View Full Version : World War 3: The Best Argument I've Heard That It's Coming
Doc Safari
09-21-16, 10:00
http://usawatchdog.com/we-are-headed-for-war-paul-craig-roberts/
Former Assistant Treasury Secretary (in the Reagan Administration) Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has a stark warning for the world. Dr. Roberts says, “We changed our nuclear doctrine. It used to be we used nuclear weapons only in retaliation. There was no first use, but the George W. Bush regime, the Neocons, changed our nuclear doctrine. It’s now a preemptive first strike. So, this tells both the Russians and Chinese they could get a preemptive first strike. Then, we tell the Russians we are putting missiles right on your border. You won’t have two minutes’ notice. They can’t accept that. It’s too much risk from a crazy country (U.S.) that won’t negotiate with them. . . . So, we’re headed for war. I think the only thing that would block it is if one or two of the European governments realize that they have nothing whatsoever to gain with a conflict with Russia. . . . The only thing they could do to prevent a nuclear war is to pull out of NATO.”
“The tensions now between the United States and Russia are higher than they ever were during the cold war. For this reason, it is very dangerous. It is dangerous for another reason. In all of my life, every President worked to reduce tensions with Russia.
Now, we have NATO right on Russia’s border. This is a massive violation of commitments that the United States made. We now have extremely high amounts of tensions, and I think with this recent attack by the United States on Syrian troops, it has made it perfectly clear to the Russian government that diplomacy is useless, and they cannot reach a diplomatic understanding with the United States. Therefore, we have reached the point where force confronts force.”
My take: I have been watching this for years, and I have become convinced that person or persons unknown in Washington have become convinced that we are invincible and Russia/China/North Korea wouldn't dare start a war with us. What these people fail to understand is that WE are the ones starting the war.
Outlander Systems
09-21-16, 10:06
https://store.grangersmith.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/w/o/world_war_champs_black_tshirt.jpg
Eurodriver
09-21-16, 10:23
Homie, where can I get that shirt?
Outlander Systems
09-21-16, 10:27
I'm going to pick one up. LOL
https://store.grangersmith.com/back-to-back-world-war-champs-black.html
War? Good luck getting men who aren't already in to fight for her majesty.
Confession time: I actually never beat Fallout. So.....this would be interesting.
Digital_Damage
09-21-16, 10:58
Confession time: I actually never beat Fallout. So.....this would be interesting.
having a hard time with fallout 4, I keep just trying to bang everyone and everything (synths) and slaughter mutants. Don't care about the story.
Overblown.
The catch is that most of the countries' militaries are not equipped or trained or experienced to fight a war at long distance like ours is. Do they potentially pose a missile threat? Yes. However, the chances of an invasion of American soil are, as always, very low.
I think the only way we could be sucked into a ground war with these countries is if:
1) They let fly. Unlikely, since China's economy is entirely dependent on the U.S. buying their cheap garbage. Consider their military a reflection of this. They try to be top dog in their little sphere of influence, but have little desire to move outside of it for fear of upsetting the economy. Russia is similar in this regard. Putin may annex small territories here and there of countries on the fringe of NATO territory that touch Russia, but he won't over extend. He especially won't over extend because the Russian economy is a mess. He could not sustain any prolonged "away" war. Any attempt by N. Korea at invasion would end up with most of their army at the bottom of the pacific. So this is very unlikely.
2) We decide that they are a "state sponsor of terror". This is unlikely because it is not the M.O. of despots. The barking dog gets avoided, the dog that bites gets shot. They prefer to be the former. So a retaliatory action of a massive act of terror is unlikely to be pinned on any major power. If we intervene in one of their satellites (Syria, Iran, etc), things will likely de-escalate pretty quickly because again, the countries are not equipped for a pro-longed war. A scenario such as Chinese involvement as seen in the Korean War would be the most likely. Even that would be a stretch. Which leads us to #3.
3) The North Koreans. Of all the anti-American states, the North Koreans have proven the most unstable or predicable. Being so, they have become predictably unpredictable. A flare-up on the Korean peninsula is about the only thing that could realistically drag the U.S. into another global conflict. I doubt that China would come to the aid of North Korea this time. There is too much to lose of China and virtually nothing to gain. In fact, China would actually benefit from N. Korea falling. Again with the dog analogy, N. Korea has historically been on a Chinese leash, but the dog has become increasingly rabid (and radioactive) and the leash increasingly thin. At some point, China will likely have to "ole yeller" N. Korea.
having a hard time with fallout 4, I keep just trying to bang everyone and everything (synths) and slaughter mutants. Don't care about the story.
That's what gets me. I just want better guns and to kill people. Then I forget what I was supposed to do.
Doc Safari
09-21-16, 11:08
My pro and con list:
Pros:
* Putin is an alpha male who doesn't like to lose. He's warned the west and rattled the saber several times.
* The Russians claim to have a way to shut down our electronics, negating any battlefield advantage with regard to distance. If I'm not mistaken one of their planes buzzed one of our ships, and our electronics shut down temporarily, so I tend to believe this claim.
* Russia has openly stated he could turn our country to ash in a half hour, so a ground invasion seems unlikely.
* Our opposition to their efforts in the Middle East are stressing their long-range plans. It's unknown if this is game-changing or just an irritant to them.
* The Russians are gradually luring Turkey away from NATO. It is likely in the future Russia will take over Incirlik air base and Turkey will not only kick us out but leave NATO.
Cons:
* A third world war would of course be devastating to both sides and I don't think the Russians are that stupid. I honestly don't believe we are either, but it looks as though we are sometimes.
* A change in presidential administrations here in the US could immediately change the dynamic and de-escalate tensions
* The fight against radical jihadism will, in my opinion, eventually force the "world powers" to work together instead of fighting each other
* The economics of countries all over the world are way more intertwined today than in either World War I or World War II, so any prospect of a World War III seems unlikely
But I could be wrong: feel free to take these bullet points apart.
Singlestack Wonder
09-21-16, 11:10
I'm going to pick one up. LOL
https://store.grangersmith.com/back-to-back-world-war-champs-black.html
Too bad they are out of size XL.... :(
My pro and con list:
Pros:
* Putin is an alpha male who doesn't like to lose. He's warned the west and rattled the saber several times. This makes any gains he gets seem like a compromise to us. Straight out of the N. Korea/Iran playbook.
* The Russians claim to have a way to shut down our electronics, negating any battlefield advantage with regard to distance. If I'm not mistaken one of their planes buzzed one of our ships, and our electronics shut down temporarily, so I tend to believe this claim. I have not heard of the electronics issues. I think this is fear mongering. Our military electronics should be shielded. Any nuclear blast strong enough to trigger wide-spread EMP blasts would leave me more concerned about radioactive fall-out than the EMP.
* Russia has openly stated he could turn our country to ash in a half hour, so a ground invasion seems unlikely. This is probably true. Of course, M.A.D. still exists.
* Our opposition to their efforts in the Middle East are stressing their long-range plans. It's unknown if this is game-changing or just an irritant to them. If the past is any indication. This is just a diversion/irritant
* The Russians are gradually luring Turkey away from NATO. It is likely in the future Russia will take over Incirlik air base and Turkey will not only kick us out but leave NATO. Turkey is one of those "NATO but not really" countries. I think Turkey wants to overall stay neutral, but aligned in name with the larger power.
Cons:
* A third world war would of course be devastating to both sides and I don't think the Russians are that stupid. I honestly don't believe we are either, but it looks as though we are sometimes. Again, M.A.D. is still in play
* A change in presidential administrations here in the US could immediately change the dynamic and de-escalate tensions De-escalation is not in either governments favor. America needs a boogie-man as much as Russia. Expect the stalemate to last for the foreseeable future.
* The fight against radical jihadism will, in my opinion, eventually force the "world powers" to work together instead of fighting each other Agreed
* The economics of countries all over the world are way more intertwined today than in either World War I or World War II, so any prospect of a World War III seems unlikely In the end, our greed will save us from destruction from without, but it will be our doom from within.
But I could be wrong: feel free to take these bullet points apart.
Adding this just because it won't let me post without saying something outside the quote.
I should add this on the EMP/electronics note.
If they did shut off the electronics by getting really close that really isn't a threat. The chances of the same occurring in a war-time are slim (almost a kamikaze mission at that point). Also remember that if they are emitting EMP, they are also subjected to it. If there was an electronics glitch, it was likely due to overlapping frequencies or interference of electromagnetic radiation used for communications. This explains why they had to get so close for it to occur. Kind of like why you aren't supposed to use a cell phone on an plane.
I think WW3 is more likely to start in India/Pakistan
India has a stated policy of potentially responding to terrorist attacks like Mumbai hotel, that they believe were sponsored by the Pakistani gov't, with a large conventional punitive response.
Pakistan can't fight India toe to toe conventionally so they have a stated policy of using tactical nuclear weapons in response to any invasion.
India has a stated policy of responding to nukes, with nukes, and the only kind they have are city busters.
A little nuclear flareup there could easily spiral out of control to involve the US, Russia and China.....
If dubya-dubya-three were to happen, it would be because the shadows want a one world government (cough..cough..regime..cough) and economy in the aftermath. In all seriousness, WWIII is inevitable. When is the real question.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-21-16, 11:30
I think the OPs source is wrong. The Neo-cons didn't switch us from a non-first use (sloppy-seconds) policy, we never had one. I was actually surprised by this, since I thought it was always our strategy. It definitely was part of the plan on deterring Warsaw Pact invasion of NATO. They had such an advantage in conventional arms, it was the only way to stop them in the 60-70s.
Sloppy-seconds isn't the same thing as MAD. MAD is all about 'assured' and it looks like a sloppy-seconds strategy, but that is only because of the retaliatory nature of the strategy.
I think this 'Blame Bush' and the neocons is only going to get worse as the facts recede into history, and the right and left make up tales about how the world was perfect before 43 took office. You'd think the ME was a Garden of Eden pre-2003.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-21-16, 11:31
If dubya-dubya-three were to happen, it would be because the shadows want a one world government (cough..cough..regime..cough) and economy in the aftermath. In all seriousness, WWIII is inevitable. When is the real question.
I think the question is are we killed with Nukes, starved by the collapse of our infrastructure because of hacks, or outright killed by AI tech.
Outlander Systems
09-21-16, 11:36
@FromMyColdDeadHand
Despite the lack of coverage in the legacy/lowest-common-denominator media, a state level actor has recently been conducting probing attacks in an effort to determine the best COA for taking down the entire Internet.
I think WW3 is more likely to start in India/Pakistan
India has a stated policy of potentially responding to terrorist attacks like Mumbai hotel, that they believe were sponsored by the Pakistani gov't, with a large conventional punitive response.
Pakistan can't fight India toe to toe conventionally so they have a stated policy of using tactical nuclear weapons in response to any invasion.
India has a stated policy of responding to nukes, with nukes, and the only kind they have are city busters.
A little nuclear flareup there could easily spiral out of control to involve the US, Russia and China.....
I think any action between India and Pakistan would be resolved "locally" with only China and Russia. India isn't a huge ally of the U.S.. Yes, we're on good terms with them, but they are very much under Russia and China's sphere of influence. And in terms of going toe to toe, India's conventional forces are pretty bad. So much so that I think that a Pakistani insurgency could hold them at a stalemate (think Kashmir).
Averageman
09-21-16, 11:38
If dubya-dubya-three were to happen, it would be because the shadows want a one world government (cough..cough..regime..cough) and economy in the aftermath. In all seriousness, WWIII is inevitable. When is the real question.
If I were POTUS, I would invite Putin to sit down and talk.
I'm a lot less suspicious of his goals and interests than that of Saudi Arabia.
I'm thinking a nice lunch discuss Syria and ISIS by dessert I'm sure we could find some common ground. Cigars at the range and discuss economics and find out just where their bread is buttered and what we could do to work together, or at least agree to equal shares in the market and call it agree to disagree. Perhaps some fly fishing in the early to late afternoon and talk about energy and oil production. Dinner would be some giant T-Bones, baked potatoes and corn and we could again discuss Terrorism, ISIS, pipelines and the House of Saud and electronic spying. I'm pretty sure by brandy and cigars we would have about half of this hammered out.
You see where this is going?
He's clearly got zero respect, want to guess why?
I would bet that two days of negotiations in that environment would stop this forward momentum in its tracks. In two weeks you could likely have a lot of these things agreed to and signed and on paper.
If I were POTUS, I would invite Putin to sit down and talk.
I'm a lot less suspicious of his goals and interests than that of Saudi Arabia.
I'm thinking a nice lunch discuss Syria and ISIS by dessert I'm sure we could find some common ground. Cigars at the range and discuss economics and find out just where their bread is buttered and what we could do to work together, or at least agree to equal shares in the market and call it agree to disagree. Perhaps some fly fishing in the early to late afternoon and talk about energy and oil production. Dinner would be some giant T-Bones, baked potatoes and corn and we could again discuss Terrorism, ISIS, pipelines and the House of Saud and electronic spying. I'm pretty sure by brandy and cigars we would have about half of this hammered out.
You see where this is going?
He's clearly got zero respect, want to guess why?
I would bet that two days of negotiations in that environment would stop this forward momentum in its tracks. In two weeks you could likely have a lot of these things agreed to and signed and on paper.
Some man time could definitely solve many problems. Problem is finding the men to do it. The sad thing is, the more documentaries I watch and the more I read, the more I see that all this crap going on in the world is a mirror image of teenage adolescent bullsh*t drama and antics fed by hubris. Philosophy, virtues, morals, ethics, values, that sh*t is with the minority.
I think any action between India and Pakistan would be resolved "locally" with only China and Russia. India isn't a huge ally of the U.S.. Yes, we're on good terms with them, but they are very much under Russia and China's sphere of influence. And in terms of going toe to toe, India's conventional forces are pretty bad. So much so that I think that a Pakistani insurgency could hold them at a stalemate (think Kashmir).
I'm just going with stated policy which would spiral to several megatons of nuclear exchange. That could get ugly quick....
Averageman
09-21-16, 12:07
Some man time could definitely solve many problems. Problem is finding the men to do it. The sad thing is, the more documentaries I watch and the more I read, the more I see that all this crap going on in the world is a mirror image of teenage adolescent bullsh*t drama and antics fed by hubris. Philosophy, virtues, morals, ethics, values, that sh*t is with the minority.
Every time Obama sits across from Putin I would guess Putin is thinking "There are about 4 different ways I would like to strangle this nincompoop." that's why we are where we are.
Deal with him Man on Man, respect him and be honest, you don't have to agree on everything, but quit being a lying little ivy league bitch and Man the F'-up.
Cut a deal, it's not that hard to negotiate.
I would remind the audience that Ms. Klinton is a classic Neo-con IMO. Not the Wolfowitz variety you understand, but the original dyed in the wool variety more akin to Irving Kristol.
That's what makes her dangerous.... see Libya for context and reference.
Dead Serious Comment:
I was a young kid at the tail end of the second nuclear scare. Call BS but I remember doing Cover drills in 1st Grade. Not Tornado. Cover drills. Every school still had "Fallout Shelter" signs.
Saw Red Dawn, Threads, Day After, Testament, and remember my older girl cousin playing Sting's "Rusdians" over and over. All when it was still relevant. I know that all my guns and a few MREs and bottled water mean absolutely dick. Great for tornados or power outage. Worthless in a real nuclear war. These politicians will be half a mile underground or a mile in the air when/if they decide to pull this shit.
If I get a 20 minute warning, I am totally disrobing, finding the nearest ground zero and standing there with a catcher's mitt.
There will be no Mad Max adventures. There will be no mutants and girls in leather bikinis.
Nothing but people with unshakable copper taste in their mouth going bald, shitting themselves to death and those "fortunate" to survive fallout will have the joys of scorched earth, radioactive ash, and cancer rate that is astronomical. No way to fix it but to die off and hope the next batch of fishies who deign walk on land get it right in another 30 million years or so.
So if anyone is actually considering this. Don't. 8 AUG 1945 was a fluke. That won't ever happen again in a onesided way ever. Once you talk nukes, you have bypassed "tactical" and slingshotted all the way to Strategic. That's super high stakes gambling so high even Bill Gates wouldn't piss away a pitch and toss.
All it takes is one screwup and everybody is roped into it.
I honestly believe that unless EVERY country agreed to let someone nuke some pissant that NO nuclear deployment would go unanswered. I don't mean sanctions or strong letters, or mean mugs at the UN. I mean a TU-22 or a B2 Spirit or any number of ICBMs rammed up someone else's population center's asshole.
Call me a hippie but not everybody needs a nuke and a lot of people who really, really don't need them already have them or are burning the midnight oil to get them.
So....good luck with it.
