CC™ VideoSpective
Sunday
Saturday
Friday
China’s Military Has Surpassed the U.S. in Ships, Missiles and Air Defense, Department of Defense report finds......
CC™ Defense Watch - By Richard Sisk
China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has already surpassed the U.S. in missile development and its number of warships and air defense systems under the Chinese Communist Party’s plan to achieve dominance by 2049, the Defense Department said in a sobering report.
The ultimate goal of the People’s Republic of China, or PRC, is to “develop a military by mid-Century that is equal to — or in some cases superior to — the U.S. military, or that of any other great power that the PRC views as a threat,” the DoD’s annual report to Congress said.
To that end, the PRC has “marshalled the resources, technology, and political will over the past two decades to strengthen and modernize the PLA in nearly every respect,” the report said.
Under the national strategy pressed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, the result has been that “China is already ahead of the United States in certain areas” essential to its overall aim of progressing from homeland and periphery defense to global power projection, the report said.
“The PRC has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines, including over 130 major surface combatants,” the report said.
That’s compared to the U.S. Navy’s current battle force of 295 ships.
In addition, “the PRC has more than 1,250 ground-launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers,” while the U.S. currently fields one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no GLCMs, the report said.
In some respects, China is also ahead on integrated air defense systems with a mix of Russian-built and homegrown systems, the report said.
“The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems” — including Russian-built S-400, S-300, and domestically-produced anti-air systems — making up “part of its robust and redundant integrated air defense system,” the report said.
Despite the advances, the PLA “remains in a position of inferiority” to the U.S. in overall military strength, said Chad Sbragia, the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for China.
The 173-page DoD report “does not claim that China’s military is 10 feet tall,” but the Chinese Communist Party wants it to be, and has the plan and resources to reach that goal, Sbragia, a retired Marine officer, said at an American Enterprise Institute forum on China’s military.
At an earlier Pentagon briefing on the report, Sbragia said Beijing’s military strategy was driven by the view that the U.S. has decided upon a long period of confrontation to counter the global spread of China’s influence.
He said that China “increasingly views the United States as more willing to confront Beijing on matters where the U.S. and PRC interests are inimical.”
“The CCP leaders view the United States’ security alliances and partnerships — especially those in the Indo-Pacific region — as destabilizing and irreconcilable with China’s interests,” Sbragia said.
The DoD report, titled “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China” comes on the heels of China's increasing political and military influence in the world and the South China sea respectively.
The 23rd annual report on China by DoD noted the “staggering” improvements in China’s ability to build, coordinate and project power since the first report was issued.
“DoD’s first annual report to Congress in 2000 assessed the PRC’s armed forces at that time to be a sizable but mostly archaic military that was poorly suited to the CCP’s long-term ambitions,” the report said.
In 2000, “the PLA lacked the capabilities, organization, and readiness for modern warfare,” the report said. But the CCP, it added, recognized the shortcomings and set about with determination to “strengthen and transform its armed forces in a manner commensurate with its aspirations to strengthen and transform China.”
“More striking than the PLA’s staggering amounts of new military hardware are the recent sweeping efforts taken by CCP leaders that include completely restructuring the PLA into a force better suited for joint operations” and for “expanding the PRC’s overseas military footprint.”
The PLA has already established its first overseas military base in Djibouti, about a mile from U.S. Africa Command’s main base on the Horn of Africa.
In its commentary on the DoD assessment, the American Enterprise Institute noted that the report also stressed that “The PRC has likely considered locations for PLA military logistics facilities in Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Seychelles, Tanzania, Angola, and Tajikistan.”
Despite the progress made by China’s military over the past two decades, “major gaps and shortcomings remain” in readiness and operational capability, the report said, but China’s leaders are acutely aware of the problems and have detailed plans to overcome them.
“Of course, the CCP does not intend for the PLA to be merely a showpiece of China’s modernity or to keep it focused solely on regional threats,” the report said.
“As this report shows, the CCP desires the PLA to become a practical instrument of its statecraft with an active role in advancing the PRC’s foreign policy, particularly with respect to the PRC’s increasingly global interests and its aims to revise aspects of the international order,” it added.
-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.
Thursday
Wednesday
They Lied About The Pharaohs - The Africanity (Blackness) Of Ancient Egypt
CC™ VideoSpective
Tuesday
Monday
Sunday
Flashback: Black lives matter; All lives matter
The horrific suffocation of George Floyd, by the knee of Officer Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis, has not only shocked and enraged the world it has once again brought the surface the degree of hatred, prejudice and wickedness inspired by race that still exist in the hearts of some human beings.
