects of this.
The low-level war is going to continue.
You're going to see another, just a little notch up in the maneuver of sophisticated weapons being distributed Sometimes to third parties, to terrorists and governments.
That I can clearly see, Charles.
That I can clearly see happening.
The aspect here is to spread us a little thinner, to make us think about places like Somalia and Sudan, and put personnel that would be dedicated towards those things to pin us down.
You're also going to see some additional operations here in the U.S., just like the one that we uncovered when we picked up those two Chinese guys last year peddling surface-to-air missiles.
That's happened before.
We got 2,000 fully automatic AK-47s back in 96.
That was in L.A.
And the two guys that were peddling that were direct representatives of Polytechnologies and China North Industries, companies owned by the Chinese Army.
And they made it very clear that this was just a taste, that they could give the agents who were running the deal, they could give them access to much more sophisticated weapons, such as surface-to-air missiles and RPG-7s.
All right.
Listen, when we get back after the break, we've got a break coming here pretty soon, you do know apparently quite a bit about U.S.
technology, where we are and what we're doing.
Is there a new SR-71 Blackbird or the next generation of what should have come after the SR-71?
Do we have anything coming?
Yes.
It is affectionately referred to as the Son of Blackbird or SR-72.
It is an unmanned system at the moment.
Very stealthy, extremely fast and high-flying.
It will exceed the capabilities of the SR-71 by a generational context.
It is lightweight, quite capable of flying well out to 3,000 plus miles.
Okay, they call it Son of Blackbird?
Yeah, Son of Blackbird.
I like the name.
All right.
Charles, hold it right there.
And when we get back, we'll kind of turn in that direction and see what Charles knows about what we've got on the drawing boards or beyond.
I'm Art Bell.
Good morning.
In the middle of the night, Charles R. Smith is my guest.
And I've had a lot of emails from people.
In fact, a couple of photographs that were quite convincing.
Contrails in the sky.
And normally you would expect to be able to look at the origin point of a developing contrail and see an aircraft.
But you know what?
A lot of people have been taking photographs of contrails being formed by things you can't see.
Are we developing an invisible-to-the-eye aircraft?
We'll ask in a moment.
Listen, I want to remind everybody that even though I am retiring, my emails will remain the same.
That would be artbell at mindspring.com, A-R-T-B-E-L-L at mindspring.com, or artbell at A-O-L dot com.
Either way, it'll get to me.
All right, Charles, I have had, interestingly, a lot of emails from people who claim that they're observing invisible planes by seeing Contrails, then looking with, you know, some sort of magnification and not finding a plane at the lead of the contrail.
Now, what's going on?
The process is known as isoluminescence.
The original project, as a lot of most of this technology dates back to World War II, to a project called Yahudi.
I know that sounds pretty strange, but yes, it was called Yahudi, run by the U.S.
Navy.
They discovered very quickly, during the early portion of the Second World War, that it was quite easy for German U-boats to dive and get away from our very slow patrol planes.
Basically, the U-boat could spot them and dive and disappear long before the patrol plane could arrive on the scene.
So, what they experimented with was, let's put an array of lights along the leading edge and the propeller hubs of the patrol bombers, and use a measuring device to give you the approximate background luminescence, and change those lights to match that background, and therefore mask the patrol bomber until it came right on top of the U-boat.
Okay.
And it worked!
Now, of course, this was early 1942.
Yehudi was actually mounted on some B-24, better known as a PBY-4, patrol bombers operating in the Atlantic Ocean.
They were very successful.
Of course, airborne radar made the play immediately after that, and Yehudi went away, because with radar you could track a submarine From a much greater distance to sneak up on them at a different angle.
Okay, what about now?
I mean, this is a lot of years later.
What do you know about the technology now?
Isoluminescence has been taken forward into light-emitting panels or arrays, very similar to an LED.
The light-emitting panels can be mounted on the sides, literally in a conformal array Around an aircraft, and you can turn the lighting, in essence, to match the background.
Literally, from a thousand feet, it will mask the airplane.
Inside a thousand feet, you would actually see something, pretty much a lighted or outlined version.
But outside of that, for all practical purposes, it's part of the background sky.
So they are there.
There are invisible, virtually invisible aircraft, you're saying, from a thousand feet up?
Yes, and they're actually, at the moment, they're probably operating unmanned vehicles that you'd make utilization of this.
We had the episode with the Mexican patrol plane that ran into five What they referred to as UFOs, they could not see them with the naked eye, but they accidentally picked them up with a forward-looking infrared.
Interestingly enough, the material was immediately made available to a UFO journalist in Mexico who, of course, pronounced that Marvin the Martian was visiting the Netherlands, or in this case, out by the Yucatan Peninsula, Where there's virtually nothing.
Well, the reality was a number of aircraft that we use perform in and around the Gulf area because we're talking about white sands.
If you lose one, you probably would want to do it over a water-based area so nobody can go out and recover it.
You can go out and find it and bring it back.
How much are we actually moving from manned to unmanned aircraft anyway?
The current manned aircraft are literally being considered the last generation.
The F-35 will probably be the last manned fighter.
We may very well have manned aircraft that follow on, but they're more likely to be unmanned.