If I get a 20 minute warning, I am totally disrobing, finding the nearest ground zero and standing there with a catcher's mitt.
That would make for an epic movie scene.
Maybe I'll get lucky living on the border with this constant South East wind blowing...surely nobody wants to piss off or waste a nuke on Mexico?? lol...
eightmillimeter
09-21-16, 13:32
There's too many variables in play to guess what the next global conflict will look like. Whether it kicks off tomorrow morning or 100 years from now doesn't matter, it will still happen. The only thing that delayed WWI from happening sooner was because there was no way to communicate or interact effectively across the globe until then...
There is not enough oil, coal, gold, silver, corn, or even fresh water to sustain what the global population will be in the future. If we don't kill each other off to control some of the population growth that is out of control Mother Nature will, just the way it is.
I think anyone under 20-30 years old has a good shot at seeing Ww3.
I don't think WW3 will be between US and Russia. I think WW3 will start with Israel. After WW1 the US had no intention of fulfilling a promise with Great Britain to the Arabs to give then there own land once they helped us beat the Ottoman Empire so we could beat the Prussian empire. (That's what the movie, Lawrence of Arabia was all about) A few years after the war, Great Britain drew simple straight lines dividing the middle east into territories like Iraq, Syria and Palestine. The put Shiites in the same area as Sunnis, Kurds with Jews and so forth. The US along with Great Britain had no idea about culture, especially the oldest cultures in the world. We had promised the same land to too many people. Ever since then, the US as well as UK has been hated. After WW2 the allies allowed Jews to claim there own land in the same area we gave to Palestine years before and ever since Israel and Palestine have been at war. The US as well as UK and every English speaking NATO member supports Israel which causes backlash from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia(even though they say they are neutral), Oman, Yemen and Lebanon. The only people who don't have a problem with the US or UK is Qatar and UAE and Saudi Arabia as long as we buy oil from them.
If you know anything about Islam or if you don't know anything about Islam than you need to know this, Sunni Islam is totally different than Shiite Islam. When you think of Shiite, think of Iran and Lebanon whereas Sunnis are Syria and Iraq. Shiites have imams that are known as ayatollah and are considered to be decedents of Muhammad. Sunnis have a caliph (successor) an advisor to Muhammad. Shiites are ruled by there religious leaders whereas Sunnis are not but do have religious advisors. That is why Iraq did not like Iran. Since 1979 both Iraq and Syria were controlled by the Baath party where as nowadays in mostly in the hands of Alawites, an offshoot of Shia which falls under Sunni Islam, when you think of Shia you need to think about Osama Bin Laden, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. The believe the prophet is appointed by god alone and not by followers. These are the radical Muslims who advocate of sharia law, so when you hear Muslims here in the US talking about Sharia Law, those are in deed the worst of the worst.
With Iraq, Syria and Libya now failed states and with Shia Islam wanting a state of there own (ISIL) they are wanting to go back to pre WW1 times like the Ottoman Empire, Levent means Ottoman Soldier.
So in closing, I think WW3 will have to do with land and taking back land that the Allies gave away after WW1 and WW2. Of coarse everyone including Nato will have to pick a side and since a vast area of land is at stake it will be a tough choice to make. Russia will most likely pick the side that will buy weapons from them and US/UK will pick the other side. This will ultimately bring other countries in the war as well. Similar to WW1, its inevitable, everyone will have to pick a side.
Could you elaborate as to why obummer references the use of ISIL when talking about ISIS??
I have always put the Israel / Iran at the top of the chart for some sort of starting point.
I don't think WW3 will be between US and Russia. I think WW3 will start with Israel. After WW1 the US had no intention of fulfilling a promise with Great Britain to the Arabs to give then there own land once they helped us beat the Ottoman Empire so we could beat the Prussian empire. (That's what the movie, Lawrence of Arabia was all about) A few years after the war, Great Britain drew simple straight lines dividing the middle east into territories like Iraq, Syria and Palestine. The put Shiites in the same area as Sunnis, Kurds with Jews and so forth. The US along with Great Britain had no idea about culture, especially the oldest cultures in the world. We had promised the same land to too many people. Ever since then, the US as well as UK has been hated. After WW2 the allies allowed Jews to claim there own land in the same area we gave to Palestine years before and ever since Israel and Palestine have been at war. The US as well as UK and every English speaking NATO member supports Israel which causes backlash from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia(even though they say they are neutral), Oman, Yemen and Lebanon. The only people who don't have a problem with the US or UK is Qatar and UAE and Saudi Arabia as long as we buy oil from them.
If you know anything about Islam or if you don't know anything about Islam than you need to know this, Sunni Islam is totally different than Shiite Islam. When you think of Shiite, think of Iran and Lebanon whereas Sunnis are Syria and Iraq. Shiites have imams that are known as ayatollah and are considered to be decedents of Muhammad. Sunnis have a caliph (successor) an advisor to Muhammad. Shiites are ruled by there religious leaders whereas Sunnis are not but do have religious advisors. That is why Iraq did not like Iran. Since 1979 both Iraq and Syria were controlled by the Baath party where as nowadays in mostly in the hands of Alawites, an offshoot of Shia which falls under Sunni Islam, when you think of Shia you need to think about Osama Bin Laden, ISIS, Al Qaeda etc. The believe the prophet is appointed by god alone and not by followers. These are the radical Muslims who advocate of sharia law, so when you hear Muslims here in the US talking about Sharia Law, those are in deed the worst of the worst.
With Iraq, Syria and Libya now failed states and with Shia Islam wanting a state of there own (ISIL) they are wanting to go back to pre WW1 times like the Ottoman Empire, Levent means Ottoman Soldier.
So in closing, I think WW3 will have to do with land and taking back land that the Allies gave away after WW1 and WW2.
Russia is similar in this regard. Putin may annex small territories here and there of countries on the fringe of NATO territory that touch Russia, but he won't over extend. He especially won't over extend because the Russian economy is a mess. He could not sustain any prolonged "away" war. Any attempt by N. Korea at invasion would end up with most of their army at the bottom of the pacific. So this is very unlikely.
Based on an increased understanding of this area I personally believe it's a very likely risk... far more than the others mentioned. It's far more nuanced than simply "taking territory". It's more about busting NATO, especially in the Baltics.
The Russian & NATO deployment shifts are in the news daily, it's not an accident the even Obama did a major reverse on European troops. It's a very serious situation.
It's tied to how Putin builds support to stay in power. (This is the nuanced part). A strong appearing, growing, Russia enhances his support base and distracts from the failing economy, etc.
I had no idea why this was a big deal until recently.
* The Russians are gradually luring Turkey away from NATO. It is likely in the future Russia will take over Incirlik air base and Turkey will not only kick us out but leave NATO.
Russia would love to see Turkey leave NATO, but will not embrace Turkey as they are heading heavily Islamic government. Which Russia would not tolerate. So I do expect to see trouble there, but Turkey needs NATO and will not endanger that.
If they did shut off the electronics by getting really close that really isn't a threat. The chances of the same occurring in a war-time are slim (almost a kamikaze mission at that point). Also remember that if they are emitting EMP, they are also subjected to it. If there was an electronics glitch, it was likely due to overlapping frequencies or interference of electromagnetic radiation used for communications.
We may have a gap, no telling. But what Russia has demonstrated in Syria would not play the same way against the US as it depends on having air superiority over a region and an unwillingness to engage directly. Which would end immediately as soon as the US & Russia took off the gloves.
I'm not saying we should not be concerned about this type of thing. Just that it's not a slam dunk like some posture.
I think WW3 is more likely to start in India/Pakistan
India has a stated policy of potentially responding to terrorist attacks like Mumbai hotel, that they believe were sponsored by the Pakistani gov't, with a large conventional punitive response.
I saw this exact scenario on "Madame Secretary"... she had no problem resolving it in a 35 minutes of show... should be no big deal to sort. :-)
It definitely was part of the plan on deterring Warsaw Pact invasion of NATO. They had such an advantage in conventional arms, it was the only way to stop them in the 60-70s.
The scary thing is Russia changed their nuclear engagement rules to not be dependent on existential threats. IE: They reserve the right to use them tactically in a conventional engagement.
Meanwhile, Obama changed ours to "No first strike". IE: We'd wait to be attacked before responding in kind. And only for "existential" threats.
Some man time could definitely solve many problems. Problem is finding the men to do it.
Crux of the problem. Apologists will always lose with the Russian & Islamic cultures. And probably even China.
The problem is Obama, Clinton, and Kerry types are very predictable. Empty threats. (remember the red line?)
Obama is quietly showing a bit more steel in deciding to re-reinforce Europe.
Could you elaborate as to why obummer references the use of ISIL when talking about ISIS??.
ISIL is not strictly located in Iraq and Syria like ISIS, ISIL in an entire region (middle east) including Israel. To us Americans we don't really make much of a distinction between ISIS and ISIL but for a middle eastern person, they would see it as the difference between night and day. The Levent is a land bridge that bridges Turkey to Egypt and then on to the south, the same boundaries as the Ottoman Empire.
I honestly think Obama is sending a message to all of Muslim communities around the world saying he does not recognize Israel by referring to ISIL, I think that is why he has been dragging his feet and only do the minimum that congress forces him to.
With Iraq, Syria and Libya now failed states and with Shia Islam wanting a state of there own (ISIL) they are wanting to go back to pre WW1 times like the Ottoman Empire, Levent means Ottoman Soldier.
While many of your points are accurate, the core issue with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda is that they are non-state actors. Almost by definition.
It's far more complex than Sunni vs Shia vs Israel dynamics. (though they all play in)
They are flavors of very fundamental Islam that are trying to fulfill specific prophecies and bring about the end of times.
One part of that is the establishment of the caliphate. Others are to trigger key battles, even in key places. (Which drives the need to control certain areas)
They differ only in degrees and how they plan to do it.
In their mythology, the state governments are by definition apostate since they are something other than the caliphate.
Both to a certain extent are trying to trigger the engagement of countries like the US (greater satan) into battles. Which, makes boots on the ground problematic. Especially when holding ground (caliphate) is a key part of the prophecy. So we can't let them hold ground, yet engaging with them directly helps fulfill the prophecy.
So to a certain extent, the US (Bush) response to 9/11 played right into AQ's plan as it triggered a very costly war, destabilized our financial markets, etc. And was a sign of their end of times.
I never realized the complexities of this until I read some pretty good papers on the issue. There is not an easy answer, though I think the author Dean Ing may have been way ahead of his time in positioning how to handle terror type threats. But it involves a disciplined and participating press that we will never have. But psychological warfare may be the only way we end this, along with continuing to cutoff the head of the snakes when they appear. That and make it harder for them to get into the US and be sheltered.
having a hard time with fallout 4, I keep just trying to bang everyone and everything (synths) and slaughter mutants. Don't care about the story.
I have wasted more time on F4, this thing is endless. Nuka world is pretty cool. Not big on the story here too.
While many of your points are accurate, the core issue with groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda is that they are non-state actors. Almost by definition.
It's far more complex than Sunni vs Shia vs Israel dynamics. (though they all play in)
They are flavors of very fundamental Islam that are trying to fulfill specific prophecies and bring about the end of times.
One part of that is the establishment of the caliphate. Others are to trigger key battles, even in key places. (Which drives the need to control certain areas)
They differ only in degrees and how they plan to do it.
In their mythology, the state governments are by definition apostate since they are something other than the caliphate.
Both to a certain extent are trying to trigger the engagement of countries like the US (greater satan) into battles. Which, makes boots on the ground problematic. Especially when holding ground (caliphate) is a key part of the prophecy. So we can't let them hold ground, yet engaging with them directly helps fulfill the prophecy.
So to a certain extent, the US (Bush) response to 9/11 played right into AQ's plan as it triggered a very costly war, destabilized our financial markets, etc. And was a sign of their end of times.
I never realized the complexities of this until I read some pretty good papers on the issue. There is not an easy answer, though I think the author Dean Ing may have been way ahead of his time in positioning how to handle terror type threats. But it involves a disciplined and participating press that we will never have. But psychological warfare may be the only way we end this, along with continuing to cutoff the head of the snakes when they appear. That and make it harder for them to get into the US and be sheltered.
It also makes war hard to win when you are fighting a entire group that is willing to die or willing to kill themselves. Talk about a major buzz kill!
It also makes war hard to win when you are fighting a entire group that is willing to die or willing to kill themselves. Talk about a major buzz kill!
My grandfather was a Marine in WWII. I asked him once when I was a kid "How did you fight people who weren't afraid to die?". His reply? "You killed them."
Both to a certain extent are trying to trigger the engagement of countries like the US (greater satan) into battles. Which, makes boots on the ground problematic. Especially when holding ground (caliphate) is a key part of the prophecy. So we can't let them hold ground, yet engaging with them directly helps fulfill the prophecy.
So to a certain extent, the US (Bush) response to 9/11 played right into AQ's plan as it triggered a very costly war, destabilized our financial markets, etc. And was a sign of their end of times.
I never realized the complexities of this until I read some pretty good papers on the issue. There is not an easy answer, though I think the author Dean Ing may have been way ahead of his time in positioning how to handle terror type threats. But it involves a disciplined and participating press that we will never have. But psychological warfare may be the only way we end this, along with continuing to cutoff the head of the snakes when they appear. That and make it harder for them to get into the US and be sheltered.
You can't not address an issue with deserved violence because provoking a violent reaction on your behalf was the goal. Some SOB hits you in the head with a stick......you gonna skip the return pumpkin smash because they wanted you to hit them? Boy, you really psyched them out! :rolleyes: I guess the punishment has to FAR exceed what they were wanting.
Digital_Damage
09-21-16, 14:49
I have wasted more time on F4, this thing is endless. Nuka world is pretty cool. Not big on the story here too.
Disappointed with Nuka World, coulda had a hot companion to bang like Mags Black or Dixie... Instead we got a one eyed toothless guy wearing a pokey trash can. Even far harbor allowed you to seduce a robo brain. Should have allowed us to seduce the Scientologist.
Also... one of the first times their was no brothel in a Fallout game. WTF!
Should have at least introduced a slave system, so I could enslave all the hot chicks and chain them to beds.
You can tell what my priorities are.
Disappointed with Nuka World, coulda had a hot companion to bang like Mags Black or Dixie... Instead we got a one eyed toothless guy wearing a pokey trash can. Even far harbor allowed you to seduce a robo brain. Should have allowed us to seduce the Scientologist.
Also... one of the first times their was no brothel in a Fallout game. WTF!
Should have at least introduced a slave system, so I could enslave all the hot chicks and chain them to beds.
You can tell what my priorities are.
Lol.. haven't done any of that, just mostly clearing and getting stuff.
Spent a hitch pulling security around various kinds of nukes in SAC in the late 60s--alert B-52s, Minuteman missiles, even interceptor borne Genies. (Gave one a kick once just to say I'd done it.)
That stuff was and is real as hell. I was in the alert area once when the klaxon went off. The usual Chinese fire drill ending with engines started and running, no movement. We usually had some inkling of a drill coming up. One one occasion all 8 B-52s taxied out to the end of the active runway for takeoff. I about shit a brick, figuring that if this was real I had about ten minutes to live.
It wasn't, but that shit is NOT funny at all. And I damn sure don't have any faith in man's rationality these days.
I'm surprised the Big One hasn't happened by now.
I'm surprised the Big One hasn't happened by now.
it will, its inevitable but wont come from US/UK/Russia first. Iran, N Korea or perhaps Pakistan would fire the shot heard around the world.
Doc Safari
09-21-16, 15:33
Would we do a preemptive strike against North Korea with a nuke if we thought they were really ready to launch an EMP bomb or Hiroshima-sized device?
Food for thought.
BoringGuy45
09-21-16, 16:43
Every major war has happened when there is no clear dominant power and everyone is vying for the title. World War I found Germany, the U.K., France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the U.S. all pretty close to equal in terms of power. Same deal with WWII: The Allies and the Axis were pretty evenly matched. Right now, Russia and China are not even close to being evenly matched with us, much less us and the rest of NATO. I don't see World War III happening until the U.S. breaks up or dissolves.
Outlander Systems
09-21-16, 16:45
The Problem with WWIII scenarios is that the Sino-Russ block doesn't possess the force projection capabilities that the US has.
So you could flip a coin whether it's go straight to nukes. Despite draw-downs and sequesters, the US has the baddest mother****ing military in the history of the universe.
Doc Safari
09-21-16, 16:50
The Problem with WWIII scenarios is that the Sino-Russ block doesn't possess the force projection capabilities that US has.
So you could flip a coin whether it's go straight to nukes. Despite draw-downs and sequesters, the US has the baddest mother****ing military in the history of the universe.
