• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .
dennislmay

Expectations of World War

198 posts in this topic

Tonight for the first time I heard a well known voice on a national news program Juan Williams say on "Special Report with Bret Baier" on FOX NEWS that Israel striking Iran to prevent their nuclear weapons program could lead to world war. No one on the panel raised any disagreement with that assessment.

Charles Krauthammer gives a 90% chance of a strike before the next American election and agrees the time frame leaked by the Defense Secretary is possible - April-May-June.

I know I have been talking on-line about expectations of a financial collapse and world war for some time - you hear a little here and there but I was surprised to hear it so matter-of-a-factly discussed without dissention tonight.

Are people in this country really going to be caught by surprise since it is hardly being discussed?

Does the public even remotely realize Afghanistan and Iraq and even Korea and Vietnam were tiny conflicts compared to what world war means?

I get the feeling that being removed from total war for 2 1/2 generations the general public is clueless.

Dennis May

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonight for the first time I heard a well known voice on a national news program Juan Williams say on "Special Report with Bret Baier" on FOX NEWS that Israel striking Iran to prevent their nuclear weapons program could lead to world war. No one on the panel raised any disagreement with that assessment.

Charles Krauthammer gives a 90% chance of a strike before the next American election and agrees the time frame leaked by the Defense Secretary is possible - April-May-June.

I know I have been talking on-line about expectations of a financial collapse and world war for some time - you hear a little here and there but I was surprised to hear it so matter-of-a-factly discussed without dissention tonight.

Are people in this country really going to be caught by surprise since it is hardly being discussed?

Does the public even remotely realize Afghanistan and Iraq and even Korea and Vietnam were tiny conflicts compared to what world war means?

I get the feeling that being removed from total war for 2 1/2 generations the general public is clueless.

Dennis May

Thanks for brightening our day. We'd rather stay clueless, thanks

The General Public

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama's broadside against the Catholic Church is to draw attention away from his war plans, then when he springs a done deal on folks, he will do so at a time of "finally backing down for real this time."

In the lull and self-congratulations of his opponents, the inevitability of the war sinks into the public discourse unnoticed.

Standard diversion technique.

(btw - The Iran war is coming, but I think Obama has his sights set on a Syria invasion first.)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

I sure hope you are wrong.

A ground invasion of Syria would be insane.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama's broadside against the Catholic Church is to draw attention away from his war plans, then when he springs a done deal on folks, he will do so at a time of "finally backing down for real this time."

In the lull and self-congratulations of his opponents, the inevitability of the war sinks into the public discourse unnoticed.

Standard diversion technique.

(btw - The Iran war is coming, but I think Obama has his sights set on a Syria invasion first.)

Michael

Obama's path to re-election or post-poning elections may depend on war. The kind of world war that is coming will not end in a few years because there will not be a single central leadership on the other side to surrender. It will be Islamo-Fascists from multiple nations and splinter groups and various Marxists and Maoist nations and splinter groups against the West. The Russians and Chinese may stay out of direct conflict but will be supporting those against the West however they can while protecting their own interests. Once the West is sufficiently weakened the Chinese and/or Russians may openly join in to conclude the conflict to gain a seat in dividing up the world. The Islamo-Fascist world and the Marxist world will then have to battle it out. I assume the West will lose because it has already been compromised internally and lacks the will to fight.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the overt war to begin in August or early September if Obama feels it will help him get re-elected. If he doesn't, then Israel will go it alone after the election if Obama wins. I'm not sure if Israel will have the nerve for this, so it may foment something that would drag the U.S. into it. In that case war will come in the next few months. All Iranian nuclear sites would be heavily hit with a variety of conventional weapons then special op troops would be inserted to assess the damage. There won't be significant U.S. naval forces in the Gulf where they would be vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship missiles, of which they probably have thousands gotten from Russia and China. It will take weeks to neutralize those and re-open the Gulf to shipping. The economic turmoil will be immense and will be the start of the worldwide depression which is coming regardless of war or no war. The U.S. will suffer the least; Japan, India, and China the most. China will be so pissed it may start attacking Taiwan or engaging in military adventurism in the South China Sea, causing war with the U.S. 2012 may be remembered the same way 1939 now is. The war with Iran, BTW, has already begun. People are being killed. Important people. Right inside the country. The sophistication says, "Israel." Being comparatively weak that's what Israel has to do, I suspect it thinks. That or the nuclear option. Being comparatively strong, the U.S. wouldn't tend to ramp up such capability.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect the overt war to begin in August or early September if Obama feels it will help him get re-elected. If he doesn't, then Israel will go it alone after the election if Obama wins. I'm not sure if Israel will have the nerve for this, so it may foment something that would drag the U.S. into it. In that case war will come in the next few months. All Iranian nuclear sites would be heavily hit with a variety of conventional weapons then special op troops would be inserted to assess the damage. There won't be significant U.S. naval forces in the Gulf where they would be vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship missiles, of which they probably have thousands gotten from Russia and China. It will take weeks to neutralize those and re-open the Gulf to shipping. The economic turmoil will be immense and will be the start of the worldwide depression which is coming regardless of war or no war. The U.S. will suffer the least; Japan, India, and China the most. China will be so pissed it may start attacking Taiwan or engaging in military adventurism in the South China Sea, causing war with the U.S. 2012 may be remembered the same way 1939 now is. The war with Iran, BTW, has already begun. People are being killed. Important people. Right inside the country. The sophistication says, "Israel." Being comparatively weak that's what Israel has to do, it thinks. That or the nuclear option. Being comparatively strong, the U.S. wouldn't tend to ramp up such capability.

