You might remember that strange "covid" press conference given during the Trump Administration, where the Secretary of Defense and the General "Thoroughly Modern" Milley got up and stated - twice - "you're not getting in," after the two Department of Defense mandarins detailed the military resources being dispatched to the Caribbean ostensibly to combat the drug cartels. At the time, I though that a covid press conference was a mightily strange occasion to be talking about military deployments for drug interdiction. But who am I to say? The fedgov wants to play God all the time, and insofar as it's ways are inscrutable, dwelling in thick clouds and darkness, and past finding out, it's doing a good job.
At the time, I thought it was a very strange statement for Thoroughly Modern Milley - the general, not Mary Tyler Moore in the musical - to make, and I thought that, given the military resources deployed, it was about more than just drugs. Perhaps someone was trying to smuggle in something else, perhaps even a "small" firecracker of the nuclear variety.
Then along came the "supply chain disruptions" and all those container ships off the coast of Nuttyfornia, waiting to dock at Long Beach. My problem with the narrative now is that this is beyond even the incompetent senility of the Grifter in Chief, Mr. Brandonenko, to pull off. Something is is happening, and I first broached the idea a few weeks ago that perhaps at least some of the slow down is because "they" are looking for something, again perhaps something that is being attempted to smuggle in, and again, my first thought went to firecrackers and bottle rockets of the nuclear variety.
This brings us to today's article spotted by E.G., and the article is confirmation that I'm not the only one thinking of those sorts of scenarios:
The article argues that such missiles would be an integral component of a "surprise/assymetrical warfare" strategy, and that container ships would be the perfect Trojan horse for them:
A stunning new report claims that China has been "secretly developing Trojan Horse-style missiles hidden in shipping containers" at a time when shipping and logistics is a key global focus.
The new allegations, raised in a report by The U.S. Sun, state that the missiles could be "unleased on enemy ports" and would be disguised amongst the country's massive fleet of freighters and fishing vessels - which could then be "turned into warships" using the secret missiles.
The missiles could "blend in seamlessly" with hundreds of other containers on board ships, the report says. The shipping vessels are tougher to pinpoint than warships in the event of war, the report notes.
The use of warships disguised as cargo ships is not new. During the First World War, Great Britain developed its "Q" ships: merchant ships with hidden guns, panels, and so on, to lure German U-boats to the surface, where the Q ships would then drop the panels hiding the guns, and sink the U-boat. Needless to say, these ships played a roll in forcing the Germans to adopt unrestricted submarine warfare, meaning they would no longer surface, stop a cargo ship, and search it for contraband before sinking it. The "Q" ship idea was adopted by the Germans early in the Second World War, with warships disguised as merchant ships (called Hilfskreuzern, or "auxiliary cruisers), including adjustable height funnels and so on, to change the actual physical appearance of the ship while at sea. Behind their side platings, however, lurked batteries of medium calibre guns, torpedo launchers, mines, and in some cases hidden catapults for scouting aircraft. One of these disguised cargo ships, the Atlantis, sank over 200,000 tons of British shipping in the early months of the war.
One should therefore not be surprised that China would "update" the concept a bit, and disguise cargo ships and launch facilities for tactical and intermediate range missiles.
The real question is: is this concept (or something like it) what is really lurking behind Thoroughly Modern Milley's strange statements during that "covid" press conference during the Trump Administration? And is something like this concept behind the slow-down of shipping at America's Pacific ports?
I suspect so.
But there's a question to be asked, and it's one that goes to the technology of "cargo container missiles", for there is a crucial difference between China's alleged container ship missile systems, and Britain's "Q" ships of World War One or Germany's disguised merchant ship raiders of World War Two. In the latter two cases, the ships concerned had to be either specially modified, or in a few cases, built from the keel up as a deliberately designed ship. In the container-missile scenario, the container functions as a modular element; it can be loaded onto a ship, or not. If not, the ship remains a ship; if so, the ship becomes a launch paid. Indeed, it is conceivable that any fire control or crew facilities could also be stored inside a container. A ship's captain and/or crew may not even be aware of the subterfuge. Once offloaded at a port, and loaded onto a semi-truck, the truck becomes a mobile launch pad.
My point here is that the technology is modular, and basic enough that almost anyone with the money and skill could create such containers and ships. It need not necessarily by China, nor need it necessarily need be restricted to state actors...
See you on the flip side...