The U.S.
Navy will have an unmanned combat aircraft Uh, flying, I believe the original prototype, I believe it's the X-47B, should be in the air in November.
So, you're looking at, in essence, very stealthy, very long-range platforms.
The reasoning behind this, a person flying in an airplane, your limitation is How long can you go without eating, sleeping, or going to the bathroom?
A robot doesn't have that problem.
That's right.
There are those who say that, and you might want to comment on this, that as we move toward unmanned aircraft, unmanned battle vehicles, and unmanned weapons, period, we're doing something immoral.
There are people who say that Look, we're going to have machines doing battle with human beings.
Their flesh will die.
Our machines, at worst, will get broken.
And it's immoral.
How do you react to that?
I guess maybe the same comment was made when we picked up a club or threw a rock.
The technology on the battlefield is essentially designed To kill the other guy and save your people.
That's right.
To quote Patton, you know, the objective here is to make the other guy die.
That's right, that's right.
And that's how you win.
Okay.
We've been going unmanned for quite some time.
Look at the political differences.
For example, during the Clinton administration, instead of sending manned pilots to attack targets, we sent cruise missiles.
If something goes wrong, what do they capture?
A piece of junk on the ground.
Do they have a live pilot that they can parade around and hold captive?
That's right.
There you go.
That's right.
We're in agreement.
Even right down at the battlefield level now where we're seeing the utilization of robots, ground crawlers, small flyers, all sorts of things that Give our soldiers an immense advantage.
Somebody can literally sit in mainland U.S.
with what amounts to a fancy joystick and fight a war.
What kind of weapon is the U.S.
developing that can strike anywhere on earth, you say, in 30 minutes?
Well, that's one of those little things that not a lot of people pay attention to until you start looking at where the budget is.
The guys over at Northrop Grumman have come up with a launch vehicle.
Think of it as just kind of like a conventionally armed ICBM.
Except this ICBM, once you let it go, it doesn't have a nuclear warhead.
It actually has a smart submunition warhead that can range all the way on the other side of the planet.
And release a shower or array of miniature robots, each one of them armed with its own personal explosive.
The basic idea here is, instead of worrying about sending a battle group in to cut off a Chinese invasion of, say, Taiwan, I could sit on the mainland here and launch a couple of these things, and each one of those submunitions would hunt out either a small ship or a landing craft And destroy them in 30 minutes or less.
Think of it as like pizza delivery, it's still hot at the other end.
There are a number of different munitions that they're designing for this.
One munition, frankly, has no explosive wear at all.
It's nothing but a gigantic block of concrete.
And again, the idea here is I want to destroy a bunker or an underground tunnel, let's say We found him in his tunnel in Afghanistan.
We know he's going to be there for, say, the next 30 minutes, but that's it.
You pop one of these out, it reenters at around 15,000 miles an hour, and dives straight down into the side of the mountain.
Of course, with brilliant accuracy, plus or minus three feet right now.
It is a very interesting concept.
One question, how do we assure other countries around the world that what we're obviously launching in an ICBM trajectory is not a nuclear weapon aimed at them?
Two ways.
Their computers, if they see it, along with their radar, will probably know where the target is within the first 15 minutes, because once you get to the apex of the ballistic flight, it's pretty much a done deal.
So they'll know, A, this isn't heading for downtown Moscow.
Two, they're not going to be coming from the regular ICBM sites.
So you're not going to be seeing a thousand Minutemen climbing into the air.
You do see the concern there though, right?
What's that?
You do see the concern there though, right?
Well, right.
The Chinese have basically the same thing with the DF-21, the DF-15 and DF-11.
Conventionally armed, long-range ballistic missiles.
How can we tell if they're not nuclear armed?
Well, our satellites already know whether they've moved the nuke warheads out and hooked them up.
Their satellites are probably not that adept.
In fact, their air defense system is probably not adept to note something that's incoming until it's getting pretty close.
So, unless we're aiming it somewhere close to downtown Beijing or Moscow, they're probably not going to find out about it until after the fact.
Well, we'd want them to know about it before they launch.
We could always pick up the hotline and say, this one isn't coming your way.
Uh, that's what the Compromises are for.
Do keep in mind that Yeltsin almost turned the key once by accident, again, during the mid-1990s.
Kind of makes my point.
Well, in this case, he was looking at a... The Norwegians sent a sounding rocket up, and it had a very similar flight profile to a submarine-launched ballistic missile.
It was coming from the right area, and it was heading basically in the right direction.
The Russian missile defense picked it up.
They ran to Yeltsin, who was drunk as a skunk at the time.
He jumped to conclusions, grabbed the Russian version of the football, and turned the key.
And they were within two minutes of launching a retaliatory strike when one of the guys from the Foreign Ministry came in and said, you know, the Norwegians notified us about this about three weeks ago, that they were going to launch this thing.
We just forgot to tell you.
So everybody got to stand down at that point.
What a story.
The flip to that is, if we're aiming one at the Taiwan Straits, or if we're aiming it at downtown Islamabad, or if we're aiming it in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Iran, you're not likely to see the Chinese or the Russians do something.
And what makes them even more nervous these days is our ballistic missile defense.
