China Online Article Reportedly Praises Smog As “Defensive Advantage In Military Operations”

220px-Beijing_smog_comparison_August_2005We have been following the lethal pollution gripping Chinese cities, including now cities like Shanghai, with stories of children developing lung cancer and other medical problems.  One benefit is that the rising levels of pollution have actually made it harder for Chinese police to use the country’s extensive surveillance system to monitor citizens.  That is not something that the authoritarian government is likely to celebrate however.  Now, the official media has come up with one benefit to offer its choking readers:  the thick blanket of unhealthy air could make it more difficult for countries to bomb Chinese cities if they have a hard time finding them.

The story is being attributed to a Time Magazine translator who found an online article arguing that smog “can serve as a defensive advantage in military operations.” The article was later reportedly taken down. The article cited problems in Kosovo and other war zones when the military faced smoke that shielded targets. If that is the case, China is remarkably well protected and citizens can live shorter but more secure lives.

Source: That Mags

15 thoughts on “China Online Article Reportedly Praises Smog As “Defensive Advantage In Military Operations””

  1. Uh, yeahrite. Any sort of missile (launched from land, sea or air) isn’t going to be using *visual* guidance. GPS guidance is pretty much going to be the order of the day, so nice try, Commandante Less-Than-Zero. Enjoy the cruise missile as it flies in through your apartment window.

  2. Meet Oil-Qaeda, not as invincible as once thought:

    Over the past several years, scientists have succeeded in tracking with increasing confidence the portion of climate change that is tied directly to human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels.

    Topping the list of private and state-held companies are Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, British Petroleum, Gazprom, Shell and the National Iranian Oil Company. These seven companies alone have produced almost one-fifth (18.7 percent) of all industrial carbon released into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

    The top five investor-owned companies on the list — Chevron, ExxonMobil, British Petroleum, Shell, and ConocoPhillips — are responsible for one-eighth (12.5%) of all industrial carbon emissions.

    Nearly half (48%) of all industrial carbon pollution released into the atmosphere since 1854 can be traced directly to just 20 entities.

    (Largest Producers). What has preserved them is lawyers and lobbyists.

    They are out to get you by pumping the rest of what kills the earth out into a place where in will get to you.

  3. That is what saved LA from invasion in the late ’40’s through the early ’60’s … then the pro-turrist commies invented the EPA and the city became exposed to turrist incursions:

  4. Raff: think of the advantages of heavy smog, shorter life spans for workers and no pension plan to deal with. By the way all you global warming advocates better get over to Beijing ASAP

  5. The Chinese do not appear to be in a big hurry about pollution. I keep hearing the urban myth, “well, China’s just the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s, they will grow out of it.” This first acts like countries further along this made-up timeline don’t still pollute. That aside, such a statement ignores economies of scale combined with a growing — not shrinking — sense of Chinese entitlement to gather all the toys Westerners “enjoy” without going through any of that pesky regulation.

    It appears the air itself disagrees with this notion. Pollution is cumulative in humans. How can this possibly end without a lot of keeling over and shuttering vast swaths of the country? China’s future is not bright.

  6. I guess you don’t have to worry about paying your workers more money if they are more concerned about just being able to breathe!

  7. Military defense? China seems to be forgetting its treaty obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Comments are closed.