Tag: military industrial complex

China’s Expanding Biological Warfare Capabilities: Fueled by Military-Civil Fusion and AI

U.S. intelligence assessments warn that China is combining artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and military-civil fusion in ways that could significantly expand its biological warfare capabilities.

The United States government has long assessed that China operated an offensive biological weapons program from the early 1950s through at least the late 1980s. Two facilities in Beijing and Lingbao City, according to the State Department, weaponized ricin, botulinum toxin, anthrax, plague, cholera, and tularemia during that period. China acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention on November 15, 1984, which prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons.

Beijing has consistently maintained it has never possessed such weapons and is in full compliance. The State Department’s position, however, is that China likely continued operating an offensive program after signing the convention and that the earlier program was never verified as dismantled, a requirement the treaty imposes on all signatories. Beijing canceled a bilateral BWC-related meeting with Washington in early 2022 and has declined to provide the treaty’s required disclosures.

Keep reading

Alibaba Sues Pentagon to Remove ‘Chinese Military Company’ Label

Chinese tech titan Alibaba filed suit against the U.S. Department of War on Wednesday, arguing there was “no basis in fact or law” for the Pentagon to label it as a “Chinese military company” earlier this month.

The Department of War maintains a list of companies that perform services for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China, known as the “1260H List” after the legislation that created it. Since 2021, the list has been updated and refined to paint a full picture of China’s fusion between “private” firms and its military-intelligence complex.

The Pentagon added several big corporate names to the list on June 8, including Alibaba. The listed companies, and the Chinese government, objected to the designations as unfair and arbitrary.

“The U.S. should stop its wrong practice and create a fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for Chinese companies,” the Chinese embassy in Washington said, as soon as the updated 1260H list was announced.

Alibaba was particularly aggressive in claiming that it was “not part of any military-civil fusion strategy,” and immediately declared its intention to “take all available legal action against attempts to misrepresent our company.”

Alibaba made good on that threat with a petition to the San Jose division of the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. Another Chinese firm, WuXi AppTec, filed its own challenge in the District of Columbia on June 11.

Both Chinese companies claimed they have suffered damages from what they viewed as an unfair designation. Alibaba said it was losing business partners in America, which could severely hinder its U.S. ventures.

A key issue in the lawsuit was Alibaba’s challenge to the Pentagon’s claim that the company is linked to China’s State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT).

SASAC is an agency controlled directly by the powerful State Council of China. It manages the “shares” owned by the Chinese Communist government in partly-independent companies, as well as assets that are fully owned by the state.

When Alibaba was added to the 1260H list, the Pentagon said it was “indirectly affiliated” with SASAC, while its ties with MIIT make it a “military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defense industrial base.”

Alibaba’s suit contents it is merely “regulated” by those agencies, not “affiliated” with them, and it has no choice about complying with their regulations.

“The relationship is no different from Alibaba’s dealings with United States government agencies. A regulator is not an affiliate,” the company contended.

The Chinese company further claimed its designation interferes with its First Amendment rights, because lobbyists that work for companies on the 1260H list can be restricted from doing business with the Department of War.

“The designation thus does not merely impose commercial costs – it strips Alibaba of its ability to speak, to petition the government through its chosen representatives,” the petition said.

On Monday, the Chinese government added ten American firms to its export control list, seemingly in retaliation for Alibaba and other firms being placed on the 1260H list.

Chinese state media said the move was “a response to Washington’s repeated weaponization of unilateral sanctions and entity lists to suppress Chinese enterprises, including its groundless addition of Chinese firms to its so-called military-industrial entity list.”

Keep reading

The American Way of War, War, War

That title of mine is certainly repetitive of me (me, me), but how can you not be repetitive in the distinctly repeated world of Donald J. Trump (Trumped, Trumped)? I mean, twice already and who really knows what’s to come?

Here’s the question nobody seems to be asking right now, though: What country will Donald Trump attack next? Yes, at the moment, he’s still wildly wound up in his Iran war/truce/peace/or you name it (tomorrow). Yesterday, it was, of course, Venezuela, and next week it might be Cuba or Greenland, or who on (or off) this planet knows where? And I haven’t even mentioned his military’s ongoing bombing runs in Somalia, which are barely noticed in the mainstream media here. And who knows what I’ve forgotten or what to expect in this increasingly bizarre world of ours from the president who swore repeatedly in his third election campaign that he would never, never, never go to… yes, of course, war?