I did chuckle earlier when I read that Russia is moving its ONE aircraft carrier to Syria. I know the traditional military model puts both China and Russia behind due to our high technology if nothing else.
The worst case scenario is that they use non-linear warfare like EMP attacks, computer hacking, financial attacks, etc., which cripple us in other ways before the conventional war begins.
I did chuckle earlier when I read that Russia is moving its ONE aircraft carrier to Syria. I know the traditional military model puts both China and Russia behind due to our high technology if nothing else.
The worst case scenario is that they use non-linear warfare like EMP attacks, computer hacking, financial attacks, etc. which cripple us in other ways before the conventional war begins.
They're doing that right now it seems, even undermining the democratic process intentionally it appears. Russia and China still have mostly a defensive military capability where as ours is specifically set up to project power, so they continue to chip away and undermine via cyber attacks, etc. which costs the US far more than people realize or want to admit. I believe the DOD et al has been pushing various companies and other entities to take their security more seriously to little avail as I understand it. Per usual, we/the consumer, pick up the bill for the most part.
You can't not address an issue with deserved violence because provoking a violent reaction on your behalf was the goal. Some SOB hits you in the head with a stick......you gonna skip the return pumpkin smash because they wanted you to hit them? Boy, you really psyched them out! :rolleyes: I guess the punishment has to FAR exceed what they were wanting.
I agree as long as you don't stop until the threat from the ideology is eliminated, or at least adherents knocked totally into hiding.
But we were not able to do that. AQ & ISIS moves, that's what makes it a hard problem to solve. Cut off one head, and it pops up elsewhere.
That's the problem with non-state actors. Likewise, doing battle with them triggers more to join.
I don't have an answer for how to solve it, nor do our military strategists. That's what lead to the whole COINista mindset... try to change the game. Deny the bad actors support zones because the local poplace loves you. (Unlikely at best)
And it's worse when they feel it's fulfilling a prophecy, which is the issue with ISIS.
I've come to think of the ISIS types as the equivalent role as Christian Missionaries. It's an imperfect analogy, but the best I've come up with.
Most Christian churches believe there is a need for missionary effort, scripture calls for it.
To be a missionary in a 3rd world country is way more than most will do, so churches organize efforts to support them
Periodically the local churches have visiting preachers call for support and volunteers for new missionaries.
Many specific denominations do not agree with what another one is preaching, their methods, or approach.
However, most do agree that even another denomination's missionaries are following the intent of scripture, if not the letter of the law
This is how some mosques support ISIS. And occasionally get volunteers. And in their case, even if they do not agree with the approach, they are not going to question the need to support Jihad, as it's a scriptural compulsion.
The analogy is imperfect in the extremes their "missionaries" go to. But it helps to understand the mindset. Why mosques support them.
It's the same way seeming rational people will say Sharia law should be followed, even though that means stoning women, etc. (huge number of Egyptians responded that Sharia law should be the law of the land including stoning for adultery)
when killing ISIS members is allowed to be idolized and martyred, it just draws more of them. You would not be allowed to kill them fast enough to eliminate them.
So I'm starting to think it has to be psychological in a way that will never be tolerated by most. Make them (ISIS) a laughingstock. Show them as barbarians, idiots, bad fighters with small packages. Women laughing at them. Show them violating the koran. Full on info warfare. Replace their propaganda sites with content doing the above. But only ISIS. Stay away from non ISIS/ISIL space.
The "vile" video Hillary referenced in the Benghazi event is actually in the right direction, it just needs to be targeted at ISIS fighters rather than the faith itself.
But this is all moot, our political environment would never allow this to happen. It will take many, many more deaths domestically. And is slippery slope as well with regards to rights.
But this is getting into asymmetrical warfare, not WW-III
RetroRevolver77
09-21-16, 20:33
But this is getting into asymmetrical warfare, not WW-III
Proxy warfare fighting these terrorist organizations will be the start to WWIII by design. We are seeing it unfolding right now. To many big players fighting in a little space backing one small player versus the other- it's just a matter of time.
sevenhelmet
09-21-16, 21:09
They're doing that right now it seems, even undermining the democratic process intentionally it appears. Russia and China still have mostly a defensive military capability where as ours is specifically set up to project power, so they continue to chip away and undermine via cyber attacks, etc. which costs the US far more than people realize or want to admit. I believe the DOD et al has been pushing various companies and other entities to take their security more seriously to little avail as I understand it. Per usual, we/the consumer, pick up the bill for the most part.
True that. I've been in some meetings about testing against "cyber threats" lately that got pretty heated. Basically, it's a requirement for all new systems that nobody wants to allocate money to or outline an design of experiments for. A lot of the military-industrial acquisitions complex is going into the 21st century kicking and screaming. We're still in the 1990s in many ways.
Don't take that to mean it isn't being looked at, though. There is some scary effective stuff out there for cyber. That's all I can say here.
Proxy warfare fighting these terrorist organizations will be the start to WWIII by design. We are seeing it unfolding right now. To many big players fighting in a little space backing one small player versus the other- it's just a matter of time.
This is very simplified of course but that is very similar to how WWI kicked off. Small initial conflict, major players picked sides and to quote Mills Lane "Let's get it on!"
In other news, I now really miss Celebrity Deathmatch on MTV.
MountainRaven
09-21-16, 22:26
WWIII will start in the mid-21st Century.
The combatants will be the US (on one side) and Japan (or China), Poland (or Germany), and Turkey on the other. It will last about eight weeks and be a purely conventional war fought chiefly by hyper-sonic drones, power-armored infantry, and orbital attack platforms. Total casualties will be somewhere around 50,000. And despite Turkey, Poland, and Japan launching joint sneak attacks against the US, the US will win, but will force a brokered settlement to hostilities rather than waging a total war with unconditional surrender as the goal, as everybody will have nukes and nobody will want to play that game, unless they're forced to.
(According George Friedman's The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. Published in 2009 - and among other things has predicted that the US and Russia would resume the Cold War by 2020 and that by about 2030, both Russia and China will collapse. We'll see how that works out over the next 15 years. And with Russia's collapse, Poland will become the regional powerhouse of Central Europe (unless Germany gets over Naziism), Turkey will become the central powerhouse of the Middle-East, and Japan will supplant China as the Pacific's regional powerhouse (unless China manages somehow to stay afloat). Those of you who have studied history will note history repeating itself: Turkey and the Byzantine Empire before it were the powerhouse of the Middle-East for nearly 2000 years, Poland, Germany, and Russia have often switched hats over who the biggest badass in Central Europe is, and Japan is doing Japan things.)
If the Norks try anything it will be game over. The Japanese are the turn of a screw from having nuclear weapons. They will not get nuked again.
Iran as a nuclear power and Israel as a nuclear power won't end well.
I dare saw we are closer to something going down now in present era than we were in the last nuclear scare.
It isn't Red and Blue anymore. And I'm not hawkish on it because people really aren't as leery as they were years ago. It's a video game. It's a punchline. Once it starts it won't stop.
Moose-Knuckle
09-22-16, 04:57
Meh, we'll all be fighting and killing each other over potable water (aka blue gold) before too much longer.
Since the discovery of oil in PA in the latter 1800's and then the internal combustion engine human populations have gone literally straight up on every graph due to petrol chemicals and machinery. Food production has allowed mankind to procreate like never before in our known histories.
We cannot maintain these numbers.
Of course that doesn't even take into account the global economy which is also unsustainable and dependent upon petroleum.
Meh, we'll all be fighting and killing each other over potable water (aka blue gold) before too much longer.
Since the discovery of oil in PA in the latter 1800's and then the internal combustion engine human populations have gone literally straight up on every graph due to petrol chemicals and machinery. Food production has allowed mankind to procreate like never before in our known histories.
We cannot maintain these numbers.
Of course that doesn't even take into account the global economy which is also unsustainable and dependent upon petroleum.
Birthrate is dropping and will continue to drop. The problem is that since the 50's the world death rate has plummeted as well. In 1950 the world birth rate was 37.2 per thousand; the death rate was 19.1. So births almost doubled deaths. In the last five years the world birth rate was 19.4 per thousand people and the death rate was 8.1. So births are still more than doubling deaths.
Predictions are that by 2030 the lower birth rate will result in an older population and the death rate per thousand will begin to rise. Projections are a low of 8.1 deaths per thousand over the next tens year before the death rate begins to rise.
By 2050 the projection is that the birth rate will be 13.4 and the death rate will be 9.7.
In 1980 11.1% of the world population was over 60; in 2015 that rose just a scoosh to 12.4%; by 2050 it is projected that 19.8% of the world population will be over 60. Between 1980 and 2050 the percentage of adolescents/young adults (age 15 to 25) is projected to fall from 19.0% in 1980 to 14.0: in 2050.
So things are turning around, albeit slowly.
BTW, thanks for posting that - I researched enough that I'm going to bore the shit out of some people at coffee today.
I did chuckle earlier when I read that Russia is moving its ONE aircraft carrier to Syria. I know the traditional military model puts both China and Russia behind due to our high technology if nothing else.
The worst case scenario is that they use non-linear warfare like EMP attacks, computer hacking, financial attacks, etc., which cripple us in other ways before the conventional war begins.
The next war between major powers will begin in space, IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Averageman
09-22-16, 09:51
I honestly think we could pretty safely link about three threads we have going on here together.
This One, the Jersey Bomber and the Riots. Now you might think that's a stretch, but not if you might agree that there is an effort to fundamentally change America and not in a good way. I'm not saying a direct concerted effort, part of it is utter greed, the other utter incompetence and foolishness.
I think we are allowing immigration, lawlessness and poor Government practices in both foreign and domestic policy to drag us forward in to a destabilized economy and a Country that is divided and rolling toward anarchy.
Just my opinion, but it would seem I'm not the only one putting these pieces together here.
There is no "Doctor Evil" just a culture sliding toward failure, a lot of greed and some folks who couldn't lead if their lives depended on it, standing at the helm of our Nation.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-22-16, 09:53
The next war between major powers will begin in space, IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As long as there are space marines.
As long as there are space marines.
Lol...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Whiskey_Bravo
09-22-16, 10:48
either kind
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/64/99/f064992f6d16ffccad8654abcf66337e.jpg http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/spacemarine/images/0/0b/Space_Marines_codex_cover.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110913131609
Eh, I'd say MAD doctrine works pretty well.
If things do get sporty, it well be because of trying to take resources.
Back in WW2, the US was engaged directly in a world war with the Allies from early 1942 to late 1945. WW2 was in reality, a 3 1/2 year war for the US. We were at war with the Imperial Japanese Military who had an impressive Navy with advanced submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers and an air force with experienced pilots. The Imperial Japanese Army was heavily planted in the south pacific with all hardware in place, trained soldiers manning fortified positions manning anti aircraft guns, fixed mounted naval guns, machine guns, artillery and a mobilized ground force.
We were also at war with the Nazi's as well as the Italians. There were different theaters of the European war including, North Africa, Sicily/Crete, France, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Nazi were a mighty war machine. They had radically advanced bombers, fighter aircraft, u boats, tanks, artillery as well as one of the most disciplined and capable militaries in the entire world. The Nazis were extremely prepared for a global war, they had the industry and the man power. Italy was a powerful force as well, like the Nazis, they too were well equipped with a formidable military, navy and airforce.
The US literally bombed the holy hell out of Europe. The US literally bombed every industrial factory, every rail yard, every mile of rail, every port, every harbor, every military installation,not just in Germany, but Italy, Czechoslovakia and France. Meanwhile in the Pacific theater, we captured every atoll and every island. We defeated the Italians by sheer strength in numbers, we defeated the Nazis with the help from the Allies from 24hr bombing campains on every major city until they lost there will and gave up. We dropped 2 nuked on Japan to get them to surrender but that was after weeks of fire bombing there cities to ashes.
For whatever reason, the US doesn't fight wars like this anymore. The US drags wars on longer than needed. Its like war is war, but not really when it comes to our approach to our methods. I think the US could annihilate N Korea, Iran and ISIS in as little as 6 months if we were to have the same mentality we did back in WW2 and keep the senate, congress and press out of the war. I think we could not only do that but also take on China and Russia at the same time in the same amount of time. I think the US could take Russia out in our sleep. China on the other hand, we would break them financially first by blockading all goods coming in or out of the US and Allies and put a stop payment on all financial transactions.
I don't think we could do this with any administration these days or with the senate/congress committies that don't want to spend money. Now days with ROE that protect our enemy, and knowing that our own leaders could rule in favor for any testimony or witness from the other side that would bring charges upon our own service member. I would consider Desert Storm the last great war but like Vietnam, the GWOT clearly has no winner or loosers.
So a WW3 scenario would actually worry me, not because I have no faith in our military, its because I have very little faith in our government.
So a WW3 scenario would actually worry me, not because I have no faith in our military, its because I have very little faith in our government.
Elephant - You make some good points, but that won't happen with an all volunteer force, you'd have to have conscription. And the government isn't the only problem with that, there are a good many members of this forum who would not support it.
MountainRaven
09-22-16, 23:42
Elephant - You make some good points, but that won't happen with an all volunteer force, you'd have to have conscription. And the government isn't the only problem with that, there are a good many members of this forum who would not support it.
"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!"
-Robert A. Heinlein
BrigandTwoFour
09-23-16, 00:02
You have to understand the mentality of WWII, though. The previous war to that was WWI, which saw the development of aircraft, tanks, and chemical warfare. The philosophy of war, at the time, was essentially that you fed men to the war machine and hoped that your country's machine devoured your adversaries faster. It was no holds barred, ends-justify-the-means warfare. Little Boy and Fat Man, at the time, were simply viewed as very large and very capable bombs. We didn't seriously start thinking of nuclear weapons as the international chess pieces they are until around 1949, when the Soviets detonated their own weapon: Joe-1.
IMO, the longer the world goes without seeing a nuclear weapon used in anger, the more likely that someone is going to light one off. I don't think it's going to be a major world power with a lot to lose, though. I'm not sure that a such a small attack from a small country would warrant a full nuclear response these days. The major world powers of the US, Russia, China, England, etc. are too interconnected to be that brazen. They will continue to support proxy wars that are expensive to fight and morally/politically draining. These kinds of conflicts will be paired with "anonymous" cyber attacks designed to harass target nations and further irritate populations. But there won't be a Fulda Gap scenario, because nobody can afford that.
Assured Destruction doctrine is still relevant between major powers. That's not going to change unless someone dramatically alters the deterrence calculus (and it will take a whole lot more than saying we are adopting a "no first use" policy, since that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the real world).
Most people are looking at India and Pakistan, but I don't think that's a serious issue. They don't like each other, but it's not really a contest since India is so far ahead in a lot of areas. What about India and China, though? They both have populations in the billions, relatively similar industrial and educational capacity, and they compete over roughly the same resources (which China is starting to run desperately short on).
Moose-Knuckle
09-23-16, 02:45
Birthrate is dropping and will continue to drop. The problem is that since the 50's the world death rate has plummeted as well. In 1950 the world birth rate was 37.2 per thousand; the death rate was 19.1. So births almost doubled deaths. In the last five years the world birth rate was 19.4 per thousand people and the death rate was 8.1. So births are still more than doubling deaths.
Predictions are that by 2030 the lower birth rate will result in an older population and the death rate per thousand will begin to rise. Projections are a low of 8.1 deaths per thousand over the next tens year before the death rate begins to rise.
By 2050 the projection is that the birth rate will be 13.4 and the death rate will be 9.7.
In 1980 11.1% of the world population was over 60; in 2015 that rose just a scoosh to 12.4%; by 2050 it is projected that 19.8% of the world population will be over 60. Between 1980 and 2050 the percentage of adolescents/young adults (age 15 to 25) is projected to fall from 19.0% in 1980 to 14.0: in 2050.
So things are turning around, albeit slowly.
BTW, thanks for posting that - I researched enough that I'm going to bore the shit out of some people at coffee today.
This graph puts things in perspective.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/9/8055/29835160486_93068cbc62_b.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
09-23-16, 02:55
The next war between major powers will begin in space, IMO.
First strike weapons now include space drones that essentially sabotage enemy satellites before we launch.
Here is an X-37B landing after a two year mission in orbit.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8502/29242935904_3e4ef4991d_z.jpg
First strike weapons now include space drones that essentially sabotage enemy satellites before we launch.
