The parade of goose-stepping soldiers, well-rehearsed school children and flowery floats will illustrate the nation's priorities of modernisation and military strength [ID:nSP373399].

Foreign observers will be watching to see what weapons the People's Liberation Army shows off.

The 108 missiles on display will include two types of surface-to-surface conventional missiles, a land-based cruise missile, surface-to-surface intermediate and long-range missiles that can be equipped with either nuclear or conventional warheads, and nuclear-capable intercontinental missiles, said Yu Jixun, deputy Commander of the PLA's Second Artillery Force.

“All five types of missiles are solid-fuelled, with smaller bodies… In the past, missiles were mostly liquid-fuelled and their bodies were huge,” Yu said.

Solid-fuel missiles are easier to transport, providing more strategic flexibility in deployment.

The Second Artillery Force, which controls the nuclear arsenal, is expanding its mandate to include conventional missiles under the nation's military blueprint.

This year, as part of the emphasis on modernisation, fewer tanks will roll down Beijing's main boulevard in order to give pride of place to the military's advanced equipment, General Gao Jianguo, spokesman for the National Day Military Parade Joint Command, told Reuters.

Squadrons of fighter and bomber planes in formation will fly down Beijing's central axis, accompanied by helicopters, while tanks roll along down the street.

Xinhua earlier this month hinted that the parade could display the Julang-2, or JL-2, a submarine-mounted missile with a range of 8,000 km that was first tested in 2001, and the CSS-X-10, a solid fuel intercontinental ballistic missile.

American naval strategists are concerned that China may have developed an anti-ship ballistic missile, a Dongfeng 21-D, that could force U.S. aircraft carriers to keep their distance in the event of an attack on self-ruled Taiwan, which China considers a breakaway province

The RINOs, the Democrats, and Presidents like Clinton and Obama is a story of cowardice because if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of victory. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, and only a samll chance of survival.

We should have confronted these people a long, long time ago. Now, I do have doubts about their overall capabilities, they are too big, not to be dangerous. Better minds than mine have said we should not fight a ground war in China, and use the nuclear weapons, when we could have done so. At that time, the Soviet Union didn't even have a way to deliver a nuclear weapon, and China didn't even have them yet.

A larger part of the problem is the way to United States behaves with countries it deems, “allies.” “Ally” does not equal “friend”. Great Britain is a good example. We have done several questionable things for this country, that is, in fact, our oldest enemy, even if it is our best friend. We need to keep things like that in mind. Allies, will be allies, only to the extent there is a common interest, and in the case of the United States, only as long as they can get something from us. The United States, however, never demands anything from our allies, much less our enemies.