Hey, only the other day, Secretary of War (a title which, of course, couldn’t be blunter in the age of You Know Who) Pete Hegseth warned that “what happens with the future of Cuba is in the hands of the president of the United States and the leadership of Cuba. No matter what, the Department of War is going to be prepared and postured for any possible contingency.”

Ah, yes, any possible contingency except one, of course: victory (which, since the Second World War, just hasn’t been in the American vocabulary) or, for that matter, peace. I mean what could possibly go wrong in a world that now, remarkably enough, has its first trillionaire, Donald Trump’s (sometimes) buddy Elon Musk? (On that, Senator Elizabeth Warren commented all too aptly: “I want to be clear: This is not just some fluke. It is a feature of a rigged economy.”)

What, in fact, could possibly go wrong on such a rigged planet? I’m sure Donald Trump and Elon Musk couldn’t imagine. What could go wrong on a world in which no American president ever seems to realize that wars are simply never to be won by this country, no matter its power and the ever-ballooning size of the Pentagon budget, now possibly heading for – ah, yes, talking about trillionaires! – $1.5 trillion yearly (and, no, that is not a typo), if Donald Trump has anything to say about it? And in Congress, mind you, that’s still referred to as “defense” spending.

Keep reading

Sheer Madness: UK Tests Long-Range Missile For Ukraine To Bomb Moscow – The US Needs To Pull Out Of NATO Immediately

Ukraine is making it clear they are seeking to “bring the war to Russia” – and this is what’s behind the recent series of massive Ukrainian drone strikes on Moscow, which has wreaked havoc particularly on energy refineries, and air travel for the region. That Ukraine desperately wants to gain back what leverage they are able to is fully understandable, however, that NATO is backing such actions against a nuclear-armed superpower constitutes madness. 

Aside from covert targeting assistance, the UK is taking things in a more overt direction, having reportedly just tested missiles with a range of 300 miles which is intended to be sent to Ukraine’s military. 

The British missile platform has the capability of delivering 500-pound warhead to Moscow.

The Telegraph offers some further details regarding context to the major Ukraine support program in the following:

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) challenged firms to build long-range strike weapons that can fly at more than 370mph, cost about £400,000 each and can be built at a pace of 20 a month.

Some 27 bids from industry were made with Dragon’s Den-style pitches held last February, before six UK companies were awarded contracts worth around £5m each to design prototypes for testing in just seven months.

By last December, only three suppliers remained: MBDA UK, which makes the Storm Shadow stealth missile, MGI Engineering, a UK small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) with a background in Formula 1 technology, and Rotron Aerospace, another UK SME with a history of working with the MoD.

And the publication confirms that “New systems that can attack targets more than 300 miles away have been tested at a range in the Hebrides, with further trials taking place in the UK over the coming months.”

For missiles of this range and power, this is a relatively cheap price tag, and can apparently be rapid-produced at that.

UK Armed Forces Minister Louise Sandher-Jones has said the new missiles are intended to “complement” the Storm Shadow cruise missiles London sends to Ukraine.

“The UK stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine, and we will continue to provide the support it needs to defend itself against Russian aggression,” she stated. “Project Brakestop shows what happens when we combine that commitment with the talent and ingenuity of British industry.”

Keep reading

When Military Fellows Replace Hill Staff

The pattern is obvious. In an overworked House office, whoever has time and capacity to produce a clean draft often decides what gets written. On defense portfolios, that is increasingly a uniformed fellow on detail from the Department of Defense. In practice, executive-branch detailees do not supplement staff capacity; they replace it on key tasks, shaping agendas, drafting text, and gatekeeping information that will later govern their own departments.

About ninety military fellows cycle through the Hill each year, with roughly two dozen each from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a dozen more from the Marine Corps. Their credentials are strong and intentions usually public-spirited. The problem is institutional. A congressional staffer owes undivided loyalty to Article I. An officer owes loyalty to a chain of command that runs to Article II. When workloads are crushing, that conflict is resolved by inertia rather than deliberation. The fellow who can deliver tonight becomes the author of governing text tomorrow. It is a story of structural capture by convenience.

Over 60 years ago, in his farewell speech, President Eisenhower warned us that “[i]n the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning rings truer than ever in 2026.