Here is an X-37B landing after a two year mission in orbit.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8502/29242935904_3e4ef4991d_z.jpg
Yep. I think that would be to only legit way for another power to start an all-out war with the US.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is N. Korea even listed in the same sentence as China or Russia? I doubt the RoK would even need us at this point, they have a 21st century military vs. the DPRK stuck in the 50's. More importantly, the RoK has money.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-23-16, 08:18
"Experiment bay"
http://xairforces.net/images/news/large_news/050112_USA_X-37B-space-plane.jpg
IMO, the longer the world goes without seeing a nuclear weapon used in anger, the more likely that someone is going to light one off. I don't think it's going to be a major world power with a lot to lose, though. I'm not sure that a such a small attack from a small country would warrant a full nuclear response these days. The major world powers of the US, Russia, China, England, etc. are too interconnected to be that brazen. They will continue to support proxy wars that are expensive to fight and morally/politically draining. These kinds of conflicts will be paired with "anonymous" cyber attacks designed to harass target nations and further irritate populations. But there won't be a Fulda Gap scenario, because nobody can afford that.
If it was a nuke attack from a smaller country I wouldn't hesitate to incinerate their population. Any POTUS that reigned over a nuke attack on the U.S. and didn't respond in kind would be impeached, and rightfully so. I'd be among many demanding it.
"I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain!"
-Robert A. Heinlein
Okay, that is the view of a science fiction writer who also advances that in order to be a citizen with voting rights you must serve the Nation.
So, with some degree of humor intended, pick which of those you want if you are going to quote Heinlein as a rebuttal.
Conscription is not slavery. Look at conscription as the fulfillment of the duty each citizen has to the other citizens of the Nation. The draft merely recognizes that many folks have to be prodded. The reason so many are vehemently against the draft is the way the draft during the VN conflict was handled, look at all the windbag MF'ers who got out of serving that are now telling us how to live - from the airwaves and in the government.
Conscription is not slavery if the way to avoid conscription is to denounce your citizenship and leave the country.
Everyone wants to reap the benefits of our unity, few want to pay the price that makes it so.
Doc Safari
09-23-16, 09:37
Conscription would fail miserably, and lead to a violent revolution in the US. We no longer live in a country where most draft age men have a sense of duty to their country. If a draft were reinstated it would bring nationwide unrest and chaos.
MountainRaven
09-23-16, 09:42
Okay, that is the view of a science fiction writer who also advances that in order to be a citizen with voting rights you must serve the Nation.
So, with some degree of humor intended, pick which of those you want if you are going to quote Heinlein as a rebuttal.
Conscription is not slavery. Look at conscription as the fulfillment of the duty each citizen has to the other citizens of the Nation. The draft merely recognizes that many folks have to be prodded. The reason so many are vehemently against the draft is the way the draft during the VN conflict was handled, look at all the windbag MF'ers who got out of serving that are now telling us how to live - from the airwaves and in the government.
Conscription is not slavery if the way to avoid conscription is to denounce your citizenship and leave the country.
Everyone wants to reap the benefits of our unity, few want to pay the price that makes it so.
Do you often have difficulty differentiating between an author and their works? Do you think that George Orwell was a proponent of a totalitarian government?
Starship Troopers wasn't the only book Heinlein wrote. And he was attacked by the right for portraying a volunteer military in it.
I think it's funny you argue that conscription is not slavery and then advise that one needs only flee the country - as slaves had to - in order to avoid it.
Dead Serious Comment:
I was a young kid at the tail end of the second nuclear scare. Call BS but I remember doing Cover drills in 1st Grade. Not Tornado. Cover drills. Every school still had "Fallout Shelter" signs.
Saw Red Dawn, Threads, Day After, Testament, and remember my older girl cousin playing Sting's "Rusdians" over and over. All when it was still relevant. I know that all my guns and a few MREs and bottled water mean absolutely dick. Great for tornados or power outage. Worthless in a real nuclear war. These politicians will be half a mile underground or a mile in the air when/if they decide to pull this shit.
If I get a 20 minute warning, I am totally disrobing, finding the nearest ground zero and standing there with a catcher's mitt.
There will be no Mad Max adventures. There will be no mutants and girls in leather bikinis.
Nothing but people with unshakable copper taste in their mouth going bald, shitting themselves to death and those "fortunate" to survive fallout will have the joys of scorched earth, radioactive ash, and cancer rate that is astronomical. No way to fix it but to die off and hope the next batch of fishies who deign walk on land get it right in another 30 million years or so.
So if anyone is actually considering this. Don't. 8 AUG 1945 was a fluke. That won't ever happen again in a onesided way ever. Once you talk nukes, you have bypassed "tactical" and slingshotted all the way to Strategic. That's super high stakes gambling so high even Bill Gates wouldn't piss away a pitch and toss.
All it takes is one screwup and everybody is roped into it.
I honestly believe that unless EVERY country agreed to let someone nuke some pissant that NO nuclear deployment would go unanswered. I don't mean sanctions or strong letters, or mean mugs at the UN. I mean a TU-22 or a B2 Spirit or any number of ICBMs rammed up someone else's population center's asshole.
Call me a hippie but not everybody needs a nuke and a lot of people who really, really don't need them already have them or are burning the midnight oil to get them.
So....good luck with it.
LMFAO @ the bold.
REM>ITEOTWAWKI, 99 Luftballons & all that jive.
At this point in life I am more worried about dipshit hood rats shutting down I-85 to the North or South of me holding up delivery of any new toys I have inbound.
Honestly, I am more concerned with someone hacking into or hijacking a system somehow to launch or set off a nuke in the name of their deity than I am of any state doing so. The world is a limited set of resources. China's actions today are very much inline with the lebensraum plot Germany once had. Turning a huge part of the Earth into an area uninhabital for decades is not inline with their goals.
As for an actual threat to the life, liberty, and happiness of every one of us here? I am still 110% certain our biggest threats lie within our own borders. This war on LE, rioting, anti-white campaign, anti-gun campaign, drown you out with PC is nothing more than a bunch of roads all heading to the same town. If there is a conventional WWIII on US soil it will be on the heels of a civil war or civil breakdown and other nations try to ride in (one way or another) and stake a claim.
The real bad guys are here. We voted for some and the ones we didn't vote for our fellow countrymen (who many at this point would gladly get down with a Rhwonda 2.0 on our asses) did.
BrigandTwoFour
09-23-16, 10:08
If it was a nuke attack from a smaller country I wouldn't hesitate to incinerate their population. Any POTUS that reigned over a nuke attack on the U.S. and didn't respond in kind would be impeached, and rightfully so. I'd be among many demanding it.
Ok, got it. I should clarify that I don't necessarily think a nuke would be used on the US. This goes back to why Eisenhower switched away from the policy of "Massive Retaliation" to what became known as "Flexible Response" under Kennedy. If you promise to go to all out nuclear war over any detonation on the US or our interests (which includes allies we have assured that we have them covered so they don't have to have their own weapons- like Japan), are you really willing to initiate WWIII nuclear war over North Korea delivering a nuke in a shipping container to Japan or South Korea?
Just as Eisenhower had to ask in the 1950s, red/blue politics aside, would you trade New York for Kiev or Seoul?
Tech has come a long way, and things that used to require a nuclear weapon can now be done with conventional explosives and precision guidance. There are still targets that require a nuke, but we don't use them just to make political statements.
You can go on about incinerating a smaller country, or impeaching a leader that didn't do it. But, and I say this as someone who actually was responsible for doing the nuking with ICBMs, I just don't think that is realistic policy.
This graph puts things in perspective.
Not being argumentative, because I agree in substance with what you posted, my point is somewhere within the next 100 years that graph is projected to level off and then begin to move downward.
In terms of ag production, there are even more efficiencies to be gained, the problem is water.
Do you often have difficulty differentiating between an author and their works? Do you think that George Orwell was a proponent of a totalitarian government?
Starship Troopers wasn't the only book Heinlein wrote. And he was attacked by the right for portraying a volunteer military in it.
I think it's funny you argue that conscription is not slavery and then advise that one needs only flee the country - as slaves had to - in order to avoid it.
The difference is that the folks I'm talking about are free to choose, whereas slaves weren't.
I eschew Sci-Fi in general, Starship Troopers is the only Heinlein book I've read, and then only yo see what everyone was yapping about.
Thanks.
I dunno...I think to an extent you should pay your dues before being able to vote. I've busted my ass and my vote counts the same as yabs who get church bussed in to vote straight Democrat or punk teenagers who have a horribly unrealistic view of govt and society. I think 2 years of fighting with shotsticks, loading up syphlitic ODing crackheads into ambulances, or hell, just good old fashioned digging holes, filling sandbags, and burning some shit. It would certainly put some things in perspective.
I knew this one hippie dippie chick in college who joined the peace corps and did about a year in Africa. When she came back you woulda thought she came back from the 'Nam. She dropped N bombs every five sentences and meant it. She was NOT the same girl.
Win, lose, or draw, at least people would have a much different outlook than they do now.
I dunno...I think to an extent you should pay your dues before being able to vote. I've busted my ass and my vote counts the same as yabs who get church bussed in to vote straight Democrat or punk teenagers who have a horribly unrealistic view of govt and society. I think 2 years of fighting with shotsticks, loading up syphlitic ODing crackheads into ambulances, or hell, just good old fashioned digging holes, filling sandbags, and burning some shit. It would certainly put some things in perspective.
I knew this one hippie dippie chick in college who joined the peace corps and did about a year in Africa. When she came back you woulda thought she came back from the 'Nam. She dropped N bombs every five sentences and meant it. She was NOT the same girl.
Win, lose, or draw, at least people would have a much different outlook than they do now.
My thoughts exactly.
OR, just spend a year in Fayetteville NC. Preferably East Fayetteville.
I dunno...I think to an extent you should pay your dues before being able to vote. I've busted my ass and my vote counts the same as yabs who get church bussed in to vote straight Democrat or punk teenagers who have a horribly unrealistic view of govt and society. I think 2 years of fighting with shotsticks, loading up syphlitic ODing crackheads into ambulances, or hell, just good old fashioned digging holes, filling sandbags, and burning some shit. It would certainly put some things in perspective.
I knew this one hippie dippie chick in college who joined the peace corps and did about a year in Africa. When she came back you woulda thought she came back from the 'Nam. She dropped N bombs every five sentences and meant it. She was NOT the same girl.
Win, lose, or draw, at least people would have a much different outlook than they do now.
Every single tax payer is paying their dues. Sorry I agree that you should have skin in the game, but draw the line at forcing people to do more shit they don't want to on a regular basis. I will make exceptions for drastic measures like a draft in case of another WW2 level global fight. Aside from that if you're putting into the system (tax $$, sweat equity...) you have a right to vote.
Ok, got it. I should clarify that I don't necessarily think a nuke would be used on the US. This goes back to why Eisenhower switched away from the policy of "Massive Retaliation" to what became known as "Flexible Response" under Kennedy. If you promise to go to all out nuclear war over any detonation on the US or our interests (which includes allies we have assured that we have them covered so they don't have to have their own weapons- like Japan), are you really willing to initiate WWIII nuclear war over North Korea delivering a nuke in a shipping container to Japan or South Korea?
Just as Eisenhower had to ask in the 1950s, red/blue politics aside, would you trade New York for Kiev or Seoul?
Tech has come a long way, and things that used to require a nuclear weapon can now be done with conventional explosives and precision guidance. There are still targets that require a nuke, but we don't use them just to make political statements.
You can go on about incinerating a smaller country, or impeaching a leader that didn't do it. But, and I say this as someone who actually was responsible for doing the nuking with ICBMs, I just don't think that is realistic policy.
Yes, and can we throw in Chicago, LA, and San Fran for good measure? (just kidding)
What I said about not hesitating to incinerate a population was in response to a nuke being used on us. Nothing short of that, like chem or bio, just nukes. Tit for tat.
Now a nuclear response for a nuclear attack on an ally? Tough call there. Not sure about my answer to that. Against us? Definitely.
That last line about realistic policy.......you weren't saying that if we were nuked that we shouldn't respond in kind were you? That we should just absorb it because some other third party might get pissed we nuked their buddy?
Conscription and volunteering to serve your country are two completely different things. I think there is more than one way to serve your country than to be in the military. The military is not for everyone. In WW2 we had 2 drafts, one for military and the other for the workforce. From 1942 to 1945 something like 12,000 B-17's, 9,000 B-24's, 15,000 B-25's, 193 destroyers, 7 aircraft carriers, god knows how many tanks, jeeps, rifles, engines, naval guns, artillery, uniforms and ammunition was made and someone had to make it.
Someone said that our enemy wouldn't attack the US with a nuke on our own land. Well, 19 guys from Saudi Arabia, Jordon and Yemen used Boeing 757's to fly into our world trade centers and the pentagon, God only knows where that 4th plane that went down in Pennsylvania was headed. If we get attacked again it will be something like Timothy McVeigh, ammonium nitrate or some type of nitrogen based fertilizer and diesel fuel. You saw what a small Ryder truck filled with this stuff did to the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City. And it wont be our enemy like we are assuming today like Russia, China, N Korea, Pakistan, Drug Cartels, or ISIS. It will be random people who are doing it in the name of something and we will all be shocked and for a loss of words similar to 9/11 and we will be scratching our head wondering why. The US is NOT scared of a nuke, we have radar, early warning systems, anti ICBM missiles, an entire missile defense network, aircraft that can jam radar/GPS guided missiles. What the US is scared of is a few guy who want to watch the world burn.
Every single tax payer is paying their dues. Sorry I agree that you should have skin in the game, but draw the line at forcing people to do more shit they don't want to on a regular basis. I will make exceptions for drastic measures like a draft in case of another WW2 level global fight. Aside from that if you're putting into the system (tax $$, sweat equity...) you have a right to vote.
Well, we were discussing WWIII.
I'm in favor or some type of mandatory service.
It is always surprising to me when these discussions start, how many folks that are to the right of Attila the Hun, or Libertarian seem to go all FSA about serving the nation. I really just don't get it.
Ask some of the Active Component dudes or Reservists how they liked those multiple tours in the Middle East. How many of them are broke because of that? We need an Armed Forces to shoulder the initial load, then the Reserves, and then the drafted guys.
Those are just my beliefs.
I'm in favor or some type of mandatory service. It is always surprising to me when these discussions start, how many folks that are to the right of Attila the Hun, or Libertarian seem to go all FSA about serving the nation.
I think the draft is necessary for specific short term periods as you said. Everyone is a patriot until its time to patriot shit. If anything went down on our home front, I know a lot of people including myself would defend this country without needing an invitation. If that ever happened, those who run way should be prosecuted or restricted from voting, financial aid and social security. Im 35 and in overall good health for a draft, but in reality im in no shape to serve as a "go door to door" gun fighter, but I can cook, drive a truck, drive a tank, load bombs on an airplane, be a door gunner in a black hawk and just about anything else.
If we get hit with a nuclear weapon, it will likely be delivered c.o.d. inside a big shipping container addressed to a low security port between the lower East Coast and the Port of New Orleans or Baton Rouge.
"Experiment bay"
http://xairforces.net/images/news/large_news/050112_USA_X-37B-space-plane.jpg
Wouldn't this be a pretty viable way to deliver a nuclear payload? I mean if the thing is orbiting for years at a time and what not.
To an extent, I'm with 26.
A lotta deadbeats out there who don't pay taxes but get handouts which come from my taxes.
I like Starship Troopers, do some kind of service and you can vote. Or just don't and not ve able to vote.
Just me. It won't ever happen like that but it seems like the old people actually cared about how the country is going as opposed to this "global citizen we are the world, free wifi" crap they got now.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-23-16, 20:18
Wouldn't this be a pretty viable way to deliver a nuclear payload? I mean if the thing is orbiting for years at a time and what not.
That or a craft capable of staying in space for years at a time that can destroy a satellite anytime we need it to, with no defense possible or notice until it's done. No rocket headed to space that everyone is looking, just a stealth mini space shuttle with a robot space shuttle door gunner hanging out of the "experiment bay" with the audio "get some" played in a loop as he waste satellites. Someone will obviously ask how it can shoot Russian satellites so easily, and it's skynet tech will just respond with the coldness only a robot space shuttle door gunner could..... "easy, just don't lead them as much"
http://milspecmonkey.com/store/303-large_atch/shuttle-doorgunner.jpg
BrigandTwoFour
09-23-16, 22:02
Yes, and can we throw in Chicago, LA, and San Fran for good measure? (just kidding)
What I said about not hesitating to incinerate a population was in response to a nuke being used on us. Nothing short of that, like chem or bio, just nukes. Tit for tat.
Now a nuclear response for a nuclear attack on an ally? Tough call there. Not sure about my answer to that. Against us? Definitely.
That last line about realistic policy.......you weren't saying that if we were nuked that we shouldn't respond in kind were you? That we should just absorb it because some other third party might get pissed we nuked their buddy?
