From the high desert and the great American Southwest, Art greets listeners across all time zones on “Coast to Coast AM.” The show opens with unpredictable and engaging open lines, inviting listeners to discuss any topic. Art teases an exciting interview with Charles Smith, an expert in cyber technology with a background in military and top-secret work. Smith’s expertise in war, terrorism, and privacy promises a riveting discussion. The show then transitions to world news, covering a range of topics from militant activities in Palestine to the U.S. airstrikes in Iraq, and a wildfire crisis in Northern Los Angeles County. Art also touches on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s controversial remarks and extreme weather events around the globe, highlighting bizarre and unseasonable weather patterns in various countries, including devastating floods in Southeast Asia and unusual snow in Europe.
Art continues to highlight unusual weather patterns across the globe, emphasizing that the extreme weather is not just local but a global phenomenon. He mentions the European Space Agency’s Don Quixote mission, designed to deflect asteroids, involving two spacecraft named Sancho and Hidalgo. Sancho would orbit and study the asteroid, while Hidalgo would smash into it at high speed. Art humorously notes the potential unintended consequences of such experiments. A caller from Ontario, Canada, shares their experience with severe flooding, aligning with Art’s point about widespread weather anomalies. The conversation shifts to politics, civil libertarianism, and Darwinism, with Art expressing a pragmatic view on the survival of the fittest.
Art discusses a caller’s report of a meteor possibly causing a fire in Southern California and then shifts to another caller from Sacramento, who shares an intriguing story about capturing a UFO on camera near the state capitol during Ronald Reagan’s memorial. Art encourages the caller to send the photograph for further investigation. The conversation then moves to another caller from Louisville, Kentucky, who recalls a weather report predicting drastic environmental changes and discusses the tropical-like weather affecting local farmers. The caller mentions an article about Bob Bigelow’s aerospace company’s negotiations with China and a book titled “Osama’s Revenge,” which explores potential nuclear threats. Art acknowledges these topics and hints at discussing them with Charles Smith, encouraging listeners to read more on the Coast to Coast AM website.
One caller from Texas shares an old environmental prediction about palm trees growing in Kansas due to climate changes, which aligns with the unusual weather patterns discussed earlier. Another caller, also from Texas, mentions the region’s prolonged wait for a hurricane despite annual warnings and expresses confidence that climate change is a natural and manageable phenomenon. Art agrees but emphasizes the increasing rapidity of climate change and the need for proactive adjustments. Another caller from Iowa recounts an out-of-body experience while practicing martial arts, which Art identifies as a common result of deep meditation, leading to a discussion on the nature of such experiences.
Art discusses out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and reassures listeners that they are generally considered harmless, encouraging further exploration through books or shows. A caller from Southeast Texas shares their psychokinetic experiences, including moving a golf ball, which fascinates Art. He encourages the caller to continue developing this ability, noting its potential for scientific interest. Another caller from Montana expresses relief at living in a rural area amidst nuclear threats and humorously discusses her family’s psychic tendencies. The conversation then shifts to the challenges of telekinesis, with Art admitting his own struggles with believing in his ability to move objects. A caller suggests that belief might be the key to success in telekinesis.
Art discusses the potential impact of solar mass ejections on Earth’s magnetic field with a caller, reassuring them that the Earth’s magnetic field is resilient. The conversation shifts to a caller who believes current unusual weather patterns are signs of biblical prophecy, reflecting the end times described in the Bible. Another caller from Peru discusses an email about radiation monitors going off and shares concerns about feeling unwell during solar events. Art advises visiting the NOAA space weather site for more information and suggests staying indoors during significant solar flares. The segment ends with a listener in Pahrump expressing appreciation for the clear radio reception in their area despite the wild weather.
Charles Smith, described as having a background resembling a character from a Tom Clancy novel, holds top secret clearance and has worked on logistics projects for the U.S. Army during the Cold War. Currently, he provides security software and has become a noted investigative journalist. As the interview begins, Smith discusses the connection between Bigelow Aerospace and China’s Great Wall Industries, a company tied to the Chinese military and previously sanctioned for passing ballistic missile technology. He explains that Great Wall Industries is owned by the Chinese military and highlights concerns about their involvement in space and military projects, emphasizing the close ties between Chinese industries and the government.