Saturday
Rewarding Graft and Incompetence - Infantino Lackey, Patrice Motsepe’s rubber stamped re-selection as CAF President
![]() |
| Infantino’s CAF Influence |
CC™ PersPective
South African businessman, Dr Patrice Motsepe was last year re-elected unopposed as President of the Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF) for a second four-year term.
The decision was ratified at the 14th CAF Extraordinary General Assembly in Cairo, extending his leadership of the organization until 2029.
Motsepe’s re-election came after a first term widely praised for stabilizing CAF’s finances and boosting its global profile. Under his leadership, the organization set several new records at the TotalEnergies Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) Cote d’Ivoire 2023, attracting a record 1.4 billion viewers worldwide.
Prize money for major tournaments, including the TotalEnergies CAF Champions League and TotalEnergies CAF Women’s Africa Cup of Nations, has also increased significantly, alongside enhanced financial support for Member Associations.
In the midst of the much vaunted successes under his leadership, apart from accusations of sectional bias against historically successful sub-regional football bodies like the West African Football Union (WAFU), Motsepe has so far failed to stamp out acerbic corruption within CAF.
Motsepe, 63, faced no opposition after the nomination deadline passed in November 2024. His decision to run again followed requests from Member Association Presidents and key stakeholders.
Motsepe also emphasized his administration’s commitment to transparency and integrity in football governance.
Addressing stadium infrastructure challenges, Motsepe highlighted the strides made under his leadership.
“Now, we have 12 nations who are not playing home games in their countries. Previously, it was 38 nations, but we want to make sure everyone can have a standard stadium and play their matches at home.”
Dr Motsepe’s unopposed re-election reflects both confidence in his leadership and the desire to see him elevate African football to new heights. On CAF’s executive committee, five others were elected unopposed alongside Samuel Eto’o.
Mustapha Ishola Raji of Liberia retained his seat for another four years, while Bestine Kazadi Ditabala (Democratic Republic of Congo), Wallace Karia (Tanzania), Kurt Simeon-Okraku (Ghana), and Sadi Walid (Algeria) are new to the committee.
Elvis Chetty of the Seychelles lost his place when Feizal Sidat (Mozambique) and Samir Sobha of Mauritius were voted in to represent Southern Africa.
Friday
A case of too many cooks possibly spoiling the broth.....
![]() |
| Seattle Sounders FC - "Just Trophies Please" |
One is not sure exactly what to make of this but in what could aptly be described as a case of "too many cooks possibly spoiling the broth", the increasingly rudderless ownership of the Seattle Sounders professional soccer team has just announced that 11 families will be joining their ownership group.
Former Seattle Seahawks quarterback, Russell Wilson and his wife, singer Ciara, join hip-hop star Macklemore and his wife, Tricia Davis in headlining the new group of investors. In addition to the previous owners Adrian Hanauer, Drew Carey and Jody Allen (the sister of the late billionaire, Paul Allen), the new ownership group now includes:
- Former Microsoft executive Terry Myerson and his wife, Katie Myerson
- Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and his wife, Anu Nadella
- Microsoft chief financial officer Amy Hood and her husband, Max Kleinman
- Microsoft corporate vice president of experiences and devices Joe Belfiore and his wife, Kristina Belfiore
- Former Microsoft senior executive and current managing director of Madrona Venture Group, Soma Somasegar, and his wife, Akila Somasegar
- Chief product officer at Twilio, Chee Chew and his wife, Christine Chew, who is president of the Bellevue School Board
- David Nathanson, formerly of FOX Sports Media Group, and his wife, Sabina Nathanson
- Former Pandora CEO Brian McAndrews and his wife, Elise Holschuh, who serves on the strategy committee of Hugo House
- Mark Agne, former managing partner at Softbank Investment Advisors, and Tomoko Agne.
Thursday
British Imperialism: Argentina ends deal but the UK still insists the Falklands are British
CC™ Global News
The UK has insisted the Falkland Islands are British after Argentina broke a co-operation deal and pushed for talks on the islands' sovereignty.
In 2016, both sides agreed to disagree on the sovereignty of the Falklands in favor of improved relations.
Argentina pulled out of the pact this week and informed UK Foreign Secretary James Cleverly.
The Falkland Islands were subject to a bloody war in 1982 when Argentina tried to stake a territorial claim.