--Brant

World War and economic great depression are coming either way. The timing is soon - months and certainly less than a year being the most probable. It is hard to see a way out of this one.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Obama's broadside against the Catholic Church is to draw attention away from his war plans, then when he springs a done deal on folks, he will do so at a time of "finally backing down for real this time."

In the lull and self-congratulations of his opponents, the inevitability of the war sinks into the public discourse unnoticed.

Standard diversion technique.

(btw - The Iran war is coming, but I think Obama has his sights set on a Syria invasion first.)

Michael

Obama's path to re-election or post-poning elections may depend on war. The kind of world war that is coming will not end in a few years because there will not be a single central leadership on the other side to surrender. It will be Islamo-Fascists from multiple nations and splinter groups and various Marxists and Maoist nations and splinter groups against the West. The Russians and Chinese may stay out of direct conflict but will be supporting those against the West however they can while protecting their own interests. Once the West is sufficiently weakened the Chinese and/or Russians may openly join in to conclude the conflict to gain a seat in dividing up the world. The Islamo-Fascist world and the Marxist world will then have to battle it out. I assume the West will lose because it has already been compromised internally and lacks the will to fight.

Dennis

I agree with the first sentence. I've got a real problem with your representation of the Islamic-fascists. I think they are next to nothing respecting this scheme of things.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hard to see a way out of this one.

Dennis

The U.S. disengages, leaving the situation in the hands of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The good news about the Muslim world is that it is far more splintered than appears from our perspective.

They kill each other. A lot.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

The good news about the Muslim world is that it is far more splintered than appears from our perspective.

They kill each other. A lot.

Michael

Splintering also means bad news in that there will never be a resolution - the war will not end. It is not obvious that containment will be effective even if the threat is reduced at some point. WoMD and asymmetric warfare changes the nature of the problem. This clash of civilizations is about more than Syria or Iran. The financial collapse will just fuel the fire when starvation hits the Islamic street and they blame the West.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism, Keynesian Economics, Socialism, and the Welfare State all have a shelf life of a couple of generations. I remember a book from the 60’s titled, “The East minus West Equals Zero.” Well, now the West is closing in on zero, or more correctly, negative 16 trillion dollars. Put your fingers one space to the right, type “it,” and you get “oy.”

Ron Paul says, “Let them have nukes. It’s none of our business. We have survived with a nuclear Pakistan They have not lost any or exploded any of their arsenal.” He has a point, up until now. But the leaders of Iran are deliberately seeking Armageddon. We must take them at their word, and clearly note their preparations.

I distrust our Western leadership. I think I will expand my food larder. I keep about 60 hours of generator gas on hand, with stabilizers in it, and I rotate the gas when the price rises. Like now.

Peter

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that they are splintered. Bottomline is, they are muslim. It's already amply demonstrated that when they both have a common foe they can stop their fighting and work together. Sunni and Shiite have done, and will, collaborate for the sake of Islam.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the last WWI veteran passed away this week, so we might as well start a new world conflagration...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_first_world_war_veteran_dies_aged_110_1_1201358 <<<<Article with picture from the Eastern Daily Press

Florence Beatrice Green (née Patterson; 19 February 1901 – 4 February 2012[1]) was the last surviving veteran of the First World War. She was a member of the Women's Royal Air Force.