Charles Smith discusses the intricacies of Chinese corporations and their military connections, highlighting the difficulty in negotiating arms deals due to the overlap of roles within the Chinese government and military. He distinguishes between companies whose profits fund military assets and those that do not. The conversation touches on the Bigelow Aerospace efforts to collaborate with China, despite restrictions from various U.S. departments. Smith explains that many American companies are hesitant to get involved due to the narrow commercial applications and previous controversies involving technology transfers that improved Chinese military capabilities. For example, Hughes Corporation’s lobbying efforts allowed the transfer of radiation-hardened computer chip technology to China, enhancing their ballistic missile technology. Smith notes that China’s arsenal includes approximately 30 intercontinental ballistic missiles, with some equipped with thermonuclear warheads, posing a significant threat.
Charles Smith continues discussing the threat posed by China’s nuclear capabilities, emphasizing that even with their relatively small arsenal, a targeted attack on major U.S. cities could result in catastrophic casualties. He contrasts the rationality of Chinese military strategy with the unpredictability of North Korea. Smith reveals that Chinese military documents, obtained through a defector, indicate a willingness to engage in nuclear warfare if provoked, particularly over Taiwan. The conversation delves into the U.S. military’s response capabilities, highlighting the recent Operation Summer Pulse ’04, which demonstrated a rapid and overwhelming mobilization of carrier battle groups, countering Chinese assumptions. Smith details China’s tactical ballistic missile capabilities and their potential use of nuclear weapons to disable U.S. electronic systems.
Charles Smith discusses the potential consequences of a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, emphasizing the catastrophic outcomes for both sides. He notes that China might be willing to accept significant casualties, believing they can absorb the damage better than the U.S. Smith explains that Chinese military doctrine includes the willingness to engage in nuclear warfare over issues like Taiwan. He highlights that the Chinese leadership believes the U.S. would hesitate to retaliate massively against civilian targets and would instead target military command structures. Smith points out that high-ranking Chinese military officials have made explicit threats, showing a readiness to escalate conflicts if provoked. He also mentions the discomfort of U.S. military commanders with nuclear warfare scenarios, suggesting a reluctance to engage in such conflicts.
Charles Smith explores the potential outcomes of a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and China, emphasizing the devastating consequences for both nations. He outlines the “use them or lose them” doctrine, where both sides would likely launch their remaining missiles once the initial strikes are detected. Smith highlights the difficulty of targeting China’s new mobile ballistic missiles, which are dispersed and hard to locate.
The discussion shifts to whether the U.S. would go to full nuclear war to defend Taiwan. Smith explains that China’s first-strike doctrine aims to prevent U.S. carriers from entering the South China Sea and to isolate Japan by attacking U.S. bases in the region. He notes that Japan’s defense agreements with Taiwan complicate the scenario, as China would likely target Japan as well.
Smith suggests that targeting China’s military and political leadership with precision strikes, rather than widespread destruction, could be a more effective deterrent. By disabling China’s command and control structure, the U.S. could win in the South China Sea and prevail over Taiwan without resorting to full-scale nuclear war. He describes China’s tight political control over its military, with the politburo overseeing nuclear weapons, ensuring that only trusted troops handle these assets.
Charles Smith discusses the complexities of warfare, emphasizing how different social structures influence military strategies. He contrasts democracies like Israel, which can coordinate combined warfare effectively, with totalitarian regimes like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, where internal distrust prevents such coordination. The conversation pivots to the political implications of a nuclear attack, asserting that the American public would demand a massive retaliatory strike if cities like Los Angeles were destroyed. Smith argues that while immediate, full-scale retaliation might seem necessary, strategic targeting of China’s military and political leadership could be more effective in neutralizing the threat.
Art Bell points out that such limited retaliation might not satisfy the American public’s demand for justice, but Smith maintains that taking out China’s command structure would be a more precise and potentially less catastrophic approach. They discuss the likelihood of the U.S. defending Taiwan, with Smith emphasizing the importance of deterrence to prevent war. He notes that political commitments and existing laws suggest the U.S. would defend Taiwan, despite some political figures’ opposing views.