I'm saying that's it depends on the circumstances. I understand that a lot of folks joke about turning a country into a glass parking lot, and some aren't really joking, but such statements come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what nuclear weapons are and what they do. Again, I come back to the fact that the last time anyone used one in anger was 1945, and the last one we tested was over twenty years ago. Since the end of the Cold War, most people don't think about these things any more.
Strategic weapons, and nuclear weapons in particular, are not used to simply to make political statements. Their possession is the political statement (which is why so many countries want them), but not not their use. To the primary nuclear weapons states (US, Britain, Russia, China, & France), these weapons are one of existential survival. They are only used if it is felt that there is a significant threat to the country's existence. That may take different forms, from a massive exchange of ICBMs and SLBMS (a la the Cold War), to when country feels like it is overmatched conventionally and must rely on nuclear weapons to make up the difference. We simply aren't going to get that from some shit hole country that detonated a bomb inside shipping container outside some low-security port, as williejc wrote.
If it was another major world power that initiated it, then absolutely game on. But an attack like that isn't going to start and end with just a random nuke parked on boat.
Nukes simply aren't the world ending events that Hollywood has led people to believe. They are very good at what they do, but they do have their situational uses. Even the largest nukes we ever deployed would still only demolish a 4-5 mile radius, maybe (depending on terrain). That's certainly much larger than any other bomb, but only a blip in any major metropolis. And even that assumes that we would target a city for the sake of targeting a city.
Had their construction not been halted I always wondered what yield devices we would have created.
BrigandTwoFour
09-24-16, 00:00
Had their construction not been halted I always wondered what yield devices we would have created.
Theoretically, there is no limit. The Soviets detonated a 50 MT weapon, which was designed to be 100 MT (but we talked them down). We never really went past the 15 MT range. Staged weapons, which utilize the x-rays from fission device to incite a nearby secondary device to much higher yield, are only limited by the amount of fuel you put in the secondary. In some of the crazy high yield designs, there were tertiary and quaternary devices.
The problem is that there is a point of diminishing returns. With a high enough yield, you are really just ejecting blast and the fireball up into the atmosphere rather than down and out towards a target. That means much increased cost, complexity, and weight for little real benefit other than saying, "Look what I did!"
This was figured out in the 60's, and bomb designs began to shrink back down with a emphasis on accuracy over yield.
Good points.
Just never know when one day we'll have to nuke a planet lol
If we get hit with a nuclear weapon, it will likely be delivered c.o.d. inside a big shipping container addressed to a low security port between the lower East Coast and the Port of New Orleans or Baton Rouge.
You remember the huge explosion in Tianjin China that came from a single shipping container?
41613
That that was not a nuclear bomb, it was something else. But took out 5 city blocks, destroyed 17 buildings, over 1300 cars and left a hole 1/4 mile wide by 400' deep. I don't think that was an accident either. I believe with all my heart that was tactical bomb sent by someone inside of a shipping container. Tianjin is Chinas busiest port and one of the most populated industrial cities. This happened right about the time China started building artificial islands in the disputed area in the South China Sea. I honestly and with all my heart believe the explosion in Tianjin and the explosion at PEPCON back in the 90s are related. The details of the explosion are almost identical, the crater size is near identical and what better way to test a tactical bomb then at a rocket fuel manufacturing facility that was already in the process of moving. Do some research on the PEPCON explosion and compare to Tianjin and tell me there not related.
Moose-Knuckle
09-24-16, 02:54
"Experiment bay"
http://xairforces.net/images/news/large_news/050112_USA_X-37B-space-plane.jpg
Hah! I like that "Experiment Bay". I've seen artist renderings of these drones having an arm that essentially swings out away from the craft and sprays paint enemy satellite solar arrays killing them.
Wonder if they use that "As Seen on T.V." Flex Seal stuff, hell DARPA probably invented that.
Moose-Knuckle
09-24-16, 03:08
Not being argumentative, because I agree in substance with what you posted, my point is somewhere within the next 100 years that graph is projected to level off and then begin to move downward.
In terms of ag production, there are even more efficiencies to be gained, the problem is water.
Nah, we're agreeing here. Hence my OP post stating our next global conflict will more than likely be over fresh water. Over the last decade there has been much under the radar land grabs sitting a top natural aquifers across the globe by the hyper wealthy.
T. Boone Pickens even went as far as saying; "If I could, I'd charge people for the air they breath". He has purchased a lot of rural land sitting a top the Ogallala aquifer.
Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager that predicted and cashed in on the housing bubble is investing heavily in "blue cold" aka water these days.
Moose-Knuckle
09-24-16, 03:16
If we get hit with a nuclear weapon, it will likely be delivered c.o.d. inside a big shipping container addressed to a low security port between the lower East Coast and the Port of New Orleans or Baton Rouge.
This is a very viable threat and why ports have radiation detectors and what not, there are USCG personnel that look for this sort of thing. Considering how many connex containers enter the US every day it's the proverbial needle in a hay stack.
From D.C. to Boston is basically one big city on the Eastern seaboard. There are .gov COG maps showing the new capital being in Boulder, CO. after an East coast nuke/dirty bomb hits the D.C. area.
That may take different forms, from a massive exchange of ICBMs and SLBMS (a la the Cold War), to when country feels like it is overmatched conventionally and must rely on nuclear weapons to make up the difference. We simply aren't going to get that from some shit hole country that detonated a bomb inside shipping container outside some low-security port, as williejc wrote.
If it was another major world power that initiated it, then absolutely game on.
So you ARE basically saying that if some shithole country put one on a boat and detonated it in one of our ports you don't think we should respond in kind? If that is the case I vehemently disagree with you. Use a nuke against us and you get one (or three) back on you. Period. I don't give a damn what country it is either. If anything it would be a lesson to other shitholes not to pull the same stunt lest they be incinerated.
That said, I do not believe in using nukes first but instead a firm, unaltered policy of retaliation no matter where it came from.
It boggles my mind to think your position is that we should just suck it up and deal with it if some pissant country nuked us. You're obviously ex-military and you feel that way?????
Outlander Systems
09-24-16, 07:53
Too many people are looking at this from a 20th-Century perspective.
China doesn't need to ever engage us in a hot war, or even a "cold" war for that matter. While we continue to rack up debt at the federal level, and over-regulate everything (try opening a lemonaide stand), China will just simply push us toward obsolescence.
What the actual **** are our exports other than worthless paper, corruption (see also Hillary Clinton), and Hollyweird movies? I'm ****ing serious? Can you export a haircut? What's the exchange rate for fraudulent bank accounts? Can Verizon, ATT, and the NSA export my personal data to telemarketers in Bangladesh?
Wake up.
The US is in decline due to failed foreign policies, socialism, Keynesian economics, political corruption, and government intrusion into, literally, everything.
Meanwhile, China's just like, "Cool. So, anywaaaaaay, who wants to buy some physical goods that people actually want?"
WWIII is economic. We'll most likely lose.
P.S. When we start to see a higher percentage of STEM majors graduating than Womyn's Studies, English, and other worthless liberal arts bullshit, ring me up, and I might change my perspective on our future prospects. When the vast majority of STEM graduates in the US are ****ing foreigners, Houston, we have a major goddamn problem.
/endrant
When the vast majority of STEM graduates in the US are ****ing foreigners, Houston, we have a major goddamn problem.
The problem is that outside of a handful of industries (aerospace, dod related, etc) a very significant % of STEM jobs have been moved offshore or use H1B to dodge paying STEM salaries.
OK, I'll add Google to the safe list.
This is why electrical engineering is not the hot degree it once was. Computer science still has reasonable demand for entry level, but oversupply for 10-20 year veterans.
Chem engineers live or die with the petro industry, and nuclear is hit or miss.
Mechanical & Aero are the strongest, primarily due to DOD work.
H1Bs are being abused, and we are the only country that will happily sacrifice their domestic engineers that way. Some others do allow offshoring, but H1Bs are being used to achieve the offshore effect on jobs that can't move.
Outlander Systems
09-24-16, 08:27
@pinzgauer: A-men!
And it's all for short term profit.
And it's all for short term profit.
It's a gift to corporations... Small businesses don't use H1Bs much.
BrigandTwoFour
09-24-16, 10:45
So you ARE basically saying that if some shithole country put one on a boat and detonated it in one of our ports you don't think we should respond in kind? If that is the case I vehemently disagree with you. Use a nuke against us and you get one (or three) back on you. Period. I don't give a damn what country it is either. If anything it would be a lesson to other shitholes not to pull the same stunt lest they be incinerated.
That said, I do not believe in using nukes first but instead a firm, unaltered policy of retaliation no matter where it came from.
It boggles my mind to think your position is that we should just suck it up and deal with it if some pissant country nuked us. You're obviously ex-military and you feel that way?????
You are certainly welcome to disagree, and I understand why you would. I'm not saying that we should just suck it up and not respond. I would be happy to see the country in question stomped into the ground, and they probably would be. I'm just saying that a nuclear weapon is not necessarily the right tool to do it. Whether or not we use one will depend on factors of time, target hardness, and military/strategic value. Tit-for-tat isn't our policy or strategy, and hasn't been since 1957.
I also realize that my position is probably coming across as light on detail, but you have to understand that there is a limit as to what can be talked about in an open forum regarding nuclear strategy. I'm not "ex" military, I'm still in and working/discussing these kinds of things every day. Most people, even within the DoD don't understand nuclear policy and strategy, and my career field is one of the few that has never stopped talking about it (even when it wasn't cool anymore after 1992).
WWIII is economic. We'll most likely lose.
P.S. When we start to see a higher percentage of STEM majors graduating than Womyn's Studies, English, and other worthless liberal arts bullshit, ring me up, and I might change my perspective on our future prospects. When the vast majority of STEM graduates in the US are ****ing foreigners, Houston, we have a major goddamn problem.
Frankly, this is what concerns me. There is a very small chance that WWIII looks like another industrialized war machine battle that we saw in the 20th century. It's going to be subversive and make use of economics, cyberspace, intelligence, and small "harassing" wars designed to wear down adversaries and their populations. Nobody of real consequence wants to get involved in a existential war, as they know the risks are too high.
We have seriously shot ourselves in the foot by allowing so many foreign students to come here for STEM education, and then take that education back to their home countries. Or, worse IMO, they come here for education and get hired into our companies where they pass back propriety information about our latest R&D efforts. On top of that, the perception of the average American citizen is dramatically shifting from one of tough-minded capable individualists to slovenly whiners with minimal individual skills and an over reliance on the the state.
Part of our nation's historical strategic deterrent was that even if you got around the nuclear threat and landed on our shores, our people where still motivated and capable of putting up a hell of a fight on their own, thanks in large part to our 2A rights. That perception is waning, and I can just imagine adversaries and dictators licking their lips at being the ones to take us down by targeting the "weak minded" among us.
RetroRevolver77
09-24-16, 12:03
We have for the most part signed our own death warrant as a nation whether there is a third world war or not.
The infiltration of Socialism into this nation has gone unchecked for the past five decades. Those whom sworn to uphold the Constitution have outright failed their duty to defend against these Socialist domestic enemies to the extent that we now have open unrepentant Socialists running every branch of the government to systematically destroy our nation from within. Meanwhile the powers that be have traded American manufacturing away in exchange for lower production costs in order to afford the extortion level tax rates that the government has wagered on American businesses designed to drive those business out of the country. At the same time the government uses various alphabet agencies to strangle all the remaining businesses through regulation so as they cannot afford to hire more workers. In addition they tax those workers at such a rate that each household has to have two working adults to get by practically and all residual income is eaten up in health care expenses leaving the worker without the ability to properly save for retirement. In addition our Socialist government has allowed for the invasion of tens of millions of illegal immigrants to flow into our country unchecked such that they can now influence entire elections without even or ever have been a patriot of our country, instead simply voting for more handouts at the expense of the already drowning American taxpayer.
We are currently nearing $20 Trillion dollars in debt with over $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. We have over 30 Million illegal immigrants living within our borders. There are over 90 Million working age adults that are unemployed and dependent upon the government. We are underfunded in every single state or government level pension by the tune of billions of dollars across the nation. We won't have to go to war, the Socialist have destroyed our country from within and we will see the entire nation collapse under the shear weight of debt within our lifetime. It's completely and entirely unavoidable at this point.
7n6
BrigandTwoFour
09-24-16, 12:07
The irony, of course, is that when such a collapse happens it will be the effete urbanites who put us in the position to begin with that will be the first to suffer.
RetroRevolver77
09-24-16, 12:21
The irony, of course, is that when such a collapse happens it will be the effete urbanites who put us in the position to begin with that will be the first to suffer.
Those are the useful idiots as they say, mere disposable pawns to further the Socialists cause and destroy this country from within. They have been indoctrinated from birth to be dependent on the state, to further the Socialist mantra. If you study economic history, especially countries that were running debt at this level versus their GDP- you see exactly where we are headed. All of this is by design- all of it. The corruption, the collapse, the fall from the world stage.
You are certainly welcome to disagree, and I understand why you would. I'm not saying that we should just suck it up and not respond. I would be happy to see the country in question stomped into the ground, and they probably would be. I'm just saying that a nuclear weapon is not necessarily the right tool to do it. Whether or not we use one will depend on factors of time, target hardness, and military/strategic value. Tit-for-tat isn't our policy or strategy, and hasn't been since 1957.
I also realize that my position is probably coming across as light on detail, but you have to understand that there is a limit as to what can be talked about in an open forum regarding nuclear strategy. I'm not "ex" military, I'm still in and working/discussing these kinds of things every day. Most people, even within the DoD don't understand nuclear policy and strategy, and my career field is one of the few that has never stopped talking about it (even when it wasn't cool anymore after 1992).
I was not seeking an OPSEC violation, and I really don't think it would be pertinent to the discussion anyway. I'm referring to the "bigger picture" of deterrence, namely regarding rogue states somehow nuking us. IMHO (and common sense dictates) that when it comes to nukes, NOTHING is to be gained by taking some sort of Moral High Road and not responding in kind. In fact, it would only be seen as weakness and invite another such attack in the future. No, I stand by my reasoning that an equal or slightly greater response would be justified and unquestioningly necessary. If a high number of American civilians were killed (i.e. the target was not a military one) then I also have NO moral qualms about incinerating an equal or greater number of their population. When it comes to nukes we can't limit ourselves to only military or regime targets, we need to be prepared to unleash wholesale slaughter on their population in retaliation if ours suffered. As I stated earlier, I would want the head on a platter of any sitting POTUS who would not retaliate in kind, and I'm sure I would not be alone in that feeling.
Yeah, I know Bush the Elder quietly threatened nukes if Iraq used WMD during Desert Storm, and I know it was a ruse that we never intended to follow through on. But that was a non-nuke WMD on a foreign battlefield scenario, not the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American civilians on our soil. Waaayyy different situation to me.
As far as "tools" go, the answer to a nuke is a nuke. It's parity. Not some half-assed "Shock and awe" bombing campaign that doesn't do jack shit. We've had those "tools" available the last 15 years and it hasn't gotten us a damn thing. Fuel-air explosives and such have been used without the spectacular results we thought they'd have. If some guy hits you in the head with a bat, you gonna kick him in the shin as payback?
BrigandTwoFour
09-24-16, 13:04
I was not seeking an OPSEC violation, and I really don't think it would be pertinent to the discussion anyway. I'm referring to the "bigger picture" of deterrence, namely regarding rogue states somehow nuking us. IMHO (and common sense dictates) that when it comes to nukes, NOTHING is to be gained by taking some sort of Moral High Road and not responding in kind. In fact, it would only be seen as weakness and invite another such attack in the future. No, I stand by my reasoning that an equal or slightly greater response would be justified and unquestioningly necessary. If a high number of American civilians were killed (i.e. the target was not a military one) then I also have NO moral qualms about incinerating an equal or greater number of their population. When it comes to nukes we can't limit ourselves to only military or regime targets, we need to be prepared to unleash wholesale slaughter on their population in retaliation if ours suffered. As I stated earlier, I would want the head on a platter of any sitting POTUS who would not retaliate in kind, and I'm sure I would not be alone in that feeling.
Yeah, I know Bush the Elder quietly threatened nukes if Iraq used WMD during Desert Storm, and I know it was a ruse that we never intended to follow through on. But that was a non-nuke WMD on a foreign battlefield scenario, not the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American civilians on our soil. Waaayyy different situation to me.
As far as "tools" go, the answer to a nuke is a nuke. It's parity. Not some half-assed "Shock and awe" bombing campaign that doesn't do jack shit. We've had those "tools" available the last 15 years and it hasn't gotten us a damn thing. Fuel-air explosives and such have been used without the spectacular results we thought they'd have. If some guy hits you in the head with a bat, you gonna kick him in the shin as payback?