Florence Green was born at Edmonton, London to Frederick and Sarah (nėe Neal) Patterson. She joined the Women's Royal Air Force in September 1918 at the age of 17,[2][3] where she served as an officers' mess steward.[4] She worked in the officers' mess at RAF Marham and was also based at Narborough airfield.[4][5]

She moved to King's Lynn in 1920, after her marriage to Walter Green. Her husband, a railway worker, died in 1975, aged 82, after 55 years of marriage.[6] She lived in King's Lynn with her 90-year-old daughter, May (born 1921), until November 2011 when she moved into a care home. In January 2010, she was publicly identified as, at that time, the oldest living female veteran of World War I.[4]

On 19 February 2011 she celebrated her 110th birthday, becoming a supercentenarian—one of just 10 living in the United Kingdom, all women. With the death of Claude Choules on 5 May 2011, Green became the last known living veteran of World War I.[7] On 20 July 2011, the Gerontology Research Group verified her age, and listed her as an official supercentenarian.[8]

It was mentioned that she was asked what it felt like being 110, to which she replied "Not much different to being 109". In 2011 an image of Florence Beatrice Green became part of a subject for the "WWI Centenary Mural" created by Christian Cardell Corbet and Benjamin Trickett Mercer. Before her death, Green had a son and two daughters, as well as four grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.[5][9] Before her death, she was West Norfolk's oldest resident, the second oldest person in Norfolk, and sixth oldest person in Britain.[4]

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the last WWI veteran passed away this week, so we might as well start a new world conflagration...

http://www.edp24.co....d_110_1_1201358 <<<<Article with picture from the Eastern Daily Press

Florence Beatrice Green (née Patterson; 19 February 1901 – 4 February 2012[1]) was the last surviving veteran of the First World War. She was a member of the Women's Royal Air Force.

Florence Green was born at Edmonton, London to Frederick and Sarah (nėe Neal) Patterson. She joined the Women's Royal Air Force in September 1918 at the age of 17,[2][3] where she served as an officers' mess steward.[4] She worked in the officers' mess at RAF Marham and was also based at Narborough airfield.[4][5]

She moved to King's Lynn in 1920, after her marriage to Walter Green. Her husband, a railway worker, died in 1975, aged 82, after 55 years of marriage.[6] She lived in King's Lynn with her 90-year-old daughter, May (born 1921), until November 2011 when she moved into a care home. In January 2010, she was publicly identified as, at that time, the oldest living female veteran of World War I.[4]

On 19 February 2011 she celebrated her 110th birthday, becoming a supercentenarian—one of just 10 living in the United Kingdom, all women. With the death of Claude Choules on 5 May 2011, Green became the last known living veteran of World War I.[7] On 20 July 2011, the Gerontology Research Group verified her age, and listed her as an official supercentenarian.[8]

It was mentioned that she was asked what it felt like being 110, to which she replied "Not much different to being 109". In 2011 an image of Florence Beatrice Green became part of a subject for the "WWI Centenary Mural" created by Christian Cardell Corbet and Benjamin Trickett Mercer. Before her death, Green had a son and two daughters, as well as four grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.[5][9] Before her death, she was West Norfolk's oldest resident, the second oldest person in Norfolk, and sixth oldest person in Britain.[4]

I ate supper with a WWI veteran at the Officers Club at Eglin AFB back in the 1986-1987 time frame. He was in his 90's and was a WWI and WWII veteran from the Chaplin Corp. He retired from the Army Air Corp before it became the Air Force. An interesting man - he had a doctorate and was like Jack LaLanne only with arms and a neck like Arnold even at 90+ years old. He still lifted weights and swam for several miles every day in his 90's. He had been in the trenches in WWI and said it was a mess.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that they are splintered. Bottomline is, they are muslim. It's already amply demonstrated that when they both have a common foe they can stop their fighting and work together. Sunni and Shiite have done, and will, collaborate for the sake of Islam.

And they would splinter again if any group tries to end hostilities. So there is no surrender or real end once it starts.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You read it in print:

Well the last WWI veteran passed away this week, so we might as well start a new world conflagration...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_first_world_war_veteran_dies_aged_110_1_1201358 < Article with picture from the Eastern Daily Press

Florence Beatrice Green (née Patterson; 19 February 1901 – 4 February 2012[1]) was the last surviving veteran of the First World War. She was a member of the Women's Royal Air For...