Yes, well that was going to be my next question.
What is the state of our ballistic missile defense?
Now, we've seen some sporadic successes and probably nearly an equal number of failures in trying to stop ballistic missiles.
Well, I can say the Navy guys are having a pretty good string.
They've got nine out of eleven, and the two that missed... I think there was one early on, and then one about two years ago.
The SM-3, better known as the Standard Missile-3, is performing very well.
This last test was not just against your regular ballistic missile.
It was against a separated warhead With countermeasures, and the SM-3 interceptor was able to take it out at 100 miles up with no problem.
And that's the reason why the Japanese are joining in on the program, because they've actually added some of their wonderful technology to the interceptor.
I've seen the Japanese SM-3 interceptor in action.
It is an impressive piece of technology.
I would think the Japanese would be particularly interested in this technology for obvious reasons.
Yeah, and one of the debates going on in Japan right at the moment is, what would they do if they saw a missile being flung out of either China or North Korea, but it wasn't headed towards Japan, but to the United States?
And the debate going on is, should we shoot it down or not?
And I have a feeling that they're going to come to the conclusion, yes, we should.
The JDF and the U.S.
military do have separate command structures that's as per law, Japanese law, not U.S.
law.
But on the other hand, our sharing and operations date back all the way through the Cold War.
So despite those little minor economic tiffs that we had with each other, we were still watching The Chinese and the Russians and the North Koreans quite intently side-by-side.
The Japanese are in the National Missile Defense Program at the highest levels because they are contributing some very, very advanced technology.
The SM-3 interceptor is a very good example of exactly that.
What I'm seeing, especially out of the Navy guys, is a very capable system Already being mounted on cruisers and destroyers.
This last intercept was performed by a destroyer, by the way.
So, we can maneuver them globally.
Anywhere the ocean is, we can put them.
I've got a question for you.
You obviously study this kind of thing, Charles.
Going back to the first Iraq War, there was a great controversy about How many interceptions, successful ones, we actually made of Scuds?
I don't know that anybody really knows the true answer to that.
Do you?
Actually, if there is any answer to it, it's very highly classified.
Keep in mind the Patriot One, at that point, had never been tested against a ballistic missile because we were scared to death that we were going to break the ABM Treaty with the Russians.
So, we'd never tested it against a ballistic missile.
The Patriot 1 was never designed to intercept a ballistic missile.
It was the best we had that we could press into play.
Oh, sure.
But you don't know the answer to it, then?
No.
I would suspect that there were some intercepts that were successful because we can see the results.
I do know that there were some where we didn't even detect the incoming and the results were terrible.
When you look at Gulf 2, on the other hand, The Patriot did perform, PAC-3, performed very nicely.
In fact, it performed a little too good in the case of one British Tornado and one F-18 Hornet.
Neither one was able to get away from a PAC-3 that was fired at them.
So we had a little problem identifying our own guys in the region.
The SM-3, on the other hand, you know, it's a different build, different designer, The Navy has been doing this for quite some time because they have to defend warships.
So, this is not something that's easy or you can do just overnight.
You can build the missiles, but you've got to train the guys.
The Navy, on the other hand, sits out and fires these things all the time.
They train their personnel 24-7 when they're on it, so that's a whole different ballgame.
U.S.-based interceptors, we've had an on-and-off success with them.
They're better than nothing.
Frankly, I would rather have something in comparison to just sitting here going, give me one right in the face.
You're going to see them based down in California.
You're going to see them based in Alaska.
There's a very good chance that we may end up seeing some of them based down in Guam.
Right now there's obviously a big controversy with Putin about basing about 10 or 12 of them out in Eastern Europe.
I'm glad you brought up Putin.
Do you think we're going to come to political peace with Russia?
Oh yeah.
The Russians... The Russian mentality towards this It is not necessarily the same kind of global domination that we see coming out of Beijing with the good old hierarchy.
The Russians fully recognize they don't have the funding to deal with these kinds of things.
What we've seen coming out of their systems and their All right.
I'll tell you what, Charles.
Hold tight.
When we get back, I want to open the lines for the audience to ask you questions.
I've got a couple more myself, so all of that coming up.
Remember, nothing is as it seems.
Good morning, everybody.
Charles R. Smith is here, and he's discussing, well, I don't know, things military generally, China, but it's gone way beyond that.
So we've got the lines open, and we'll get you on with Charles in a moment.
Well, okay, this is very interesting.
We have somebody claiming to be calling from China on their own nickel, and apparently claiming to be calling from the Chinese government.
I have my doubts, but Jeff, you're on the air with Charles Smith.
Well, thank you very much, Art.
It is my nickel, and I'm calling from the Beijing Olympic Committee, and good afternoon.
I've worked for the government of China for the last nine years, and I'm the only American working in senior management for the Olympic Committee.
So I think I know what I'm talking about.
About half of what he's telling you is true.
I don't disregard anything regarding the military.
But when it comes to what's happening in the changes of China, you really need to have a guest on who's been here.
And clearly your guest hasn't.
And here's why.
By the way, for the record, I have.
Several times.
Well, I'm sure you have since you've been close here in the Philippines.