I suppose that the distinction is that you are thinking in terms of the signal just using one would send, and I'm thinking in terms of specific targets. When it comes down to it, I think it all relies on context. Who parked that shipping container in our port? Was it a terrorist group acting on their own or another country?
If it is a terrorist group, who do you go after and incinerate? The country that had a bomb fall off the back of a truck? The country of origin for the ship? By the time you figure out those answers, the initiative will probably be lost and it you have almost nothing to gain by killing millions of people.
If it was another country, such an attack would not be done by itself and would probably be paired with other acts that would warrant a nuclear response. Countries have something to lose, and they know that acts of war (particularly nuclear acts) come with the risk of nuclear retaliation in less than an hour. If they are going to go that route, then you better bet that they are going "all in" with nuclear, cyber, space, and conventional attack in an effort to stall our response time.
RetroRevolver77
09-24-16, 13:26
I suppose that the distinction is that you are thinking in terms of the signal just using one would send, and I'm thinking in terms of specific targets. When it comes down to it, I think it all relies on context. Who parked that shipping container in our port? Was it a terrorist group acting on their own or another country?
If it is a terrorist group, who do you go after and incinerate? The country that had a bomb fall off the back of a truck? The country of origin for the ship? By the time you figure out those answers, the initiative will probably be lost and it you have almost nothing to gain by killing millions of people.
If it was another country, such an attack would not be done by itself and would probably be paired with other acts that would warrant a nuclear response. Countries have something to lose, and they know that acts of war (particularly nuclear acts) come with the risk of nuclear retaliation in less than an hour. If they are going to go that route, then you better bet that they are going "all in" with nuclear, cyber, space, and conventional attack in an effort to stall our response time.
No one has that capability to fight it out with a nation that has some 8K nuclear warheads at their disposal. The Russians are the only exception but they've already figured out long ago they don't have to attack us directly to destroy us and now we are seeing that they've already won.
BrigandTwoFour
09-24-16, 13:34
No one has that capability to fight it out with a nation that has some 8K nuclear warheads at their disposal. The Russians are the only exception but they've already figured out long ago they don't have to attack us directly to destroy us and now we are seeing that they've already won.
And that's my original point. If nukes are going to be used in conflict, it is unlikely to be against us. If it is, it will not be a brazen direct attack but a subversive one in which determining who is actually responsible is very difficult.
If it is a terrorist group, who do you go after and incinerate? The country that had a bomb fall off the back of a truck? The country of origin for the ship? By the time you figure out those answers, the initiative will probably be lost and it you have almost nothing to gain by killing millions of people.
You beat me to it... let's put names to them:
ISIS/ISIL gets a tactical nuke from whoever and smuggles it into a US port, and detonates it. Who do you nuke? Some tiny town in their controlled territory? Of which maybe half or more are not even ISIS supporters?
Or a Shia group (Hizbollah splinter) does the same. Do you nuke Southern Lebanon? (and risk damaging neighboring Israel). Or attack Tehran, even though you can't prove they provided the fissionables?
If either of these happen it will be very hard initially to prove the source of the weapon. And even when you do, you can't prove it was cooperatively provided and not stolen.
Do you really think we'd attach Russia (and risk full on Armageddon) because a russian warhead fell into the hands of a non-state actor in Syria/Iraq?
Tehran nukes Israel? Easy, we nuke them back. (cause Israel won't be able to)
Same for NORK's and S Korea, China & Japan, etc.
But other than the NORK's, states would be very unlikely to nuke another as the price would be too high from retaliation, etc.
This is the curse of distributed, asymmetric warfare. No head to cut off. or counter-nuke, in this case.
We have for the most part signed our own death warrant as a nation whether there is a third world war or not.
The infiltration of Socialism into this nation has gone unchecked for the past five decades. Those whom sworn to uphold the Constitution have outright failed their duty to defend against these Socialist domestic enemies to the extent that we now have open unrepentant Socialists running every branch of the government to systematically destroy our nation from within. Meanwhile the powers that be have traded American manufacturing away in exchange for lower production costs in order to afford the extortion level tax rates that the government has wagered on American businesses designed to drive those business out of the country. At the same time the government uses various alphabet agencies to strangle all the remaining businesses through regulation so as they cannot afford to hire more workers. In addition they tax those workers at such a rate that each household has to have two working adults to get by practically and all residual income is eaten up in health care expenses leaving the worker without the ability to properly save for retirement. In addition our Socialist government has allowed for the invasion of tens of millions of illegal immigrants to flow into our country unchecked such that they can now influence entire elections without even or ever have been a patriot of our country, instead simply voting for more handouts at the expense of the already drowning American taxpayer.
We are currently nearing $20 Trillion dollars in debt with over $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. We have over 30 Million illegal immigrants living within our borders. There are over 90 Million working age adults that are unemployed and dependent upon the government. We are underfunded in every single state or government level pension by the tune of billions of dollars across the nation. We won't have to go to war, the Socialist have destroyed our country from within and we will see the entire nation collapse under the shear weight of debt within our lifetime. It's completely and entirely unavoidable at this point.
7n6
What this guy said x eleventy billion.
The US elites, government, and banksters are doing a great job of taking it down from within. I could see a huge war if Hillary gets in, as revenge against Russia for embarrassing her with DNC hacks. She doesn't care much about Americans murdered by AQ and her Saudi sugar daddies, but exposing her corruption? Intolerable! These people will sacrifice billions of peasants lives to protect their ass.
Plus a huge war would kill off huge portions of the white non-Democrat voter base (via the draft that would ensue).
The infiltration of Socialism into this nation has gone unchecked for the past five decades. Those whom sworn to uphold the Constitution have outright failed their duty to defend against these Socialist domestic enemies to the extent that we now have open unrepentant Socialists running every branch of the government to systematically destroy our nation from within. Meanwhile the powers that be have traded American manufacturing away in exchange for lower production costs in order to afford the extortion level tax rates that the government has wagered on American businesses designed to drive those business out of the country. At the same time the government uses various alphabet agencies to strangle all the remaining businesses through regulation so as they cannot afford to hire more workers. In addition they tax those workers at such a rate that each household has to have two working adults to get by practically and all residual income is eaten up in health care expenses leaving the worker without the ability to properly save for retirement. In addition our Socialist government has allowed for the invasion of tens of millions of illegal immigrants to flow into our country unchecked such that they can now influence entire elections without even or ever have been a patriot of our country, instead simply voting for more handouts at the expense of the already drowning American taxpayer.
So we end up like the UK, or France. Who, while not world leaders like they were, are not third world pestholes (yet). In fact, many of them feel a bit sorry for us in certain aspects.
They let the nation that replaced their position in the free world (US) develop, treated them as trade partners and even allies.
Maybe it was a mistake for them, and we may be making the same mistake. I can't disagree with any of your points, all valid.
I don't see us reversing many of those trends, our system has too much inertia and counterbalances in it. So I see us headed for a "has been" dottage like the UK, at worst. And there will still be bright spots, decent places to live, etc. But it won't be what it was nor what it could have been.
I used to fear economic collapse due to the debt situation. But I now see that our creditors (China, etc) cannot afford to call our debt, as if we crash, so do they. We'd survive and rebuild. They might not.
It's like all the dire predictions and concerns about Brexit, many debated here in M4C. Any meaningful negative impact, if there is much, will be very long and more of a slide. The UK and Europe need each other too much to get punitive.
Short term, a weak currency helps England. Remember, we fuss about China keeping their currency artificially low.
Let's say our credit gets bad. Dollar crashes. All the sudden several things happen: Offshore labor is no longer a good deal, not worth the timezone & language hassle. So US employment goes up. Domestic production becomes more attractive relative to imports, also helps employment. Tourism to the US increases as we are now cheap to travel in. Our goods are seen as cheap, so exports go up for items priced in US dollars.
So there tends to be a leveling effect. Not that our debt is sustainable or a good thing. Just that a giant depression era type crash will likely be avoided as it would be bad business by the folks pulling the strings.
I suppose that the distinction is that you are thinking in terms of the signal just using one would send, and I'm thinking in terms of specific targets. When it comes down to it, I think it all relies on context. Who parked that shipping container in our port? Was it a terrorist group acting on their own or another country?
If it is a terrorist group, who do you go after and incinerate? The country that had a bomb fall off the back of a truck? The country of origin for the ship? By the time you figure out those answers, the initiative will probably be lost and it you have almost nothing to gain by killing millions of people.
If it was another country, such an attack would not be done by itself and would probably be paired with other acts that would warrant a nuclear response. Countries have something to lose, and they know that acts of war (particularly nuclear acts) come with the risk of nuclear retaliation in less than an hour. If they are going to go that route, then you better bet that they are going "all in" with nuclear, cyber, space, and conventional attack in an effort to stall our response time.
Yeah, I was more thinking along the lines of North Korea or Iran. That would be a relatively simple target. One that was bought off the black market by a terrorist group would no doubt make targeting more difficult.
However, I've read about nuclear forensics and the ability to track down who made a particular device (country-wise) by close examination of the residuals. Now, let's say it was Hezbollah who delivered it and the device could be traced to Iran. Once again that would be relatively simple as Hezbollah is a well-known Iranian proxy and Iran would have willfully given it to them, no doubt to be able to deny they had anything to do with it. Then Tehran goes up in a mushroom cloud. Now if it was Al Qaeda and it was a nuke traced back to Russian origin, it is a tougher situation. Unlikely Russia gave one to them as they aren't exactly buddy-buddy with Al Qaeda either, so probably bought off the black market. Yep, then targeting becomes difficult.
You beat me to it... let's put names to them:
ISIS/ISIL gets a tactical nuke from whoever and smuggles it into a US port, and detonates it. Who do you nuke? Some tiny town in their controlled territory? Of which maybe half or more are not even ISIS supporters?
Or a Shia group (Hizbollah splinter) does the same. Do you nuke Southern Lebanon? (and risk damaging neighboring Israel). Or attack Tehran, even though you can't prove they provided the fissionables?
If either of these happen it will be very hard initially to prove the source of the weapon. And even when you do, you can't prove it was cooperatively provided and not stolen.
Do you really think we'd attach Russia (and risk full on Armageddon) because a russian warhead fell into the hands of a non-state actor in Syria/Iraq?
Tehran nukes Israel? Easy, we nuke them back. (cause Israel won't be able to)
Same for NORK's and S Korea, China & Japan, etc.
But other than the NORK's, states would be very unlikely to nuke another as the price would be too high from retaliation, etc.
This is the curse of distributed, asymmetric warfare. No head to cut off. or counter-nuke, in this case.
That particular chain of custody would be rather easy to determine where the canned sunshine fell. Hezbollah is a well-known and openly supported Iranian proxy group, and has been for decades. They wouldn't have stolen it from Iran, trust me. It would have been given to them in the vain hope of allowing Iran some deniability. Other non-state supported groups would be tougher to retaliate against, but not that particular situation I just mentioned.
BrigandTwoFour
09-24-16, 14:05
Yeah, I was more thinking along the lines of North Korea or Iran. That would be a relatively simple target. One that was bought off the black market by a terrorist group would no doubt make targeting more difficult.
However, I've read about nuclear forensics and the ability to track down who made a particular device (country-wise) by close examination of the residuals. Now, let's say it was Hezbollah who delivered it and the device could be traced to Iran. Once again that would be relatively simple as Hezbollah is a well-known Iranian proxy and Iran would have willfully given it to them, no doubt to be able to deny they had anything to do with it. Then Tehran goes up in a mushroom cloud. Now if it was Al Qaeda and it was a nuke traced back to Russian origin, it is a tougher situation. Unlikely Russia gave one to them as they aren't exactly buddy-buddy with Al Qaeda either, so probably bought off the black market. Yep, then targeting becomes difficult.
Now you are on the right track. Nuclear forensics is a great tool, but realize that it only helps you determine the source of the fissile material (uranium and plutonium), nothing else. I don't want to go down the proliferation route, but there are a lot of places to find that kind of material from a nuclear weapon state that would not necessarily implicate the country as helping deliver a bomb. Nuclear enrichment has a lot of legitimate purposes aside from nuclear weapons.
That particular chain of custody would be rather easy to determine where the canned sunshine fell. Hezbollah is a well-known and openly supported Iranian proxy group, and has been for decades. They wouldn't have stolen it from Iran, trust me. It would have been given to them in the vain hope of allowing Iran some deniability. Other non-state supported groups would be tougher to retaliate against, but not that particular situation I just mentioned.
Way too easy. You really think Iran would give fissionables they've been fighting to be able to produce when they know it would end that? And open them up to retaliation?
They'd instead provide money, just like they do now. And potentially black market sources, etc for another country's fissionables.
Iran will never give Hizballah fissionables they produced, for the exact reasons you are indicating should occur.
This does not mean Iran would not help a group source them... just that it'd be money & connections in an unprovable way. Just like they do now.
We might go off half cocked like we did on Iraq after 9/11. I have no problems taking out Saddam. But where should we have really attached to retaliate for AQ? (Besides the caves in A'stan). Should have been targeting clerics and supporters in Saudi, but you know why that did not occur. And it's not because we could not have reached them.
Back to trigger events, I'm thinking one of the following:
1) Brinksmanship in the China sea (spratleys, artificial islands, etc)
2) Nato Busting in the baltics
3) NORK crazyness
We stood by and let Egypt go to pot, so I don't think we'll intervene with if Turkey does similar. Not unless they start down the genocide path (again). I can't see Russia tampering directly with Turkey, though they play games with us and them.
RetroRevolver77
09-24-16, 16:18
So we end up like the UK, or France. Who, while not world leaders like they were, are not third world pestholes (yet). In fact, many of them feel a bit sorry for us in certain aspects.
They let the nation that replaced their position in the free world (US) develop, treated them as trade partners and even allies.
Maybe it was a mistake for them, and we may be making the same mistake. I can't disagree with any of your points, all valid.
I don't see us reversing many of those trends, our system has too much inertia and counterbalances in it. So I see us headed for a "has been" dottage like the UK, at worst. And there will still be bright spots, decent places to live, etc. But it won't be what it was nor what it could have been.
I used to fear economic collapse due to the debt situation. But I now see that our creditors (China, etc) cannot afford to call our debt, as if we crash, so do they. We'd survive and rebuild. They might not.
It's like all the dire predictions and concerns about Brexit, many debated here in M4C. Any meaningful negative impact, if there is much, will be very long and more of a slide. The UK and Europe need each other too much to get punitive.
Short term, a weak currency helps England. Remember, we fuss about China keeping their currency artificially low.
Let's say our credit gets bad. Dollar crashes. All the sudden several things happen: Offshore labor is no longer a good deal, not worth the timezone & language hassle. So US employment goes up. Domestic production becomes more attractive relative to imports, also helps employment. Tourism to the US increases as we are now cheap to travel in. Our goods are seen as cheap, so exports go up for items priced in US dollars.
So there tends to be a leveling effect. Not that our debt is sustainable or a good thing. Just that a giant depression era type crash will likely be avoided as it would be bad business by the folks pulling the strings.
Nope. You ever been to Europe? The countries are relatively tiny with mostly the same race of people living in them. They have very little exposure to outside cultures and live in tiny bubbles of the same ethnicity which is why they moronically opened their arms to mass immigration that will prove to be their undoing just like it is ours. The reason most of Europe has living standards that are halfway decent is because they pay high taxes which goes to education and infrastructure with far smaller populations competing for jobs. That's not even remotely the case in this country at all. We have entire zip codes that are government dependent. Populations of minorities where three quarters are on some form of state dependency. Over 90 Million working age adults on Welfare somehow making more in benefits than most middle class people make in wages in a year.
We won't see some gentle UK style decline where we slip slowly into second world nation status. It will be rapid, overnight. Think Venezuelan style banana republic collapse- except on a far grander uglier scale.
Sure China won't call in our bonds initially as they rise to super power status to replace us because the value of those bonds isn't in what's printed on them. The value is the stolen technology, the stolen mass production capabilities that they garnered with a 600% annual trade deficit that they turn around and invest directly into hard currency along with infrastructure. They won't even care about our bonds because it's a drop in the bucket in terms of value to what they actually gained by us building their economy for them. Thirty years ago the Chinese were all wearing pajamas and living off an allotment bowl of rice a day. Today Chinese have cars, houses, televisions and for the first time in history, they have a middle class. It's like night and day for them- they are us in the 1950's except no one is going to take away their manufacturing because they already purposely devalue their currency just to retain the trade deficit. They buy our bonds the same way a drug dealer feeds crack to some rich liberal while taking everything in his house as collateral and then once everything has been stolen or sold off, they drop that crack head in the street where he belongs moving onto the next sucker.