[....] Before her death, Green had a son and two daughters, as well as four grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. [....]

How unusual for a women's children to be born while she's alive.

Ellen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You read it in print:

Well the last WWI veteran passed away this week, so we might as well start a new world conflagration...

http://www.edp24.co....d_110_1_1201358 < Article with picture from the Eastern Daily Press

Florence Beatrice Green (née Patterson; 19 February 1901 – 4 February 2012[1]) was the last surviving veteran of the First World War. She was a member of the Women's Royal Air For...

[....] Before her death, Green had a son and two daughters, as well as four grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. [....]

How unusual for a women's children to be born while she's alive.

Ellen

Well, after her death she had no children.

--Brant

modern medicine is a wow!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Splintering also means bad news in that there will never be a resolution - the war will not end. It is not obvious that containment will be effective even if the threat is reduced at some point. WoMD and asymmetric warfare changes the nature of the problem. This clash of civilizations is about more than Syria or Iran. The financial collapse will just fuel the fire when starvation hits the Islamic street and they blame the West.

Dennis,

I certainly don't mean to downplay the threat of what a world war would mean. Nor the threat of Islamism. I just don't believe a global war would be as homogeneous as phrases like "clash of civilizations" implies. Not even with respect to the Islamic world.

I just don't see how all the different Islamic countries could ever come under a Caliphate again. There are many prominent Muslims who want that, but there are also way too many aspirants to the title with fundamental disagreements (both within the religion and outside it) for that to happen. Maybe if there is some major fluke or a humongous disaster (man-made or otherwise) resulting in massive deaths of a large chunk of humankind--I'm talking in the billions. Maybe then it could happen.

In the event of a world war, I do see a great deal of chaos, some countries flip-flopping all over the place, local putsches, and so on. Lots and lots of death and destruction. But I don't see a conflict between two opposing organized world forces like happened with Germany twice. I see several dynamic configurations coming in and out of existence, not static ones like before.

I attribute a major factor for this to greater ease of communication. Not for leaders, but for the populations.

Now, if that gets knocked out, say by nuclear bombs exploding in the skies of the major technological countries and emitting massive electromagnetic pulses (incapacitating most of the electronics below), then I can see a two-way polarity emerging.

Then I see the possibility of "clash of civilizations." But for all Islamic countries to band into a common group of enemy nations on a world war level, it would need to be built on the ignorance of the diverse populations that can only happen with a massive shut down of communications. And even then, such unity would take years, if not decades, to coalesce.

The Ottoman Empire is now history and that's where I expect it will remain. It's foundation rotted over time and that's why it finally fell apart. You can't rebuild former glory on rot.

As for communism, I think similar things could be said (especially about communication). But there's a huge difference. It is far younger than any of the world's major social systems, so some of its realities are different--the major one being its growing assimilation of capitalism (the opposite economic philosophy) in order to survive, and this happening before it got solidified by centuries of existence. So, culturally, I think it is weak right now, although militarily, I believe a few communist countries are major threats.

That's my opinion.

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Splintering also means bad news in that there will never be a resolution - the war will not end. It is not obvious that containment will be effective even if the threat is reduced at some point. WoMD and asymmetric warfare changes the nature of the problem. This clash of civilizations is about more than Syria or Iran. The financial collapse will just fuel the fire when starvation hits the Islamic street and they blame the West.

Dennis,

I certainly don't mean to downplay the threat of what a world war would mean. Nor the threat of Islamism. I just don't believe a global war would be as homogeneous as phrases like "clash of civilizations" implies. Not even with respect to the Islamic world.

I just don't see how all the different Islamic countries could ever come under a Caliphate again. There are many prominent Muslims who want that, but there are also way too many aspirants to the title with fundamental disagreements (both within the religion and outside it) for that to happen. Maybe if there is some major fluke or a humongous disaster (man-made or otherwise) resulting in massive deaths of a large chunk of humankind--I'm talking in the billions. Maybe then it could happen.

In the event of a world war, I do see a great deal of chaos, some countries flip-flopping all over the place, local putsches, and so on. Lots and lots of death and destruction. But I don't see a conflict between two opposing organized world forces like happened with Germany twice. I see several dynamic configurations coming in and out of existence, not static ones like before.

I attribute a major factor for this to greater ease of communication. Not for leaders, but for the populations.