Here's my point.
What you're not talking about is the radical impact of what capitalism and free markets
have done here in China.
It's just not a veneer.
It has made radical, complete, overhauled changes in the financial system and the way
people are doing business here and the overall attitude of the Chinese people.
And you are right, Art, as you said earlier in your show, it is generational.
You're not looking at the long term like the Chinese do.
We look at things in quarters.
The Chinese look at things over a 10-year span.
So what I'm saying is the changes are here, the government is going to change over time,
and they believe they have democracy.
You don't believe it, your guest certainly doesn't, but you talk to the Chinese, they think they have it.
Yeah.
And that's good enough for them.
Charles?
Well, yeah, it's rather interesting.
I can point out, ask one question, and I can also point out one other thing.
You've got a vested interest And I can ask, if they've made such magnificent changes, why do we have accusations right now that there are child labor being used to make Olympic materials?
And believe me, I understand the IOC and its operations, and I also fully understand that there is an opposition group saying right now, because of what's happening in Sudan, maybe a boycott might be in order.
That might not exactly suit your collar very much, but I'm sure that when we're talking about people in Defour who are looking at Chinese warplanes with Chinese-trained pilots dropping Chinese-made bombs, that might be a different story.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
If that was the case, why don't we just boycott the NBA here in China, because the United States goes ahead and starts a war against someone You never get anything against us in Iraq.
Makes no sense.
Listen, you don't understand the changes that are here are, they are seismic.
No, I do.
I do understand them.
They are life-changing in a country like China.
Little things such as child labor happens every day.
It happens in countries like Thailand where we buy thousands of goods.
Mexico as well.
That's right.
And I think I'd like you to talk about this and I'll get off the air.
If you wanted to start, or if there was a conflict over Taiwan, what would the United States do?
The biggest weapon we have is our economy.
If I was President of the United States, and I got into a real contest with the Chinese over Taiwan, I would declare an executive order, read Tom Clancy's book, perfect example, I would declare that all U.S.
government agencies and all U.S.
businesses to cancel every contract with China.
You would suck out how many trillions of dollars out of this economy and create a potential civil war.
The Chinese don't want it.
We don't want it.
That's the biggest weapon we have.
Not dropping bombs on each other.
That's ridiculous.
Yeah, I really do agree.
All right.
All the way from Beijing.
There you go, Charles.
Well, once again, you know, we have to come to the terms of disagreement.
I know guys like Harry Wu.
Who will tell me straight out, and they've told me before, being able to pick your own toothpaste is not freedom.
Well, what he said was the Chinese people think they have some form of freedom, and by our standards perhaps not.
And certainly the leadership of China is what it is, but I tried to point out it's generational.
When you talk about freedom, just three months ago we had A Tibetan nun, fleeing for her life, trying to get across the Himalayan mountains, shot in the back at 100 yards by Chinese soldiers.
The foreign ministry declared that that nun was attacking the PLA guys.
They got it on video, it wasn't a US citizen, it was a Romanian citizen who shot the video.
Who shows this poor woman fleeing for her life.
Did they prosecute?
No.
What are we doing today with Iraq?
We just heard today that there were three guys who have been, who are under prosecution for murder.
And the reason is that when we have the evidence, you will prosecute.
In the case of the PLA, that soldier was probably given a medal for shooting because he was able to pick someone off in the snow at 100 yards.
Look, I'm not defending the Chinese military or the Chinese government.
I well know what they are.
The argument was whether or not we are or are not having engagement actually having an effect.
Yeah, I heard you.
Is that engagement or murder?
Okay, well, we can only have one conversation at a time.
Engagement is one thing.
Individual things like you're talking about right now, I don't think we can mix the two.
Okay.
I just don't.
I mean, if you want to have an argument about, or a talk, a discussion about engagement, that's one thing.
If you want to... We'll move this into the engagement side.
We have engaged Beijing to pressure Sudan to knock it off in Darfur.
Has that been successful?
Not yet.
And not everything is going to be.
Engagement is not the kind of process where you throw a switch.
As I said earlier, it's a kind of a generational thing.
It's going to take a generation or more.
All right.
Now, when we focus in, let's look at the example that I just brought up.
We've engaged We've requested, we've done economic work, we've gone through the U.N.
I know some of these people.
I know the U.N.
representatives who have worked with the Chinese one-on-one, and they are appalled watching Chinese-made jets dropping bombs on people who just want food.
Well, I mean, we had the Russians dropping bombs in Afghanistan.
We've had lots of people dropping lots of bombs all over the world.
We're a warrior people.
So change is not going to occur instantly.
But I think that that doesn't mean you stop trying engagement.
And I personally, it's my personal belief, Charles, that actually it is beginning to work.
Have you been to China ever?
No, I've been told that if I set foot in China at the moment, I would be arrested on the spot.
Actually, that's probably a pretty good point.
Wade in Kentucky, you're on with Charles Smith.
Yeah, hi Art.
Before I ask my question, Charles, regarding the caller that just called from Beijing, just tonight I happened to be coming across the International Herald Tribune, which is a mostly liberal Newspapers connecting New York Times had two op-ed pieces dealing with the effects of the Chinese economy on the populace, and it was very negative on the effects of the Chinese economy.
