Rumors of War

Although there is no evidence for either hypothesis, neither is impossible …

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. A few of the items include:

(a) detaining 8 scientists who first figured out the Wuhan pneumonia was caused by a SARS-like retrovirus;

(b) orders to destroy samples of the virus;

(c) “rectification” of a Shanghai lab that first published the SARS-CoV-2 genome without permission;

(d) the requirement that any scientific research on SARS-CoV-2 must be reviewed by government censors;

(e) sterilization of Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, thus destroying any possible evidence of the origin of SARS-CoV-2;

(f) blatantly lying about person-to-person transmission of the virus;

(g) CCP state-run media publishing several slick-videos encouraging Europeans and Americans to hug Chinese nationals in February 2020;

(h) diplomatic cables pointing out lax safety standards at Wuhan labs;

(i) first draft of Nature paper on origin of SARS-CoV-2 claimed that it could have originated through a gain-of-function experiment involving an intensive program of artificial selection using ferrets as the virus host (since ferret ACE2 receptors are virtually identical to human ACE2 receptors) similar to 2014 gain of function experiments involving ferrets and avian flu virus H5N1;

(j) past history of SARS-CoV-1 escaping from Chinese labs in the past at least twice that we know about;

(k) past history of Chinese lab techs and scientists selling used laboratory animals to “fresh markets” for food and as pets;

(l) recent increased Chinese military activity in the South China Sea and vicinity of Taiwan;

(m) internationally famous Chinese generals have published that biological warfare is a legitimate form of warfare, and that one of the best things about biological warfare attacks is the accompanying plausible deniability;

(n) fentanyl imports from China began ramping up strongly after Xi Jinping acceded to power;

(o) the same Chinese generals also say that state-sponsored exporting of dangerous drugs is also a legitimate form of “unrestricted warfare.”

I could go on. Suffice it to say that what is certain is that the CCP government has engaged in deliberate spoliation (ruining, destroying, hiding) of the evidence regarding SARS-CoV-2’s origin. And while I am no lawyer, there is a concept that spoliation of evidence allows the “spoliation inference”: namely, that the spoliation is conducted out of a “consciousness of guilt,” and that, therefore, a judge or jury is allowed to assume that an attempt to coverup X implies that X actually occurred.

Therefore, it in fact appears to be quite likely (beyond a reasonable doubt imho) that SARS-CoV-2 did in fact originate in a Chinese laboratory.

Thus at the very least, the CCP is guilty of criminal gross negligence, and thus liable for actual and punative damages for the destruction wrought so far. Of course if China was ordered to pay one dime by an international court of law, they would refuse. Nonetheless, the facts as they exist certainly justify seizure of Chinese assets that reside in the United States.

However, the real question of course, is whether the subsequent spread of the virus was done on purpose. Certainly, what has happened is consistent with a deliberate intention to spread the virus worldwide.

But of course we can never be sure of the intentions of foreign leaders. Any speculation is speculation. Sure, one could argue that spreading the virus would not be in China’s economic interest; one could argue that it is better to be poor and surrounded by rich neighbors than to be poor and surrounded by poor neighbors.

Alternatively, one could equally argue that from a realist international relations perspective, power is relative and zero-sum: in that case, it would be in Beijing’s interest to see that the ROW got sick as well. Then Beijing’s relative power would be preserved and possibly enhanced by a global pandemic.

A darker theory is that the “escape” from the lab was an intentional preparation for a kinetic, military invasion of Taiwan.

Nonetheless, barring an invasion of Taiwan, it is impossible to judge Xi’s intentions. Given the uncertainty, what should be our response. Should we give Chairman Xi the benefit of the doubt?

To be honest, the spoliation inference applies here as well. If the pandemic was a simple accident, then why the coverup? Even if the pandemic could not have been prevented altogether, certainly much of the damage could have been avoided had China actually cooperated. On the other hand, the massive loss of face that would accompany an admission of an enormous accident would justify the coverup in Xi’s mind.

So the uncertainty remains. There is a version of Pascal’s wager that when one is confronted by uncertainty as to whether p or ~p is true (where ‘p’ means the same as ‘the spreading of the virus to the ROW was a deliberate act of war’), then one should pragmatically simply accept as the case the option that would have the better social consequences.

I believe that is what is happening in the American debate, as evidenced by Pierre’s article above. The enormity of the very idea of kinetic war with China is too horrible to contemplate. Therefore, we must accept that it is not the case that Chairman Xi ordered that steps be taken to ensure the virus spread to the ROW.

On the other hand, the consequences of being wrong about the Chinese Leviathan’s benign intentions are not good, to say the least. If Xi can get away with killing 1o0,o00 American civilians and destroy the U.S. economy, then he will be incentivized to repeat the behavior in the future. Moreover, retaliation need not entail nuclear war, nor kinetic war of any sort. Rather, the options on the table could be limited to freezing of Chinese assets, a trade embargo, denial of access to the U.S. banking system, effectively barring Chinese transactions in U.S. dollars, as well as the prevention of the sale of oil and other raw materials to the Chinese totalitarian regime.

“And here I thought that in a republic the government is established for the people, of the people, and by the people.  I guess you are right; China has won if we are already living in a world where the people of the United States have no right to judge the actions of their government.”

“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water”

Its an expressly delegated power.

“Under these conditions, where the President’s own assessment of the offensive posture of the Nation’s enemies overseas leads him to conclude that the Nation is at risk of imminent attack, we cannot find in the Constitution any support for judicial supervision over the process by which the President assures himself that he has in fact targeted that part of the enemy’s wealth of property that he thinks, if it were destroyed, would most effectively neutralize the possibility of attack. ”

Taken from the El Shifa case where Clinton was actually wrong. Apparently that plant was not a terrorist facility. Clinton simply needs to sincerely believe it presented an imminent threat of course, otherwise it would just be a pretext for an affirmative war crime.

Come next election, vote the way you want, if you think the power is utilized wantonly, fine, you’re entitled to your opinion.

But yes, if the government THINKS there is a legitimate threat to our national security, the government can shoot at it. There’s no ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ here.

Political question doctrine.