7n6
Way too easy. You really think Iran would give fissionables they've been fighting to be able to produce when they know it would end that? And open them up to retaliation?
They'd instead provide money, just like they do now. And potentially black market sources, etc for another country's fissionables.
Iran will never give Hizballah fissionables they produced, for the exact reasons you are indicating should occur.
This does not mean Iran would not help a group source them... just that it'd be money & connections in an unprovable way. Just like they do now.
We might go off half cocked like we did on Iraq after 9/11. I have no problems taking out Saddam. But where should we have really attached to retaliate for AQ? (Besides the caves in A'stan). Should have been targeting clerics and supporters in Saudi, but you know why that did not occur. And it's not because we could not have reached them.
Back to trigger events, I'm thinking one of the following:
1) Brinksmanship in the China sea (spratleys, artificial islands, etc)
2) Nato Busting in the baltics
3) NORK crazyness
We stood by and let Egypt go to pot, so I don't think we'll intervene with if Turkey does similar. Not unless they start down the genocide path (again). I can't see Russia tampering directly with Turkey, though they play games with us and them.
Yes, I do. At least I wouldn't put it past them. Their brand of Islam has a suicidal/end-of-the-world spin to it (with the clerics still calling the shots so forget more level-headed secular decisions), and they have openly supported Hezbollah for decades. Hell, they have Revolutionary Guards/Quds forces deployed in Syria operating in conjunction with Hezbollah. Is it likely? No, but we are talking scenarios here and again, I wouldn't put it past them.
As far as your trigger events are concerned, I think #1 and #3 are the most likely, #3 being THE most likely of the bunch.
When it comes to the Norks, I have long believed it is in our best interest to quietly tell the Chinese that they need to keep their little brother in line because any nuclear silliness out of them and they WILL be nuked in return, regardless of their shared border and close proximity to China. Basically if Beijing doesn't want uncomfortably close artificial sunshine on the horizon it would behoove them to keep the Norks from doing something stupid.
Nope. You ever been to Europe?
Extensively plus Scandanavia, and more countries upcoming. Work daily with Europeans. Have relatives in Europe and the UK.
The countries are relatively tiny with mostly the same race of people living in them. They have very little exposure to outside cultures and live in tiny bubbles of the same ethnicity which is why they moronically opened their arms to mass immigration that will prove to be their undoing just like it is ours.
Sounds like you have not travelled much around France? Away from Paris?? They have more provincial culture variation than we do, albeit in a smaller country. Try telling a Basque or Breton they are a single ethnicity. There are probably 10 different sub-cultures with distinctly different behaviors, priorities, etc.
Same for Germany, Black Forrest vs Frankfurt vs Bavarian.
They have very little exposure to outside cultures and live in tiny bubbles of the same ethnicity which is why they moronically opened their arms to mass immigration that will prove to be their undoing just like it is ours.
Med countries have been dealing with immigrants for decades, primarily from their ex-colonies with free access. Libyans in Northern Italy. Algerians in France & Spain. They are part of the landscape.
What's new is the immigration from Syria, etc. And yes, Germany specifically and with EU support is being stupid. Some of the citizens are realizing it, but especially the Germans have a guilt driven tendency away from nationalism. Which plays right into the hands of the EU. That does not mean that the locals are in favor of it. They just lost the options to say no. Nordic countries and Germany have more cultural tolerance and feel a compulsion to diversify. Further south? Not so much. You don't see Spain, Portugal, France and Italy calling for more refugees/immigrants. Even if their gov happily provides programs for them.
The reason most of Europe has living standards that are halfway decent is because they pay high taxes which goes to education and infrastructure along with most of them working since there is less of a population competing for jobs but now that is changing for them as well. That's not even remotely the case in this country at all. We have entire zip codes that are government dependent. Populations of minorities where three quarters are on some form of state dependency. Over 90 Million working age adults on Welfare somehow making more in benefits than most middle class people make in wages in a year.
Not going to try to dissect this, except point out that the very things you indicate they have (higher taxes and job competition) are the things I see impacting us over a long period of time. The trend is clear.
The UK has entire townships on the dole, and totally dependent on the gov.
So we'll have to disagree on outcomes, though you are essentially making the case for my point that we are on a slide toward Euro/UK 2nd world welfare states.
The big difference between us and some of the other countries that collapsed is resources. And to a certain extent that's a difference with Europe as well.
We have more inherent resources, and that will mediate certain aspects. They have more of a focus on education, etc and that will remain an advantage. Not top tier colleges, it's their feeder systems. Certain Euro countries have social engineering embedded in their school systems that we would never tolerate which is why we have more people with useless degrees. Not everyone gets to go to college in most European countries. (Though that is changing) Hauptschule vs RealSchule vs Gymnasium tracks would never fly here, though anyone who deals with US HS students sees the fallacy of "everyone can go to college" mindset.
Higher taxes, more social spending, less growth, more intrusive laws, that's my prediction for our dismal future. This is probably worse than a collapse as stuff gets institutionalized that is hard to overturn. The brits will never get their firearms back, have lost knives, etc.
I'm not saying we won't see hard times. And you might could argue that the current rioting/lawlessness in the major urban centers is the beginning of a trend of the have nots acting out.
But I'm not as concerned about an Argentina/Venezuela type situation anytime soon. YMMV
Yes, I do. At least I wouldn't put it past them. Their brand of Islam has a suicidal/end-of-the-world spin to it (with the clerics still calling the shots so forget more level-headed secular decisions), and they have openly supported Hezbollah for decades. Hell, they have Revolutionary Guards/Quds forces deployed in Syria operating in conjunction with Hezbollah. Is it likely? No, but we are talking scenarios here and again, I wouldn't put it past them.
We'll have to disagree, I think they know exactly what would happen, and will sneakily work around it as they know they can. Just like they got their nuclear program reopened, sanctions lifted, and a bunch of money even while thumbing their nose at our Navy and openly supporting Hizbolah.
As far as your trigger events are concerned, I think #1 and #3 are the most likely, #3 being THE most likely of the bunch.
Maybe I'm just more sensitive/aware of the situation in the Baltics. But Putin is not stupid or irrational, unlike the NORK's, so there is that. He'll push us as far as he can without overcommitting. It will all depend on what he thinks he can get away with. Remember, he had no problem invading Georgia & the Ukraine.
We'll have to disagree, I think they know exactly what would happen, and will sneakily work around it as they know they can. Just like they got their nuclear program reopened, sanctions lifted, and a bunch of money even while thumbing their nose at our Navy and openly supporting Hizbolah.
Well, we can directly thank the Shitstain-in-Chief and his lack of spine for that.
Agreed about Putin not being crazy. He is cold and calculating but not Nork-ish.
Georgia? We were still fully involved in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time, plus he and Bush were on *kind* of friendly terms. Ukraine? Well, we're back to Shitstain again. Putin made a calculated gamble in both instances and won.
Georgia? We were still fully involved in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time, plus he and Bush were on *kind* of friendly terms. Ukraine? Well, we're back to Shitstain again. Putin made a calculated gamble in both instances and won.
Roger all.
Two interesting documentaries on Nat Geo about Putin's rise that spends a good bit of time on Georgia.
I knew it happened at the time, but it's jarring seeing lines of the Russian troops and armor advancing & shelling their capital. They planned to re-annex Georgia.
This is essentially the scenario they are concerned about in the baltics, mixed in with some Ukraine style "human rights" violation against "ethnic Russians" to justify it.
Big Russian troop buildup next to the Baltics. And now NATO as well. The naval buzzing and incursions into Finland & Sweden are not accidental either.
RetroRevolver77
09-24-16, 18:03
Extensively plus Scandanavia, and more countries upcoming. Work daily with Europeans. Have relatives in Europe and the UK.
Sounds like you have not travelled much around France? Away from Paris?? They have more provincial culture variation than we do, albeit in a smaller country. Try telling a Basque or Breton they are a single ethnicity. There are probably 10 different sub-cultures with distinctly different behaviors, priorities, etc.
Same for Germany, Black Forrest vs Frankfurt vs Bavarian.
Med countries have been dealing with immigrants for decades, primarily from their ex-colonies with free access. Libyans in Northern Italy. Algerians in France & Spain. They are part of the landscape.
What's new is the immigration from Syria, etc. And yes, Germany specifically and with EU support is being stupid. Some of the citizens are realizing it, but especially the Germans have a guilt driven tendency away from nationalism. Which plays right into the hands of the EU. That does not mean that the locals are in favor of it. They just lost the options to say no. Nordic countries and Germany have more cultural tolerance and feel a compulsion to diversify. Further south? Not so much. You don't see Spain, Portugal, France and Italy calling for more refugees/immigrants. Even if their gov happily provides programs for them.
Not going to try to dissect this, except point out that the very things you indicate they have (higher taxes and job competition) are the things I see impacting us over a long period of time. The trend is clear.
The UK has entire townships on the dole, and totally dependent on the gov.
So we'll have to disagree on outcomes, though you are essentially making the case for my point that we are on a slide toward Euro/UK 2nd world welfare states.
The big difference between us and some of the other countries that collapsed is resources. And to a certain extent that's a difference with Europe as well.
We have more inherent resources, and that will mediate certain aspects. They have more of a focus on education, etc and that will remain an advantage. Not top tier colleges, it's their feeder systems. Certain Euro countries have social engineering embedded in their school systems that we would never tolerate which is why we have more people with useless degrees. Not everyone gets to go to college in most European countries. (Though that is changing) Hauptschule vs RealSchule vs Gymnasium tracks would never fly here, though anyone who deals with US HS students sees the fallacy of "everyone can go to college" mindset.
Higher taxes, more social spending, less growth, more intrusive laws, that's my prediction for our dismal future. This is probably worse than a collapse as stuff gets institutionalized that is hard to overturn. The brits will never get their firearms back, have lost knives, etc.
I'm not saying we won't see hard times. And you might could argue that the current rioting/lawlessness in the major urban centers is the beginning of a trend of the have nots acting out.
But I'm not as concerned about an Argentina/Venezuela type situation anytime soon. YMMV
The countries over there are a lot smaller. If you add up all of western and northern Europe it might equal our population. Most of those countries are smaller than an average size mid-western US state. Sure you have a ton of people in some areas on welfare and I did see a lot of squatters/homeless people when I visited there years back. However I didn't see many natives looking unemployed, wandering about during the day- it seemed that most of that was along ethnic lines. Yes they are declining but I truly believe what we will see here will be far worse. We're just a really big giant welfare country that's in debt up to our ass.
When Americans discuss our WW2 victory, sometimes we think that America itself won the war. Russia killed more Germans than all the other countries combined but suffered 40 million military and civilian casualties doing so. The official death toll for Russian soldiers is 8.6 million. The 40 million figure includes total military and civilian dead and wounded. American dead for the entire war was slightly over 400,000 men, and this number includes European and Pacific theaters.
WW1 started in 1914 and ended in 1918. We entered the war in 1917. Google the stats and read the horrific casualties by nation. England and France--not to mention Germany and others--lost a generation of men in WW1. American losses exceeded 100,000, which is a small number compared to the others.
In WW2 our industrial might with its great output was probably our greatest contribution.
About WW3. I fear that it may begin by accident. About nukes, I worry about the loose ones floating around the former USSR.
About our military. I obsess with worry that the powers that be have allowed it to run down in terms of lost and worn out equipment, and I regret--terribly so--that we fought the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by sending the same men and women over and over again into combat with multiple deployments.
About the draft. Doing away with it contributed to instability of the populace because many young men were no longer benefitting from discipline and structure found in military training. Now, we are so screwed up that our large numbers of idiots and incompetents would over power the system. I think that we have too many untrainable people for conscription to work under present laws and policy.
wildcard600
09-24-16, 22:14
Snip ...
About the draft. Doing away with it contributed to instability of the populace because many young men were no longer benefitting from discipline and structure found in military training. Now, we are so screwed up that our large numbers of idiots and incompetents would over power the system. I think that we have too many untrainable people for conscription to work under present laws and policy.
Do you think that in the nearly 30 years between Vietnam and Iraq/Afghan there would have been a large number of people drafted ? Somehow I really doubt it and the situation you described would be exactly the same.
Doc Safari
10-12-16, 09:43
An interesting new development. This one sent chills up my spine:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-11/russian-government-officials-told-immediately-bring-back-children-studying-abroad
...we read a report in Russian website Znak published Tuesday, according to which Russian state officials and government workers were told to bring back their children studying abroad immediately, even if means cutting their education short and not waiting until the end of the school year, and re-enroll them in Russian schools, with some concern. The article adds that if the parents of these same officials also live abroad "for some reason", and have not lost their Russian citizenship, should also be returned to the motherland. Znak cited five administration officials as the source of the report.
The "recommendation" applies to all: from the administration staff, to regional administratiors, to lawmakers of all levels. Employees of public corporations are also subject to the ordinance. One of the sources said that anyone who fails to act, will find such non-compliance to be a "complicating factor in the furtherance of their public sector career." He added that he was aware of several such cases in recent months.
The official reason, apparently, which I do not believe for a minute:
It appears that the underlying reason behind the command is that the Russian government is concerned about the optics of having children of the Russian political elite being educated abroad, while their parents appear on television talking about patriotism and being "surrounded by enemies."
This sounds more like Russia is calling its citizens home in anticipation of a war:
...this is all part of a package of measures to prepare the elites for some 'big war' even if it is rather conditional
Yah sure does. The Russians just moved nuclear capable Iskander SRBMs to Kalinigrad too. Puts a short notice strike capability within range of a big chunk of NATO.
Then you've got dipshit hildabeast talking about no fly zones over Syria, like it's a brilliant idea to shoot down Russian/Syrian warplanes and things could get ugly quick....
Let's hope that that article is just internet noise.
Let's really hope.
Dist. Expert 26
10-12-16, 21:01
You know what? I'm feeling a lot like the Joker here lately; I just want to watch the world burn. If Hillary is really stupid enough to bow up to Putin, I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks. God willing one will land in D.C. and remove a large portion of the ruling class for us.
We are currently at Defcon 4.
The DEFCON Warning System has noted unusual activity from both Russian and U.S. forces which has caught our attention. The United Nations Security Council vetoed both Russian and U.S. proposals over Syria. In what appears to be a response, Russia is deploying new naval units to the North Atlantic and Mediterranean and both the U.S. and Russia are conducting bomber flights as shows of force which may connect with increased Russian bomber missions since the beginning of the month.
Current Intelligence suggests that Russia is planning to test both ICBM and SLBM’s including their brand new RS-28 ICBM. The U.S. has forward deployed more strategic forces to Europe, while Russia continues to move nuclear weapons closer to its borders with Eastern Europe including Kaliningrad and near the Suwalki Gap. NATO has increased its surveillance in and around this region most likely because of the Russian movements. Russian fighters had to be chased away from Finnish airspace on October 6th indicating a larger presence of Russia assets being forward deployed. U.S. B-2s conducted 2 simulated drops of B-61 nuclear weapons on October 6th, further escalating the situation.
The pattern of escalation between the two countries is similar to Cold War levels and as both sides keep reacting to each other, the possibility of accident or miscalculation increases. At this time, The DEFCON Warning System does not believe that current tensions will progress farther than what they are currently at, but we will continue to monitor the situation and report as necessary.
Doc Safari
10-12-16, 23:41
Tests completed:
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/156845-Russia-tests-ballistic-missiles-amid-tensions-with-West
Russia´s military conducted a series of intercontinental ballistic missile tests on Wednesday, the latest flexing of its muscles as tensions with the US spike over Syria.
Russian forces fired a nuclear-capable rocket from a Pacific Fleet submarine in the Sea of Okhotsk north of Japan, state-run RIA Novosti reported.
A Topol missile was shot off from a submarine in the Barents Sea, and a third was launched from an inland site in the north-west of the vast country, Russian agencies reported.
Doc Safari
10-12-16, 23:50
More saber-rattling: (I'm not sure about the credibility of this news source, but I have read this elsewhere as well).
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-us-want-confrontation-youll-162932320.html
Russia to the US: If you want a confrontation, 'you'll get one everywhere'
Retired Russian Lt. Gen. Evgeny Buzhinsky told the BBC that for its part, Russia sees the West as the belligerent party, citing sanctions against Russia as well as barring the Russian Paralympic team from the Rio Olympics for well-documented and state-sponsored doping as Western aggression against Russia.
"Of course there is a reaction. As far as Russia sees it, as Putin sees it, it is full-scale confrontation on all fronts. If you want a confrontation, you'll get one," Buzhinsky told the BBC. "But it won't be a confrontation that doesn't harm the interests of the United States. You want a confrontation, you'll get one everywhere."