Things are not as hunky-dory as your caller is.
No, they're not hunky-dory.
I'm not sure the caller said that.
Okay.
My question is for Charles.
For the last several weeks now, and you brought this up with Dale Brown last week when you interviewed him.
A lot of people are expecting war soon between the United States and Iran, and I was wanting to ask Charles, does he think the likelihood of war with Iran is coming, and does he expect a general worldwide war very soon?
A lot of people think that we're just one step away, a major terrorist incident, a major military incident, from just having an international confrontation, not only in the Middle East, but perhaps around the world.
Charles, what do you expect with Iran?
Nothing.
Nothing?
Nothing.
A lot of chest thumping on all sides, but no action.
Keep in mind, if you really wanted to hurt the Iranians, you'd only have to have one airstrike at a place where there's virtually no people.
Karg Island.
You'd shut off literally all of their oil exports.
Almost 90% of all the oil that leaves Iran goes out of Karg Island.
Okay, and if infiltration of terrorists and insurgents continues from Iran, you don't think, into Iraq, you don't think we'll make any moves?
The reverse is already in the case for the Iranians, and we've even seen some protests just recently.
The Iranians are in a short fuse internally, and the ruling mullahs know that.
Because of the way that they've treated their economy, they're going to be going from an oil exporting nation to an oil importing nation, probably in the next four to five years.
Yeah, I heard the price of oil just went up 25% or something.
Jeff in St.
Louis, you're on with Charles.
Thank you, it's a pleasure speaking with both of you tonight.
I got two quick questions and I'll take them off the air.
One is, what is the status of our laser Missile defense system and are we working on any orbital style type fighters for the future?
And I'll take my answers off the air.
All right.
All right.
Thank you.
Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Go ahead, Charles.
Yeah, the ABL is already flying.
It has not been firing yet.
There have been some major cutbacks in its funding.
The current Congress does not view ABL or the Ballistic Missile Defense with much favor, so they actually sliced out a pretty good chunk of ABL's budget.
I see them delayed probably to 2009 for the first test.
Spacefighter, we've probably already had it, and it very well may have been retired.
That was a nice article done by the boys at Aviation Week and Space Technology.
The cost of the thing was just enormous.
It was probably a follow-on project after Aurora.
And they basically did have, according to Aviation Week, at least two of these vehicles in operation.
That's why we're kind of stepping back to the sun of SR-71.
We've seen the advances in unmanned systems push us to the point where we'll be able to do things like put a unmanned aircraft, say from an aircraft carrier, leaving Hawaii and in 30 hours it'll be over the Taiwan Straits and it could remain on station for 48 hours and then return.
So that's the kind of things that we're looking at.
Okay.
All right.
Mark in Alaska, your turn with Charles Smith.
Greetings, gentlemen.
Hello, Art.
First off, I wanted to wish you a happy, safe, and enjoyable retirement.
Thank you.
You're very welcome.
And I really enjoyed the Roswell Show from a couple nights ago.
That was outstanding.
Thank you.
I'm a defense and science journalist and a combat aviation air-to-air cameraman.
I work for Combat Aircraft Magazine and string for Associated Press.
Aviation Week and do stuff for other people.
And just wanted to kind of bring you up to date on a couple of the anti-ballistic missile programs that you had asked for.
Number one, we never did get a warhead-to-warhead kill of any of the Scuds in Desert Storm.
There wasn't a single one.
There were a couple intercepts on the fuel tanks and the ends of the fins, but we never did get a warhead-to-warhead strike.
The airborne laser, which I'm pretty much the only journalist that's ever been allowed inside the thing.
I did a big cover story for Popular Science a couple of years ago on it.
It seems, you know, through fits and spurts and money problems like Charles was talking about, it's going to go ahead, look at, probably start shooting at missiles in the air, probably end of 08, beginning of 09, and they've got money for their second one.
There's also some other interesting stuff that's going on with taking the Lockheed's Patriot PAC-3 missile and adapting them and arming them on to F-15Cs.
This will be to be put in the Far West Pacific because what you can do then, you know, the missile's about 17 feet, they hang a couple underneath the wings of the Eagle and when you get Some inkling that short-ranged intermediate-to-internet continental ballistic missiles are getting ready to be launched.
You would send the Eagles in and shoot them in the boost phase as the missiles were just coming up.
We can do that now with the AMRAAM air-to-air missile.
To an extent, but it's only a 60-mile range, and with putting the PAC-3 on there, we'll get a little greater reach.
Okay, Mark, do you have a question for Charles?
Yeah, I was looking to come back and just let you know that we got 20 interceptors in the ground up here now in Alaska, each with single-kill vehicles for intercepting reentry vehicles in space, and we got four in California.
But the question to Charles is that, You should go to China.
I've written several stories that the Chinese military never did like, and then was able to work things out to go there.
I've had some quite interesting and deep access with the Chinese military, and our military is working directly with the Chinese military and hotlines.
They just had the first visit of a Chinese naval vessel into Tokyo Bay.
So there's some very interesting things that are going on, and as a journalist and a guy who likes to keep up on China, I would really like the question to you to consider to go to China.