Charles Smith details the intricate military relationships between Japan, Taiwan, and the U.S., explaining how a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would inevitably draw in Japanese forces and U.S. military assets due to treaty obligations. He describes the Chinese missile threat, with hundreds of short-range and intermediate-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan and U.S. bases in the region. Smith outlines a potential scenario where China initiates the conflict with a barrage of non-nuclear missiles followed by a naval blockade, forcing the U.S. to respond with carrier groups and conventional warfare, which could quickly escalate to nuclear exchanges.
Art Bell questions the likelihood of the U.S. maintaining a conventional response if significant damage is inflicted on key bases like Guam, suggesting that nuclear retaliation would become inevitable. Smith acknowledges the political nature of the decision to use nuclear weapons, emphasizing that initial conventional conflicts could rapidly escalate due to the high stakes and massive mobilization on both sides.
Smith also explains that internal pressures within China, similar to the Falklands War scenario, could push the Chinese government toward military action to maintain power and stability. Art counters with the engagement theory, proposing that as China becomes wealthier through economic growth and integration into the global economy, they might adopt a more conservative stance, reducing the likelihood of aggressive military actions. Smith notes that this theory has been in place since the 1990s, highlighting the complexities of balancing economic and military strategies.
Charles Smith explores the dynamics of China’s transformation from an agrarian communist society to a national socialist regime with fascist elements, characterized by limited personal ownership and a technologically advanced but brutal totalitarian government. He suggests that the Chinese leadership might provoke external conflicts to distract from internal issues and maintain power, similar to historical precedents like the Falklands War.
Art Bell points out that since the Tiananmen Square massacre, there has been little news about internal conflicts in China, leading many to believe the government has firm control. Smith counters this perception, describing ongoing corruption and friction between local and central governments, along with harsh crackdowns on dissidents and efforts to suppress potential unrest ahead of events like the 2008 Olympics.
The discussion returns to the engagement theory, which posits that economic integration with China will lead to a more conservative and less belligerent stance as the country becomes wealthier. Smith acknowledges that while this theory has had some success, the entrenched warlord-like behavior among Chinese officials—who prioritize personal profit and power—poses significant challenges. He notes that although economic motivations are strong, they may not completely overshadow the political and military ambitions of China’s leadership.
Charles Smith discusses the potential for China to use its growing military capabilities to assert its territorial claims, drawing parallels to historical totalitarian regimes. He highlights China’s historical conflict with Vietnam in 1979, which was motivated by political objectives rather than border disputes. Smith suggests that China’s current rhetoric about the “return to the motherland” could extend beyond Taiwan to other regions, such as Korea, if North Korea’s government were to collapse.
Smith notes that internal reports indicate China’s government could either implode or explode due to its inability to manage modern technology and information control. He describes ongoing repression within China, including crackdowns on dissidents and efforts to control the population ahead of major events like the 2008 Olympics.
Art Bell reflects on the end of the Cold War and questions whether the current geopolitical landscape is more stable. Smith mentions his upcoming book, “Deception,” which documents the sale of American technology to countries like China and Russia, and how this technology has been repurposed for military use.
Smith speculates that China might aim to invade Taiwan and potentially engage in conflict with the U.S. as early as 2005, but he emphasizes that logistical preparations and military buildup suggest a more likely timeframe around 2008. He points out that China’s strategic planning involves building significant missile and military infrastructure, which is visible through satellite imagery.
Charles Smith explains that China is ramping up its military capabilities, including building numerous air-cushioned landing craft capable of carrying tanks and troops. He notes that by 2008, coinciding with the Olympics, China would have the necessary missile and landing craft numbers to potentially launch a significant military operation. Art Bell questions whether the U.S. would tolerate a limited nuclear war with China, suggesting that any attack on a U.S. city would provoke total retaliation. Smith clarifies that current U.S. policy aims to win wars with minimal casualties, focusing on precision strikes against military and leadership targets rather than widespread destruction.
Smith emphasizes the importance of deterrence, citing the deployment of seven carrier battle groups as a significant factor that has disrupted China’s military plans. He notes that the reduction of U.S. military commitments in the Middle East, particularly with the end of operations in Iraq, has allowed the U.S. to shift its focus to the Pacific. This strategic repositioning includes stationing B-52 and B-2 bombers in Okinawa and potentially basing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in Pearl Harbor.