Now, if that gets knocked out, say by nuclear bombs exploding in the skies of the major technological countries and emitting massive electromagnetic pulses (incapacitating most of the electronics below), then I can see a two-way polarity emerging.

Then I see the possibility of "clash of civilizations." But for all Islamic countries to band into a common group of enemy nations on a world war level, it would need to be built on the ignorance of the diverse populations that can only happen with a massive shut down of communications. And even then, such unity would take years, if not decades, to coalesce.

The Ottoman Empire is now history and that's where I expect it will remain. It's foundation rotted over time and that's why it finally fell apart. You can't rebuild former glory on rot.

As for communism, I think similar things could be said (especially about communication). But there's a huge difference. It is far younger than any of the world's major social systems, so some of its realities are different--the major one being its growing assimilation of capitalism (the opposite economic philosophy) in order to survive, and this happening before it got solidified by centuries of existence. So, culturally, I think it is weak right now, although militarily, I believe a few communist countries are major threats.

That's my opinion.

Michael

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. Even in WWII there were many splinters and infighting going on. It is only takes 3 small well placed EMP weapons to knock out the US electrical grid. Just one - not well place primitive EMP would cause real problems. A little Google search on Muslim nations and their food imports shows that a shock to our price of gasoline will cause food to become unaffordable to much of the Muslim world - leading to a situation like Egypt all over the Muslim world. In such a circumstance it will not be difficult for those with Islamo-Fascist tendencies to find a willing audience. Fascism found a place in the Muslim world during the last world war - I don't believe much as changed in that respect.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Splintering also means bad news in that there will never be a resolution - the war will not end. It is not obvious that containment will be effective even if the threat is reduced at some point. WoMD and asymmetric warfare changes the nature of the problem. This clash of civilizations is about more than Syria or Iran. The financial collapse will just fuel the fire when starvation hits the Islamic street and they blame the West.

Dennis,

I certainly don't mean to downplay the threat of what a world war would mean. Nor the threat of Islamism. I just don't believe a global war would be as homogeneous as phrases like "clash of civilizations" implies. Not even with respect to the Islamic world.

I just don't see how all the different Islamic countries could ever come under a Caliphate again. There are many prominent Muslims who want that, but there are also way too many aspirants to the title with fundamental disagreements (both within the religion and outside it) for that to happen. Maybe if there is some major fluke or a humongous disaster (man-made or otherwise) resulting in massive deaths of a large chunk of humankind--I'm talking in the billions. Maybe then it could happen.

In the event of a world war, I do see a great deal of chaos, some countries flip-flopping all over the place, local putsches, and so on. Lots and lots of death and destruction. But I don't see a conflict between two opposing organized world forces like happened with Germany twice. I see several dynamic configurations coming in and out of existence, not static ones like before.

I attribute a major factor for this to greater ease of communication. Not for leaders, but for the populations.

Now, if that gets knocked out, say by nuclear bombs exploding in the skies of the major technological countries and emitting massive electromagnetic pulses (incapacitating most of the electronics below), then I can see a two-way polarity emerging.

Then I see the possibility of "clash of civilizations." But for all Islamic countries to band into a common group of enemy nations on a world war level, it would need to be built on the ignorance of the diverse populations that can only happen with a massive shut down of communications. And even then, such unity would take years, if not decades, to coalesce.

The Ottoman Empire is now history and that's where I expect it will remain. It's foundation rotted over time and that's why it finally fell apart. You can't rebuild former glory on rot.

As for communism, I think similar things could be said (especially about communication). But there's a huge difference. It is far younger than any of the world's major social systems, so some of its realities are different--the major one being its growing assimilation of capitalism (the opposite economic philosophy) in order to survive, and this happening before it got solidified by centuries of existence. So, culturally, I think it is weak right now, although militarily, I believe a few communist countries are major threats.

That's my opinion.

Michael

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. Even in WWII there were many splinters and infighting going on. It is only takes 3 small well placed EMP weapons to knock out the US electrical grid. Just one - not well place primitive EMP would cause real problems. A little Google search on Muslim nations and their food imports shows that a shock to our price of gasoline will cause food to become unaffordable to much of the Muslim world - leading to a situation like Egypt all over the Muslim world. In such a circumstance it will not be difficult for those with Islamo-Fascist tendencies to find a willing audience. Fascism found a place in the Muslim world during the last world war - I don't believe much as changed in that respect.