So you think he would be safe?
Sure, I was.
I wrote a huge cover story on the Chinese military back in I was the first guy to come up with the fact that they were going to use their short-range missiles, not only ballistic missiles, to point attack facilities in Taiwan, but also to go after our aircraft carriers, and I'd found a few other things out, and they didn't like that, and they didn't allow me in on my first attempt.
But my second attempt, there are five different journalist visas, and I wound up with a very special sixth one.
And I was treated very well.
I was monitored all the time.
I mean, there was guys in black suits watching the guys in black suits doing stuff.
I found guys in my room in black suits doing stuff during the day.
They would say they were opening up the curtains for me, but of course we know what they were doing.
But it was very safe.
They were very welcoming, and they actually responded to the kind of questions that I know Charles could ask, you know?
I heartily recommend trying to go to China at some point.
Okay.
Charles?
Unfortunately, because of the exploits I had during the 1990s where I actually uncovered PLA intel ops here in the U.S., published them, posted information about Chinese generals who were meeting with people like Ron Brown, the head of Loral, Bernard Schwartz, The wonderful stuff of C. Michael Armstrong, who was running Hughes at the time.
So you just don't feel safe?
I've been told directly, do not.
And this was not by a U.S.
intel.
This was by a foreign intelligence op.
He said, do not go to China.
You will never return.
OK.
All right.
Randy in Boise, Idaho.
You're on with Charles.
Not a lot of time here at The Breakpoint.
Okay, quick question then for Charles, if I could.
Sure.
Last year, about October, following the DOD website, specifically, to be more specific, the Navy, they had dropped down to where they only had to come up with 8,000 recruits in a year.
And then by the 1st of December, it had jumped up to 48,000 when it had been declining.
And then they put out a Kind of an email kind of a thing, saying that they wanted at least 40,000 prior service Navy to come back in, and they're still continuing to push quite heavily.
And so the question is real fast.
Yeah, the question is, so what's the buildup of military and extensive U.S.
Marines battalions and such being sent to South Africa?
Well, maybe not Africa.
All right.
Hold it right there.
We're going to have to cut you off.
Sorry.
We'll be right back.
My guest is Charles R. Smith.
We're talking about China.
We're talking about our policy toward China and things military in general.
So if you have a question for Charles, come on ahead.
We'll take it up again in a moment.
Once again, Charles R. Smith.
Charles, is there anything in the interview that you wanted to get in that we haven't managed to yet?
Well, I just find it very interesting You know, to point out that I'm looking at capability, ASAT test, lasering US satellites, selling weapons to the Taliban.
All of these are policy decisions made at the highest level.
That's an indication to me of hostile intent.
Okay.
I'm sure there is some hostile intent.
There's no doubt about it.
Their government is communist, and that's that.
All we can do is hope it will change, as opposed to the world ending or something.
Phil?
These are all elements in the last few years, after, what, 17 years of engagement?
And of course, multinationals really making a wonderful benefit out of the exploitation of the Chinese people.
Phil, in Torrance, California, you're on with Charles R. Smith.
Well, hi there, Art.
Hi.
Well, after listening and all this talk about missiles, I don't really think that would be the way it would happen.
I'm here in the Los Angeles area, and we have a huge harbor, and every day thousands and thousands of giant containers come in from China and that part of the world.
That's right.
And it wouldn't take much to slip a nuke in a 45-foot container and bring it in and either do it in the harbor or
distribute it one at a time throughout the trains and trucking system throughout the
country and if something was to go off
there'd be no incoming missile to track the origin of and
nobody would know where it came from so who do you retaliate against so the
the threat of mutually assured destruction isn't there because we don't
have the other end well
there would be ways of uh... tracking if a nuclear weapon went off and it came
from a nation state uh... we would be aware
uh... ultimately of where that weapon came from Sure, they could track the type of radiation it is, the isotope pattern and all, but that would take quite a while, I would think.
And, you know, it's definitely not something that's going to happen quickly.
That's absolutely true.
Well, the caller has a point.
Keep in mind, it was the Costco ship, I believe it was the Princess, in LA Harbor that had a container full of 2,000 AK-47s brought over with the blessing at the highest levels, and it was sold to an undercover agent who said they were going to be distributed to LA street gangs.
These were fully automatic machine guns.
And the guys who were offering the money, excuse me, who were offering the weapons, were offering surface-to-air missiles, RPG-7s, and hand grenades, and anything else in the arsenal that these guys could buy.
Alright, Phil, thank you very much for the call, and certainly it's true.
Bob in Fresno, you're on with Charles Smith.
Mr. Bell, I have one quick question.
Or a statement to make to your guests, but I just heard you say tonight that you're retiring.
That is true.
And I'm here teary-eyed because you and I go back since the beginning.
I used to call in all the time as Robert from the San Joaquin Valley.
Oh, yes.
And we'd laugh together.
I'm sorry, I really choked up.
I just hope you're going on to a good life and doing good things.
Well, I certainly hope so.
Thank you.
And I will miss you sorely.
Many of the guests, like the Lears, you know, because I knew Bill and Moyo quite well, and everyone else.
And I hope someday I can shake your hand.