National missile defense is another key aspect of deterrence, with systems being deployed to protect major cities like Los Angeles. Smith argues that effective deterrence means preventing war before it starts, a principle that was lacking in previous administrations due to their adherence to outdated treaties and lack of commitment to missile defense. He also highlights the deteriorating state of Russia’s military, noting that their naval exercises revealed significant maintenance issues, further underscoring the shifting balance of power.
Charles Smith explains the deteriorating state of Russia’s military infrastructure, noting that financial constraints have severely limited their ability to maintain and upgrade their systems. He highlights that while Russia has developed advanced ballistic missiles like the SS-27 Topol, they have only managed to deploy a limited number due to financial issues. Smith points out that this year marks the first time in five years that the Russian Air Force has acquired new aircraft, illustrating their dire financial situation.
Art Bell reflects on the Cold War, mentioning that although it was a tense period, today’s geopolitical landscape seems even more dangerous with the proliferation of terrorism and nuclear threats. Smith concurs, noting that while the Cold War had a clear bipolar structure, the current era is marked by more diffuse and unpredictable threats, including the potential sale of nuclear materials by desperate former Soviet scientists.
The conversation shifts to the threat of terrorism, particularly the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of groups like al-Qaeda. Smith explains that while nuclear weapons require regular expert maintenance to remain operational, chemical weapons are much easier to store, handle, and deploy. He references past concerns about “backpack nukes” and emphasizes that without proper maintenance, these weapons would quickly become ineffective, potentially only usable as dirty bombs. In contrast, chemical weapons, like sarin gas, remain potent for decades and require minimal expertise to deploy, making them a significant threat.
Charles Smith emphasizes the relative ease with which chemical weapons could be smuggled and used compared to nuclear weapons. He notes that for every potentially loose nuke in the former Soviet Union, there are likely hundreds of chemical weapons that could easily be smuggled out or bought, given the Soviets’ proficiency with nerve gas. He suggests that if terrorists possess nuclear weapons, they may soon become ineffective without expert maintenance. Art Bell opens the phone lines to listeners for questions.
A caller with firsthand experience at China’s Great Wall Industry Corporation, which produces Long March rockets, shares their concern about China’s capabilities and seriousness. They believe the threat from China is more likely to come from non-nuclear means, referencing the book “Unrestricted Warfare” by two senior colonels in the PLA, which outlines a doctrine of asymmetrical warfare against the U.S. This includes economic and political measures, proxy wars, and support for terrorist movements to weaken the U.S. Smith agrees, noting that China is already engaging in such tactics, using economic leverage, supporting proxy conflicts, and manipulating currency rates to strengthen their position while weakening the U.S.
Charles Smith explains the concept of “assassin’s mace,” a doctrine employed by the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) to use asymmetrical warfare tactics, including attacks behind enemy lines, assassinations, and advanced technology like designer biological weapons to disable space-based systems. He emphasizes that China aims to exploit weaknesses rather than engaging in direct force-on-force conflict.
A caller asks about the Chinese response if North Korea were to use nuclear weapons. Smith clarifies that despite some friction, the Chinese military and North Korean forces maintain close cooperation. If North Korea acted aggressively, China would likely support them, similar to their intervention in the 1950s. He notes that China has not pressured North Korea to de-escalate, as they benefit economically and politically from the status quo.
Another caller inquires about rumors of the U.S. targeting Mecca in retaliation for terrorist attacks. Smith dismisses this, explaining that such actions would be counterproductive, potentially uniting the Muslim world against the U.S. He stresses the challenge of responding to terrorist attacks due to the ambiguous return address of such incidents.
Art Bell then shifts the discussion to the Iraq War, asking for Smith’s views. Smith supports the invasion, arguing that it was necessary to remove the persistent threat posed by Saddam Hussein and that it was strategically beneficial to free up U.S. military resources. He acknowledges that the handover of sovereignty in Iraq is complex and involves dealing with various political and military factions.
Charles Smith discusses the current strain on U.S. military resources, particularly the army, which has been stretched thin due to manpower requirements and global garrison commitments. He explains that while high-tech weapons and professional soldiers create an effective volunteer army, there are still significant numbers of troops stationed in non-combat roles in places like Germany and Korea for political rather than military reasons. Smith argues that reducing these commitments and reallocating those troops could help alleviate the manpower shortage without resorting to a draft.