The consequences show up at every stage of the legislative cycle. On agenda setting, the person who can assemble a background memo first defines what “the options” are and which studies count as credible. On drafting, the earliest pass at bill or report language anchors debate. Overworked offices edit at the margins rather than reopen baseline assumptions. On oversight, the same fellow who helps frame hearing questions may later return to the department whose programs those questions were meant to scrutinize. Even the most ethical detailee will struggle to elevate uncomfortable data from inside the building where they will soon work again. In practice, the executive’s representative becomes the de facto author of legislative text that will govern the executive.

Defenders of the model claim Congress cannot meet deadlines without fellows. That is an indictment of congressional resourcing, not a defense of blurred powers. Speed at the price of independence is not a neutral trade. Second, they say members direct fellows’ work, so the institution remains in control. Direction is not authorship. When staff are underwater, authorship migrates to the person with time, not the person with authority.

There is also a practical equity problem. In many House offices the fellow becomes the defense staffer by default. That is replacement, not augmentation. Civilian staff lose chances to develop subject matter expertise, and offices become dependent on a pipeline they do not control. When the fellow rotates out, the capacity gap reopens. The department’s institutional memory remains intact. The House’s does not.

Keep reading

Thou Shalt Not Kill – Making War No More

An argument the Trump administration is using to justify massive increases in war spending is that the U.S. military is short on munitions. What a surprise! After the Iran War, attacks on Yemen and Somalia, supplying Israel with all sorts of air defense missiles as well as bombs and who knows what else (some of it is classified), the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War, and so on, it’s no wonder munitions are in short supply.

Bottles of nips may be in short supply after an alcoholic raids a hotel minibar. Is it wise to resupply it while the drinker is still there, intoxicated, begging for more?

Fascinating to me are the lack of moral arguments against America’s orgy of murderous weapons. The Bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” Killing is immoral and a crime unless as a last resort in self-defense. When our nation goes to war, it is also supposed to be in self-defense to uphold our Constitution and our highest ideals.

We always hear about a shared Judeo-Christian tradition – there’s a moral imperative here that demands fewer swords and more ploughshares. A God-given mandate to make war no more. To be peacemakers, not warfighters.

America, the shining city on a hill, should celebrate the sanctity of life rather than building more weapons to destroy life. But today’s America is much more akin to a heavily armed garrison-state, bristling with weapons, with satellite garrisons around the world.

Keep reading

UK to send Ukraine 150,000 drones

The UK will provide Ukraine with 150,000 UAVs by the end of the year, London announced on Thursday following one of Kiev’s largest drone attacks on Moscow since the start of the conflict.

The package, worth £752 million ($996 million), was announced by British Defense Secretary Dan Jarvis at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels. According to the British government, which has been among Kiev’s most active military supporters, the package will be funded through London’s £2.26 billion loan to Kiev, backed by proceeds from frozen Russian sovereign assets.

British officials presented the package, which includes drones, missiles and radars, as necessary military support for Kiev. Chancellor Rachel Reeves pledged that London would continue backing Ukraine and putting pressure on Moscow. Russia has long argued that continued Western arms deliveries only prolong the conflict and undermine peace efforts.

The announcement came after Moscow and the surrounding region were hit by one of the largest Ukrainian drone raids in recent years. Russian air defenses intercepted 194 drones approaching the capital overnight, according to officials, but the attack still caused damage.

Local authorities reported that one drone struck the Moscow Oil Refinery in the Kapotnya district, triggering a fire, while debris damaged residential buildings, vehicles, and commercial sites, including several shopping centers.

Residents in several districts also reported black rain and soot falling from the sky after the refinery blaze, with the local authorities advising people to keep windows closed and limit time outdoors.

Keep reading

Trump Moves to Expand Weapons Manufacturing, Strengthen National Defense

Following months of escalating tensions with Iran, President Donald Trump is pushing to boost domestic weapons manufacturing, invoking emergency powers as his administration eyes billions in new military spending from Congress.

A memo went public on Tuesday showing that Trump actually signed the order back on June 11. It activates the Defense Production Act—a relic of the Cold War that lets the government cut through red tape, jump to the front of the line for manufacturing, and fix supply chain bottlenecks.

“I hereby find that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs,” Trump wrote. “In particular, systemic constraints in the munitions industrial base, including limited production capacity, fragile supply chains, long-lead dependencies, and related production bottlenecks, may impair the ability of the United States to produce, sustain, and expand the availability of munitions, missiles, and equipment required for the national defense.”