My take: Сукин сын
I get to live through another Cold War.
weee
Moose-Knuckle
10-13-16, 03:21
I get to live through another Cold War.
Well hopefully . . .
The Cold War was actually a very stable time. Except for the Cuban Missile Crisis we had a pretty good run. We knew who the bad guys were, for the most part they wore uniforms, had tanks, planes, and missiles like us. Today we have enemies that are clandestine, and don't fight traditionally. I think it is more dangerous today than at any time.
I'm sure the JV leadership is trying to figure out how to not waste a crisis and get us to a nice warm DEFCON 2 status..
(Slow golf clap) Way to go guys. Awesome job......
Cold war hasn't even been a thing in 25 years. Maybe the Russians will use our own playbook against us this time around. You guys are great....no.....seriously.
Such leadership.
If the Soviets, er, Russians, think the West is all gearing up for a nuclear war, then their intel sucks. They are either getting the wrong information or making the wrong analysis/assumptions.
I do think the US could make fewer overt middle fingers at Russia. I mean, seriously, we have enough problems.....
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 09:20
I almost hate to post this because now this thread could become political, but the rhetoric is very specific and I hate to ignore something this provocative:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q?il=0
Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
By contrast, Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month.
Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.
"Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament.
"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."
My take: Soviet propaganda redux. But people took Kruschev seriously when he said, "We will bury you."
The Cold War was actually a very stable time. Except for the Cuban Missile Crisis we had a pretty good run. We knew who the bad guys were, for the most part they wore uniforms, had tanks, planes, and missiles like us. Today we have enemies that are clandestine, and don't fight traditionally. I think it is more dangerous today than at any time.
1983 was pretty dicey and while few people knew about it, we came real close during Able Archer.
The Russians were convinced it was the real thing and a Soviet early warning system detected launches from the US. If not for a single Russian Lt. Col. who refused to report the launches and initiate a counter attack because he understood it couldn't be correct, we'd have gone to war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83#False_alarm_from_the_Soviet_early_missile_warning_system
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-13-16, 13:13
The Cold War was actually a very stable time. Except for the Cuban Missile Crisis we had a pretty good run. We knew who the bad guys were, for the most part they wore uniforms, had tanks, planes, and missiles like us. Today we have enemies that are clandestine, and don't fight traditionally. I think it is more dangerous today than at any time.
"Sum of all Fears" by Clancy seem prescient now. Light off a nuke somewhere, add in some window garnish attacks and boom.
Putin definitely is preaching to the domestic crowd, but he has external aspirations. NATO troops in the former eastern bloc countries? Look at what happened to Georgia and the Ukraine with out NATO troops present.
I agree that the next step is reports that the ethnic Russians in the baltic states are 'under attack' and the only solution is the withdrawal of NATO troops and the countries are some 'neutral area', or else Russia turns off the gas taps this winter. Then in the spring until Russian little green men come in.
Putin is no Hitler, he is a Napoleon- in reverse direction. We left a power vacuum in Syria and they filled it. We lost Syria and should just admit it and suffer the consequences of Iran and Russia being able to dictate policy to the EU at the end of empty natural gas pipe.
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 13:17
"Sum of all Fears" by Clancy seem prescient now. Light off a nuke somewhere, add in some window garnish attacks and boom.
Putin definitely is preaching to the domestic crowd, but he has external aspirations. NATO troops in the former eastern bloc countries? Look at what happened to Georgia and the Ukraine with out NATO troops present.
I agree that the next step is reports that the ethnic Russians in the baltic states are 'under attack' and the only solution is the withdrawal of NATO troops and the countries are some 'neutral area', or else Russia turns off the gas taps this winter. Then in the spring until Russian little green men come in.
Putin is no Hitler, he is a Napoleon- in reverse direction. We left a power vacuum in Syria and they filled it. We lost Syria and should just admit it and suffer the consequences of Iran and Russia being able to dictate policy to the EU at the end of empty natural gas pipe.
Actually the narrative I'm hearing is that Obama will use some sort of "humanitarian crisis" as an excuse to invade Syria, and it's ON. You know how the left won't go to war for anything but "humanitarian reasons", so the rumor sounds legit.
KalashniKEV
10-13-16, 13:20
Russia's Lavrov: "So Many Pussies" On Both Sides Of U.S. Presidential Campaign
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/russias_lavrov_so_many_pussies_around_the_presidential_campaign_on_both_sides_that_i_prefer_not_to_comment.html
PUTIN-PUTIN '16!
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 13:21
This sounds like ratcheting up of excuses to justify an attack:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1968311/america-plotting-to-allow-9000-isis-fighters-to-escape-terror-capital-mosul-so-they-can-attack-russian-troops-moscow-outrageously-claims/
THOUSANDS of ISIS fighters are to be given safe passage out of Iraq to fight in Syria, Russian military leaders claim.
The jihadi army – and their families – will allegedly be let back in to Syria to battle president Bashar al-Assad and his Russian allies.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-13-16, 13:37
Meanwhile, Iranian proxies are firing missiles at our ships in the Red Sea....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/missile-again-fired-u-navy-houthi-territory-yemen-040131759.html
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 14:04
OH. MY. GOD.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/raf-given-green-light-shoot-133352631.html
RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria
As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them
RAF Tornado pilots have been instructed to avoid contact with Russian aircraft while engaged in missions for Operation Shader – the codename for the RAF's anti-Isis work in Iraq and Syria. But their aircraft have been armed with air-to-air missiles and the pilots have been given the green light to defend themselves if they are threatened by Russian pilots.
"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur — you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."
"We need to protect our pilots but at the same time," said another source. "We're taking a step closer to war. It will only take one plane to be shot down in an air-to-air battle and the whole landscape will change."
And remember: an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members of NATO. I don't see any "apologies" or anything of the sort from anybody if a plane gets shot down on either side.
And you KNOW....the Russians will have similar rules of engagement within hours.
Time to build that fallout shelter while you still can.
Meanwhile, Iranian proxies are firing missiles at our ships in the Red Sea....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/missile-again-fired-u-navy-houthi-territory-yemen-040131759.html
THIS is the big news right now. Iran is getting right sporty. Any why shouldn't they? We have emboldened them with a lack of response.
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 14:54
LOCKING AND LOADING
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611401/Russia-Vladimir-Putin-RAF-Tornado-Alexander-Yakovenko-ISIS-Iraq-Syria-Al-Assad
Russia 'FURIOUS' after RAF pilots cleared to shoot down Moscow warplanes
Outraged Russian officials asked UK ministers "to provide an official explanation" of reports that RAF Tornados operating over Iraq have been fitted with heat-seeking missiles designed for arial combat.
A second source said: “No one knows what the Russians will do next. We don’t know how they will respond if they come into contact with a Western jet.
"When planes are flying at supersonic speeds the airspace gets crowded very quickly. There could be a collision or a Russian pilot might be mistakenly shot down."
OH. MY. GOD.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/raf-given-green-light-shoot-133352631.html
And remember: an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members of NATO. I don't see any "apologies" or anything of the sort from anybody if a plane gets shot down on either side.
And you KNOW....the Russians will have similar rules of engagement within hours.
Time to build that fallout shelter while you still can.
LOCKING AND LOADING
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611401/Russia-Vladimir-Putin-RAF-Tornado-Alexander-Yakovenko-ISIS-Iraq-Syria-Al-Assad
Check your dates, that was last year.
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 15:59
Check your dates, that was last year.
Oh, crap. You're right. I saw the date was October and didn't notice the year.
Good Catch.
Makes me feel a little better, but we're not exactly moving toward warm fuzzies, either.
Good god Y'all.
Can't we do a little better self vetting of info?
Stuff like this is what makes folks think we just have a bunch of Alex Jones reactionaries here.
Doc Safari
10-13-16, 16:03
Good god Y'all.
Can't we do a little better self vetting of info?
Stuff like this is what makes folks think we just have a bunch of Alex Jones reactionaries here.
How about could we not overreact to an honest mistake, either.
I've been on the computer all day reading articles on this stuff.
Good god Y'all.
Can't we do a little better self vetting of info?
Stuff like this is what makes folks think we just have a bunch of Alex Jones reactionaries here.
Info was accurate, just not current. Goes to show what a mess it was last year and we still haven't improved anything.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-13-16, 17:15
Are those rules of engagement any different than SOP? We shot MIGs from Libya with the same rules, and just for reference that is a readable old news story.
Are those rules of engagement any different than SOP? We shot MIGs from Libya with the same rules, and just for reference that is a readable old news story.
The MiGs were Libyan, not Russian. Big difference.
sevenhelmet
10-13-16, 19:04
Well, this is more recent (corroborated by numerous other sources):
Putin could be readying for war, calls Russians back to Motherland (http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/putin-could-be-readying-for-war-calls-russians-back-to-motherland/)
This, and the Navy took out 3 radar sites in Yemen today in response to yesterday's attack on our warships. But the 24 our news cycle is talking about who Trump groped 30 years ago, as if it f#$%ing matters.
Unlike Barack, Putin is no fool. he knows that with our forces in such close proximity in Syria with somewhat counter goals, it could go south really quick
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Whatever happens, happens.
I just hope Secret Service handcuffs Whomever is POTUS to something heavy at the WH if the ICBMs start flying.
Seems only fair.
Whatever happens, happens.
I just hope Secret Service handcuffs Whomever is POTUS to something heavy at the WH if the ICBMs start flying.
Seems only fair.
This is so funny for so many reasons
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-13-16, 23:02
Can anyone give me a credible obama first strike scenario? For that matter, I don't see him doing a nuke strike even after a nuke in the EU. There is no way he goes down in history as the president that used nukes.
I don't doubt that Assad's compound goes BOOM and we blame little green men, maybe with blue stars on their shoulders.
Can anyone give me a credible obama first strike scenario? For that matter, I don't see him doing a nuke strike even after a nuke in the EU. There is no way he goes down in history as the president that used nukes.
I don't doubt that Assad's compound goes BOOM and we blame little green men, maybe with blue stars on their shoulders.
Obama would never use nukes in defense of the US, let alone a first strike. But he did manage to restart a cold war with Russia due to sheer incompetence, arrogance and lack of action to back up his words. And as history has shown, the existence of a cold war posture is all it takes for random events to translate into terrible consequences. We almost traded missiles with Russia several times and it was more luck than design that it never actually happened.
Moose-Knuckle
10-14-16, 04:57
Assange has stated that according to leaked documents Obama and Hillary will start a war with Russia in Syria to divert attention away from their criminal acts being leaked. This is why Putin came out the other day and said something to the effect that "If the US wants conflict they will get it EVERYWHERE". Meaning not just Syria so think about it real hard Obama/Hillary.
After everything we endured during the 20th Century, Barry from Honolulu could very well get us in a real shooting war with Russia. He and Hillary hate America that much.
Can anyone give me a credible obama first strike scenario? For that matter, I don't see him doing a nuke strike even after a nuke in the EU. There is no way he goes down in history as the president that used nukes.
No. Obama is so vehemently non-confrontational. He has all but guaranteed that Iran has free reign in the waters around the Saudi peninsula. Why the freak would he use nukes in any capacity except as a retaliation? Even then I don't feel assured he would do so....
Doc Safari
10-14-16, 11:22
I know nothing about this website. I stumbled across this by accident. So I welcome debunkers.
If true, though, then we've just gone to DEFCON 3:
http://defconwarningsystem.com/?p=185
This is the DEFCON Warning System. Alert status for 8 P.M., Thursday, October 13th, 2016. Condition code is Yellow. DEFCON 3.
There are currently no imminent nuclear threats against the United States at this time, however the situation is considered fluid and can change rapidly.
At this time, the DEFCON Warning System feels that an increase to DEFCON 3 would be a prudent move. The situation is currently fluid with diplomatic ties strained and military threats coming from both sides. Russian media is reportedly telling its citizens to prepare for nuclear war. Russia has recently conducted civil defense drills and completed inspections of underground areas to house government officials and some civilians in the event of nuclear war. This is a very sensitive situation which has the potential to spiral out of control. It is recommended that all citizens learn the steps to be taken in the event of nuclear war. We will continue to bring updated information as we receive it.
I know nothing about this website. I stumbled across this by accident. So I welcome debunkers.
If true, though, then we've just gone to DEFCON 3:
http://defconwarningsystem.com/?p=185
DEFCON can be geographical or for a particular theater, and isn't nuclear-inclusive (for 1-3). For the ME right now, it's probably not a bad idea. There is a potential for a lot of bad ju-ju. We have been at 3, three times (that I know).
But my question is this: if true, why isn't it all over the news? I haven't seen it anywhere else.
Doc Safari
10-14-16, 13:25
I know nothing about this website. I stumbled across this by accident. So I welcome debunkers.
If true, though, then we've just gone to DEFCON 3:
http://defconwarningsystem.com/?p=185
So i did some more reading on this website, and they are not government-affiliated. They get information from sources and make an estimate about where the state of the threat of nuclear war might be. The best way I can explain it is that only the US government has the TDP, but there are others that can sort of reconstruct the TDP after the fact.
Quoting:
* Where do you get your information?
Over the years, The DEFCON Warning System has grown to gain some contacts within government and military agencies. However, most of our information is public knowledge and can be easily searched for. We often post news article links on our message board for commentary.
Information from confidential sources is vetted and, by necessity, often redacted to protect the source as well as not compromise national security or field plans. We do not, however, hold back information necessary to the safety of the public.
* Doesn’t this mean that DWS is unreliable?
No matter how hard anyone tries, unless you’re inside the enemy’s situation room, you’re going to have to make a guess.
parishioner
10-14-16, 13:26
Saw this on Facebook today, video posted July/2016, unsure of the date it was filmed. It's Putin's description of the situation.
http://youtu.be/YJkUNpSwDBk
DEFCON can be geographical or for a particular theater, and isn't nuclear-inclusive (for 1-3). For the ME right now, it's probably not a bad idea. There is a potential for a lot of bad ju-ju. We have been at 3, three times (that I know).
But my question is this: if true, why isn't it all over the news? I haven't seen it anywhere else.
The news NEVER announces Defcon status. When Kim Jun Il detonated his nuclear weapon we went to 3 and the news never reported it.
Doc Safari
10-14-16, 14:29
The news NEVER announces Defcon status. When Kim Jun Il detonated his nuclear weapon we went to 3 and the news never reported it.
So DEFCON 3 is not such an imminent warning?
We should keep our eyes open for it to move to DEFCON 2?
The news NEVER announces Defcon status. When Kim Jun Il detonated his nuclear weapon we went to 3 and the news never reported it.
Yeah, I meant open sources, not necessarily 'news' news. There's no corroborating or supporting information confirming it. And since it's a .com site, I doubt their information is any better than what any of us can get.
So DEFCON 3 is not such an imminent warning?
We should keep our eyes open for it to move to DEFCON 2?
If there is an increase to DEFCON 2, you would see a lot on the news to support it. Not necessarily claim an increase to that status, but you would see our military and someone else's <cough>Russia<cough> getting really close to conflict. Level 2 is pre-imminent nuclear exchange, and there will a lot in the media that bad stuff is going down.
Assange has stated that according to leaked documents Obama and Hillary will start a war with Russia in Syria to divert attention away from their criminal acts being leaked. This is why Putin came out the other day and said something to the effect that "If the US wants conflict they will get it EVERYWHERE". Meaning not just Syria so think about it real hard Obama/Hillary.
After everything we endured during the 20th Century, Barry from Honolulu could very well get us in a real shooting war with Russia. He and Hillary hate America that much.
It's not that they hate America so much, But rather they are following the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Basically,in a nutshell,this states that the U.S. as the world's last superpower intends to keep it that way, plus we want a world hegemony,and any country that challanges that, will have war brought to their doorstep, right now the U.S. is invloved in 5 conflicts, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, and the South China sea. All it's gonna take to get things going is for someone to make a mistake,either shoot down a aircraft,sink a large ship, and off to the races we go..whether you want to or not.. The only countries left opposing the U.S. are Russia, China, and Iran. Two of the three are known to have nukes, the third possibly. This is not going to end well. Hillary would rather have the entire country glow in the dark before she would give up on this doctrine, and, I'm afraid that is exactly what will happen if she get's elected..
So DEFCON 3 is not such an imminent warning?
We should keep our eyes open for it to move to DEFCON 2?
No it's actually a big deal. But the MSM will be the last ones to actually tell you about it. We could go to D2 with serious ramping up and they would never specifically mention that defcon status, only that tensions are increasing due to conflicts in the following areas, etc.
If Lester Holt ever actually said the words "Defcon 3" or even "Defcon 4" the entire internet would piss itself, people would start shooting their neighbors followed by mass looting of every store with anything of value. 99% if this country is completely unaware that we've changed the Defcon status at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.