In response, Mr Cleverly tweeted: "The Falkland Islands are British.
“Islanders have the right to decide their own future - they have chosen to remain a self-governing UK Overseas Territory."
The 2016 agreement between Argentina and the UK pledged to "improve co-operation on South Atlantic issues of mutual interests".
Mr Cleverly was informed about the decision by his Argentinean counterpart Santiago Cafiero when the pair met at the G20 summit in India earlier this week.
Mr Cafiero called for talks on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas.
The UK's minister for the Americas, David Rutley, said it was a "disappointing decision" after he had had a "constructive visit" to Buenos Aires.
"Argentina has chosen to step away from an agreement that has brought comfort to the families of those who died in the 1982 conflict," he said.
The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory in the south-west Atlantic Ocean. Argentina has long claimed sovereignty over the islands.
Argentina invaded in 1982 in a bid to reclaim sovereignty and said it had inherited the Falkland Islands from Spain in the 1800s.
A brief but bitter war lasting 74 days followed - with 655 Argentinian, 255 British and three Falkland casualties - before British forces regained control on 14 June 1982.
Wednesday
Former Abacha Chief Security Officer and head of notorious Strike Force Unit seeks promotion to Major-General....
![]() |
| Hamza al-Mustapha |
Major Hamza al-Mustapha, former Chief Security Officer (CSO) to late dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, has written the Army High Command, requesting for concessions on his position in the Army.
accelerated promotion to the rank of a Major-General and his consequent retirement with his full benefits paid.
More to follow.
Tuesday
Gaddafi Assassination - Former US Lawmaker’s Explosive Interview With Tucker Carlson
CC™ VideoSpective
The Africa News Network (TANN)
Monday
Sunday
How did the pro-pedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?
![]() |
| Two members of the Pedophile Information Exchange (PIE) |
The Pedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties - now Liberty - in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-pedophile campaigners operate so openly?
A gay rights conference backs a motion in favor of pedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as "Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib".
It sounds like a nightmarish plot-line from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975.
It's part of the story of how pedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt - the Pedophile Information Exchange - is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labor deputy leader Harriet Harman.
The Daily Mail has revisited the story of PIE to ask how much Harman and her husband the MP Jack Dromey knew about the group during their time working at the National Council for Civil Liberties, now Liberty, in the late 1970s. PIE was affiliated to the NCCL from the late 1970s to early 1980s.
Many of the revelations are not in fact new. The story's return to the front pages demonstrates the shock people feel about how a group with "pedophile" in its name could operate so openly for so long.
PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for "children's sexuality". It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults "in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting 'under age' partners". The real aim was to normalize sex with children.
Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. "They didn't emphasize that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex," he says.
It's an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message.
It's wrong to say that PIE was tolerated during the 1970s, says Times columnist Matthew Parris. "I remember a lot of indignation about it [PIE]. It was considered outrageous."
The group's visits to universities were often opposed. In 1977 PIE's chairman Tom O'Carroll was ejected from a conference on "love and attraction" at University College, Swansea after lecturers "threatened not to deliver their papers if Mr O'Carroll stayed", the Times reported.
The May 1978 issue of Magpie, PIE's in-house newspaper, records how O'Carroll had been invited to address students at Liverpool and Oxford University but that the visits were cancelled after local opposition.
One of PIE's key tactics was to try to conflate its cause with gay rights. On at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE's favor.
Most gay people were horrified by any conflation of homosexuality and a sexual interest in children, says Parris. But PIE used the idea of sexual liberation to win over more radical elements. "If there was anything with the word 'liberation' in the name you were automatically in favor of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net."
Some have suggested that nature of debate then was different. "In this free-for-all anything and everything was open for discussion," said Canon Angela Tilby on Radio 4's Thought for the Day. "There were those who claimed that sexual relationships between adults and children could be harmless." Homosexuality had only been decriminalized in 1967. There was still prejudice and inequality. The age of consent was 16 for heterosexuals but 21 for homosexual men.
Wolmar had first-hand contact with PIE. In 1976 he began working for Release, an agency helping people with drug and legal problems. Its office at 1 Elgin Avenue in London was a mailing address for PIE. Nobody knew much about them, Wolmar says. "They used to drop in once a week to pick up their mail. They were greasy men," he recalls, people who fitted the stereotype of the "dirty mac" brigade. After Wolmar raised questions about PIE it was decided to bring them in for a meeting.