Okay, Bob, thank you.
Thank you.
Charles, I appreciate the things you're saying, sir.
The first time I went to China, it was during the early 50s, the United States Navy.
I was part of the destroyer division.
We patrolled the foremost of straits.
And through the years, the Chinese I met, and all I can tell you, Is that the Chinese people, they don't hate us and we don't hate them.
And it's about how you split up the pie.
And the two superpowers today are China and the U.S.
And regardless of the saber-rattling, I truly believe that we're going to work things out, remain strong.
And I don't think there's going to be nuclear holocaust.
They'll control their segments in dealing with the terrorists as we will control other things.
But thanks for tonight and the statements you made, and you're a true patriot, and I appreciate the gentleman who called from China, and all I can tell him is that the American people love the Chinese people.
Thank you, Mr. Bell, very much, sir.
Thank you, Bob, and take care.
Robert in Illinois, we're on with Charles Smith.
Thanks, Art, and good luck to you.
Charles, my question is, I have a comment to it.
In an all-out war, a first-strike situation, do you believe that the Chinese have the capability of striking all of the U.S.
cities?
They do, and they've made it clear that they would use it.
I don't think it would happen.
They're more likely to use an asymmetrical type of form.
Now, wait a minute, Charles.
The Chinese do not have the ability to strike every U.S.
city.
Not every U.S.
city.
I'm talking about every major U.S.
city here.
Right, I'm talking about every major U.S.
city in the United States.
Do you believe they have the capability, Charles?
They don't have a thousand missiles.
At this point, they probably have something in the order of about 30.
And my comment is, I'm really down on the Chinese.
The quality of their products is just terrible.
And I can't understand why we allow their products to come into our country.
They're poisoning people, animals.
Their products are just terrible and there's no quality control.
And why is that?
I blame our government for that.
And also the human rights situation is terrible.
A powerful country like that are going after the Tibetans.
For what?
The human rights situation there is terrible.
The quality of the products is getting better.
I remember when we all, if you're old enough, you'll remember when we all bitched and laughed at the Japanese and the quality of their products.
Remember that, Charles?
Oh yeah, and you're seeing a backlash, as well as some movement.
We just had the head of the Chinese Food and Health, their drug administration, sentenced to death for taking bribes.
So you can guarantee that they're going to react sharply, because they know it cuts into their bottom line.
Yeah, the pet food problem.
Larry in Illinois, you're on with Charles Smith.
Good morning, R. Good morning, Charles.
I read the Cox Report years ago, or the 70% you're allowed to read, and it was quite shocking.
And the idea that there's 30% Americans cannot read is beyond belief.
The Chinese are all about aggression, they're all about the military, their entire economy, their plans, their long-range plans.
There's an incredible naivete afoot among people who think the Chinese will be nice if we just give them our blue jeans and McDonald's.
I find this whole conversation incredible outside the context of this Cox Report.
The primary leadership is the PLA and the CCP.
The Chinese people, I'm going to agree with the other caller, they love America.
and the whole culture of the Chinese is all about aggression. Do you concur?
Okay?
The primary leadership is the PLA and the CCP. The Chinese people, I'm going to agree with the other caller,
they love America, okay? The problem is the ruling class, they don't.
And the Communist Party is dedicated to a totalitarian socialist regime.
That's the CCP and the PLA.
Those have been the people that I have been fighting against for a good, near 20 years now.
And that's one of the reasons why I'd love to visit China, but of course the Military Intelligence Department, the second and the fourth department of the PLA, would probably like to cut me to ribbons.
One of the reasons why you got to read the Cox Report was because I took some people to court and got the bios of General Ding Heng Gao and General Shen, who got most of that nuclear missile technology from us.
Okay, let's go to John in Washington.
You're on with Charles Smith.
Hi.
Yes, Bonnie Lake, Washington.
And my question is, sir, Have you contemplated at all the Word of God concerning Iran and China over the conflicts that are evidently coming very, very quickly?
I can agree with you about China and its mindset, but do you not understand that Iran has a mindset that's given to it from a beast authority to where it will push a button because it's looking for its Messiah to return, and that's the way they believe it's going to happen?
Okay, so the biblical way it's going to all end, he thinks it will be the Middle East, as many do believe that.
Biblical issues aside, the Iranians have been the number one leaders when it comes to terrorism.
You and I both know that.
And they and the Chinese are hip to hip in many cases with weapon systems and development.
And it is very disturbing when I read about companies like Xebo Chemet sending spray dryers to Iran, which of course are being put into biological and chemical weapons development.
All right, let's go to Michael in Armagos Valley.
Hello?
Hi.
I listen to Coast to Coast AM on KNYE, broadcasting from Pahrump on 95.1 FM.
And so it shall continue.
I have a question for your guest.
I was going to ask you about where to get Pizza Punch, but we're out of time.
I'll have to email you on that.
I bought a video and a video camera made in China.
I put the software in my computer, and then from that point on, my computer demanded a new password.
The websites I visited demanded new passwords.
And it just dawned on me that although we always suspect the Internet, how easy it would be, since we import so much from China and so much of it includes software, that if any foreign country like that ever wanted to sort of sabotage us, that there'd be just a whole lot of things that they could do through software.