Art Bell inquires about the potential for a draft, but Smith insists that the U.S. military strongly opposes it due to the higher effectiveness of a volunteer army. Instead, he suggests improving pay and living conditions to attract more recruits. He also notes the importance of restructuring forces to focus on areas of real need, such as the Pacific, while drawing down unnecessary deployments in Europe and other regions.
Smith mentions the ongoing transition of responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan back to local forces, which should further reduce the burden on U.S. troops. He emphasizes the need for a strategic approach to troop deployment, ensuring that soldiers are utilized efficiently and effectively in response to current threats.
Charles Smith discusses the limitations of current U.S. intelligence capabilities, noting the historical issues that have plagued agencies like the CIA since the Vietnam War. He explains that intelligence has often been tainted by social and political biases, citing an example from the 1990s when the CIA incorrectly reported that North Korea would not be capable of constructing a ballistic missile for 10 to 15 years, only to be proven wrong when North Korea launched one over Japan shortly after.
Smith points out that the problem is partly due to a lack of human intelligence (HUMINT) on the ground. The CIA has traditionally relied on methods better suited for the Cold War, such as gathering information at diplomatic events, which are ineffective against non-state actors like al-Qaeda. He highlights the need for improved on-the-ground intelligence to address modern threats.
Art Bell reflects on the chilling nature of war gaming, noting that while necessary, it involves contemplating scenarios where millions could die. Smith explains that war gaming has two primary purposes: training personnel to use equipment and tactics effectively, and studying potential scenarios to develop deterrents and avoid conflict. He mentions that stealth technology was a significant focus in the 1980s, as it was seen as a critical deterrent.
They discuss the idea of creating a new governmental arm to oversee intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI. Smith is skeptical of such reforms, emphasizing that intelligence is often influenced by political agendas, which complicates efforts to provide accurate assessments.
Charles Smith discusses Chinese espionage in the United States, noting that around 2,000 front companies operate as arms of the Chinese military, acquiring commercial and military intelligence. He emphasizes that China has one of the largest espionage operations in the U.S., second only to France. Smith describes the strained relationship between the U.S. and France, highlighting France’s willingness to sell advanced military technology to China, which could be used against the U.S.
A caller asks about the relationship between France and the U.S. Smith clarifies that France is considered a “gray asset” in U.S. war games, meaning they could potentially side with adversaries. He notes that France primarily acts in its own interest and is not a reliable ally even within Europe. Smith reflects on the Cold War, recalling the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, and expresses a guarded optimism about current global security, citing national missile defense as a positive development.
Another caller mentions the concept of a New World Order, asking if global disorder is worsening. Smith dismisses the idea of a new world order as merely a rebranding of old themes centered around money and power. He suggests that while technology has changed the landscape, the underlying motivations remain the same. Smith also points out that military leaders generally dislike nuclear war due to its indiscriminate destruction.
Charles Smith discusses the strained relationship between the U.S. and France, highlighting how France and Germany aim to establish a Euro order, independent of U.S. influence. He notes that China does not expect European countries to support the U.S. in a conflict over Taiwan, anticipating continued trade with Europe even during hostilities.
A caller asks about Hong Kong’s potential alliance with Taiwan. Smith explains that the British handover of Hong Kong to China was treaty-bound, and since then, China’s control over Hong Kong has tightened, leading to economic decline and increased military presence. The possibility of Hong Kong aligning with Taiwan is now impossible due to China’s tight control.
Smith mentions recent propaganda efforts by China to promote Hong Kong as a tourist destination, drawing parallels to similar campaigns in 1930s Europe. He points out that China’s portrayal as a benevolent, unified nation is misleading, as it is an empire with many ethnic minorities under its control.
Art Bell shares his experience traveling in China, describing it as a frightening place due to the pervasive military presence and strict surveillance. Smith agrees, noting that dissent is harshly punished in China, with dissidents facing imprisonment or worse.
The interview concludes with Art Bell expressing his appreciation for Smith’s insights, promising to have him on the show again in the future.