Wolmar's colleagues pressed the man from PIE on the age of consent. Wolmar says that the man said there should be no age of consent. Shocked at the idea of a group advocating sex with babies, he and his colleagues unanimously decided to "boot them out".
It was easy to join PIE. According to a Times legal report from February 1977, there was no need for subterfuge, just an application and a cheque for £4. In the report, the prosecutor in the case stated: "He said on the form that he was a pedophile, male, married, 29 years old and attracted to girls between the ages of seven and 13 years." The judge proclaimed himself "horrified" at the existence of PIE.
It was a blackmail case. Unsettlingly for a modern audience, the PIE member received anonymity and there is no mention of any penalty. Meanwhile, the blackmailer was jailed for three years.
The brazenness could be shocking. Keith Hose, one of PIE's leaders during the 1970s, was quoted by a newspaper saying: "I am a pedophile. I am attracted to boys from about 10, 11, and 12 years of age. I may have had sexual relations with children, but it would be unwise to say."
When Polly Toynbee interviewed O'Carroll and Hose in the Guardian in September 1977 she heard men incredulous at the lack of support from the press. They seemed genuinely aggrieved at what they called a "Fleet Street conspiracy". One of them told her: "We would expect the Guardian, a decent liberal newspaper to support us."
In a Guardian piece from 1975 it's clear "pedophile" was still not a widely used term and the opening line explains it - "one who is sexually attracted to children". In the piece, Hose is treated as a reliable source throughout.
There were divisions within progressive circles. In 1977 the Campaign for Homosexual Equality passed by a large majority a resolution condemning "the harassment of the Pedophile Information Exchange by the press".
When Peter Hain, then president of the Young Liberals, described pedophilia as "a wholly undesirable abnormality", a fellow activist hit back. "It is sad that Peter has joined the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade. His views are not the views of most Young Liberals."
And when a columnist supported Hain in the Guardian he was inundated with mail from people - many willing to give their name - who defended sex with children.
Reading the newspapers of the time there is a palpable anxiety that PIE was succeeding.
A Guardian article in 1977 noted with dismay how the group was growing. By its second birthday in October 1976, it had 200 members. There was a London group, a Middlesex group being planned, and with regional branches to follow. The article speaks of PIE's hopes to widen the membership to include women and heterosexual men.
Toynbee talked of her "disgust, aversion and anger" at the group but added that she had "a sinking feeling that in another five years or so, their aims would eventually be incorporated into the general liberal credo, and we would all find them acceptable".
There was a battle raging over free speech.
Some, such as philosopher Roger Scruton, felt that freedom of speech had to be sacrificed when it came to groups like PIE. In a Times piece in September 1983 he wrote: "Pedophiles must be prevented from 'coming out'. Every attempt to display their vice as a legitimate 'alternative' to conventional morality must be, not refuted, but silenced."
A Times letter writer, Peter Cadogan, took a different line, defending PIE from the National Front despite loathing them. "Yet again, they assaulted me with stink bombs and sundry soft fruit when I was defending the freedom of speech of another group I abhorred, viz, the Pedophile Information Exchange." He continues that the way to cover "nasty people with nasty ideas" is to "give them all the rope they want and then hang them with it every time they practice what they preach".
But during the 1980s, PIE came a cropper. Its notoriety grew in 1982 with the trial of Geoffrey Prime, who was both a KGB spy and a member of PIE. He was jailed for 32 years for passing on secrets from his job at GCHQ to the Soviet Union, and for a series of sex attacks on young girls.
A short article from the Daily Mail in June 1983 records how a scoutmaster in Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, resigned after being exposed as a member of PIE.
In August 1983 a Scottish headmaster, Charles Oxley, handed over a dossier about PIE to Scotland Yard after infiltrating the group, the Glasgow Herald wrote. He said the group had about 1,000 members.
But the NCCL continued to defend having PIE as a member. As late as September 1983, an NCCL officer was quoted in the Daily Mail saying the group was campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14. "An affiliate [sic] group like the Pedophile Information Exchange would agree with our policy. That does not mean it's a mutual thing and we have to agree with theirs."
The authorities debated ways of shutting PIE down. O'Carroll was sentenced to two years in jail for "conspiracy to corrupt public morals" and PIE was disbanded in 1984.
It's hard now to believe the group existed for more than a decade. "Even then the word pedophile was pretty taboo," says Wolmar. "I do find it slightly astounding that they were able to use that name."
Credits: BBC News Magazine