The move comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lobbies lawmakers to approve roughly $350 billion in additional Pentagon funding. Administration officials argue the money is needed to restore weapons inventories and strengthen military readiness after extensive operations tied to the conflict with Iran.

Following meetings with Hegseth on Capitol Hill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said the discussions centered largely on defense procurement and ensuring the military has the resources necessary to acquire critical weapons systems. The Defense Production Act grants presidents broad authority during national emergencies, including the ability to require companies to give priority to government contracts. The law has previously been used during national crises ranging from natural disasters to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The administration is also preparing a formal request for supplemental defense funding, though questions remain about whether Congress will approve the full amount sought by the White House.

Some Republicans have expressed support for boosting military spending, while others want more information about the long-term costs associated with operations involving Iran. Democrats, meanwhile, have indicated they are unlikely to support a major funding package without additional briefings from administration officials and greater clarity regarding U.S. objectives in the region.

“As long as we are at war with Iran, I will not allow a supplemental to serve as the de facto authorization for the war. And I’ve been debating this with Republican colleagues,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said.

Keep reading

Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway Launches Lawsuit Against Baby Monitors and Home Cameras Company ‘Lorex’ Over Concealed CCP and Chinese Military Ties

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway is taking aim at a major surveillance technology company over what she says are hidden ties to the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese military.

Hanaway announced legal action against Lorex, a popular manufacturer of baby monitors, home security cameras, and surveillance systems sold by major American retailers including Costco, Best Buy, and Amazon.

“Families and retailers like Costco, Best Buy, and Amazon are being lied to,” Hanaway wrote. “Lorex, a leading manufacturer of baby monitors and home cameras, is concealing material ties to the CCP and Chinese military. We’re taking them to court.”

The company’s products have maintained deep ties to Dahua, its former owner and ongoing supplier of critical components, even after Dahua was designated a Chinese Military Company that poses a direct threat to U.S. national security. Researchers found Lorex firmware routing straight back to Dahua servers, giving the Chinese Communist Party potential real-time access to the most intimate moments inside American homes.

These are the cameras watching babies breathe in their cribs. Recording children’s voices. Capturing family life in bedrooms and living rooms across Missouri and the country. Sold at Costco, Best Buy, Amazon, Staples, Menards, Micro Center, Office Depot, and directly through Lorex’s own site.

“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world,” Attorney General Hanaway said in a statement. “Missouri will not allow the CCP to put its hand on our cradles. Parents place these cameras over cribs and in bedrooms to protect their children, not to invite a foreign adversary into their homes.”

“Lorex tells families its video cameras are ‘private by design’ while concealing ties to a Chinese military company,” she continued. “These cameras watch our babies breathe, capture our children’s voices, and record families’ most intimate moments. When companies won’t tell the truth about their connection to hostile foreign governments, my office will step in to protect families.”

The lawsuit, brought under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, seeks up to $1,000 in restitution for every Missouri consumer who purchased a Lorex camera in the last five years, plus more than $1.8 million in damages and a court order barring the company from continuing its deceptive practices.

Keep reading

It’s a Most Confusing Time To Be in the US Military

It’s a most confusing time to be in the U.S. military. Who knows why we fight?

At the top, there’s a lack of principles, a lack of clarity, a lack of care.

There’s no accountability for losses and bad decisions.

The government keeps the people isolated from war’s true costs. There’s no call for sacrifice. No war bonds, no draft, no increase in taxes. Costs are largely kicked into the future as the national debt soars ever higher.

An all-volunteer military is essentially told to follow orders. Never mind about the morality or legality of the same.

The people are encouraged to cheer on or otherwise to support their warriors and warfighters. Basically, to wave the flag but otherwise to go about their business.

A divided Congress has essentially rendered itself powerless over war-making. Meanwhile, Members of Congress fight for their share of an expanding Pentagon pie of money (or pork) for their districts.

The Secretary of State says we went to war with Iran because Israel forced the U.S. government’s hand. So apparently in this case the U.S. military fights for Israel.

So far, the main beneficiaries of the war appear to be defense contractors, fossil fuel companies and banks, so apparently the U.S. military is fighting for them as well.

Clearly, with Iran the U.S. military is not fighting to defend the American people or to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Again, who knows why we fight?

Keep reading