That's really my question.
I just figured that your guests would probably have a lot of ideas on that.
All right.
Part of the information war, Charles?
The U.S.
Air Force Red Team, based in South Carolina, ran an exercise two years ago where they were able to penetrate into the power grid of the West Coast and the entire satellite communications network for the military.
And they were able to do this in 72 hours.
So, if you can think of a professional team in China doing the same thing, yes you can.
I actually published the 305th and the 301st and the 2nd Division in PLA Military Intelligence Department.
That's one of the reasons why they don't like me is I happen to name names.
Right.
Your book, Deception, I guess is available online, right?
Unfortunately, Deception is no longer available.
Has since closed his doors.
It is too bad, but one day maybe I'll get another publisher to pick it up.
So you can't get the book at all?
Not anymore.
Okay.
You do have a website, right?
Yes, I do.
Softwar.net.
S-O-F-T-W-A-R dot net, right?
Yeah.
The objective there is with information, you can do a lot more damage in many cases than with bombs.
Well, that's true.
And I put a bunch of people out of business and sent a few people home that way.
Okay.
Garrett in California, you're on with Charles Smith.
Hi Art, this is Garrett from Burlingame.
Right.
I just wanted to express my gratitude for all of those many years of coast-to-coast.
Thank you.
I congratulate you for your retirement.
I also have a question for your guest.
What does Charles truly think about the future of imports with China?
What are his predictions for the future?
The way that the current political situation is, it's blowing in the exact opposite direction because of the financial policy coming out of Beijing.
The undervaluing of the Yuan is just a very good example.
So, I have a sneaky suspicion that we're probably going to be seeing some instability in the imports.
Watch the Chinese stock markets as well.
We've seen some extreme volatility in their financial systems, basically because of very bad accounting practices and loan operations.
So, there is a general weakness or understructure in their economy that could very well cause it to tumble.
Okay, to Joey in Houston, Texas.
You're on with Charles.
Yes, I just wanted to ask, what is their submarine technology like?
Is it pretty advanced?
They're currently fielding two fairly advanced submarines, the Type 93 and the Type 94.
93 is an attack submarine, basic equivalent to their early LA class, mainly Russian technology, from the Victor III uh... the charlie class attack subs there
type ninety four vision which is a ballistic missile sub think of that is kind of an operated version of the russian
adult the class uh... they have to go to the water uh... they can carry
sixteen ballistic missiles that can reach any city in the united
states steven in new jersey you're on the trust
Hi, alright, um...
Thank you very much for the education, and have fun with your future.
Thank you.
And I have a question.
The Chinese launched a satellite a while back.
I don't know when, but it supposedly broke up into different orbs and went all over the place, and they're orbiting Earth now.
Could they be EMP weapons developed from Russia?
Now, the ASAT was launched in February.
That was a definitive test.
It was one of five, the most successful one.
We'd been monitoring that for a while.
They hit a weather satellite of their own, broke it up into about 900 pieces at about 500 miles up.
Not really a smart move, frankly, because they also rely on satellites.
Even their manned spacecraft are in those same orbital planes.
The Chinese do have a nano-satellite program that's associated with their manned space flight.
The nano-satellites, we do suspect, are anti-satellite weapon systems.
So, we're going to keep a close eye on that one, that's for sure.
I thought so.
Also, Nate, aren't they developing a six-engine bomber?
Right now, their unmanned vehicles and UAV programs are fairly early on, but they have been able to make dramatic improvements in both the range and size of their systems.
I would still say that we're a good 10 years, 15 years ahead of them.
Okay, very quickly, Steve in Orange County.
You're on with Charles, and not a lot of time.
Yes, sir.
Congratulations.
Best wishes to you always, obviously.
I have your email address.
What I'd like to mention, I live half the year in San Diego and half the year in Orange County.
And at the beginning of June, one of our local network affiliate TV stations in San Diego had a Homeland Security story on UAVs.
And over Lindbergh Field, where they're first going to launch these, Uh, and then a half dozen other major airports around the country, O'Hare, etc.
They're going to have UAVs and quote-unquote, from the news story, with a particle-type weapon.
And I just wanted to bring that up because it all touches on what we're talking about this morning.
Uh, man, I haven't heard any... It was on one day and never heard anything about it after that.
A lot of stories like that.
You know anything about it, Charles?
Uh, possible, but I'm...
actually betting on the uh... a e s a technology currently feel of the f twenty
two uh... f eighteen
uh...
in essence uh... superpowered radar system that could be both used for
uh... information warfare meeting you get into computers start planning viruses
with it by a good distance without ever remoting group you know actually be connected
all those are all sort of the weapon we're out of time We are done.
I really appreciate your appearing tonight, and thank you very, very much.
Thank you, and enjoy your retirement.
I know you're going to the Philippines.
Enjoy it.
I have lots of friends over there.
Okay.
Take care, my friend.
That's it, folks.
From the high desert, it has, always has been, a distinct pleasure.
So, thank you all very, very much.
Fade into retirement for the whatever time it is, however many times.
This one's the real one.
Good night, all.
▲
Export Selection