Dennis

An EMP attack on the U.S. would result in an immediate massive nuclear bombardment of whoever we think did it. We are talking about war that will kill over a billion people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Splintering also means bad news in that there will never be a resolution - the war will not end. It is not obvious that containment will be effective even if the threat is reduced at some point. WoMD and asymmetric warfare changes the nature of the problem. This clash of civilizations is about more than Syria or Iran. The financial collapse will just fuel the fire when starvation hits the Islamic street and they blame the West.

Dennis,

I certainly don't mean to downplay the threat of what a world war would mean. Nor the threat of Islamism. I just don't believe a global war would be as homogeneous as phrases like "clash of civilizations" implies. Not even with respect to the Islamic world.

I just don't see how all the different Islamic countries could ever come under a Caliphate again. There are many prominent Muslims who want that, but there are also way too many aspirants to the title with fundamental disagreements (both within the religion and outside it) for that to happen. Maybe if there is some major fluke or a humongous disaster (man-made or otherwise) resulting in massive deaths of a large chunk of humankind--I'm talking in the billions. Maybe then it could happen.

In the event of a world war, I do see a great deal of chaos, some countries flip-flopping all over the place, local putsches, and so on. Lots and lots of death and destruction. But I don't see a conflict between two opposing organized world forces like happened with Germany twice. I see several dynamic configurations coming in and out of existence, not static ones like before.

I attribute a major factor for this to greater ease of communication. Not for leaders, but for the populations.

Now, if that gets knocked out, say by nuclear bombs exploding in the skies of the major technological countries and emitting massive electromagnetic pulses (incapacitating most of the electronics below), then I can see a two-way polarity emerging.

Then I see the possibility of "clash of civilizations." But for all Islamic countries to band into a common group of enemy nations on a world war level, it would need to be built on the ignorance of the diverse populations that can only happen with a massive shut down of communications. And even then, such unity would take years, if not decades, to coalesce.

The Ottoman Empire is now history and that's where I expect it will remain. It's foundation rotted over time and that's why it finally fell apart. You can't rebuild former glory on rot.

As for communism, I think similar things could be said (especially about communication). But there's a huge difference. It is far younger than any of the world's major social systems, so some of its realities are different--the major one being its growing assimilation of capitalism (the opposite economic philosophy) in order to survive, and this happening before it got solidified by centuries of existence. So, culturally, I think it is weak right now, although militarily, I believe a few communist countries are major threats.

That's my opinion.

Michael

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. Even in WWII there were many splinters and infighting going on. It is only takes 3 small well placed EMP weapons to knock out the US electrical grid. Just one - not well place primitive EMP would cause real problems. A little Google search on Muslim nations and their food imports shows that a shock to our price of gasoline will cause food to become unaffordable to much of the Muslim world - leading to a situation like Egypt all over the Muslim world. In such a circumstance it will not be difficult for those with Islamo-Fascist tendencies to find a willing audience. Fascism found a place in the Muslim world during the last world war - I don't believe much as changed in that respect.

Dennis

An EMP attack on the U.S. would result in an immediate massive nuclear bombardment of whoever we think did it. We are talking about war that will kill over a billion people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Including starvation I would estimate well over 2 billion.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an attack would be small warhead targeted military assets, not 1 megaton city busters of the 1960s.

Casualties in the billions are problematic to say the least. Most would come from starvation.

--Brant

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such an attack would be small warhead targeted military assets, not 1 megaton city busters of the 1960s.

Casualties in the billions are problematic to say the least. Most would come from starvation.

--Brant

Disease and starvation during the economic dislocations of war are historically the largest sources of casualties. In total war the US will expend nearly all of its smart weapons in the opening days or weeks. Libya saw the Europeans expend all of theirs in no time. After the conventional smart weapons are all gone you run into the issue of lack of wepaons, transport and troops for conventional war. Then either you sit at home or you gear up for an updated version of WWII that no one will have the stomach for. It is not clear that anyone will really want to use nuclear weapons but the splinter groups will if they have them.

Dennis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis wrote:

In total war the US will expend nearly all of its smart weapons in the opening days or weeks.

END QUOTE??

Oh, come on. First off, I read that an Electro Magnetic Pulse can NOW be generated from the back of ONE pick up truck which can cover thousands of square miles. More pick up trucks is a possibility. A nuclear bomb at stratospheric levels is obsolete.

The depletion of nuclear weapons in an all out war is possible but not probable. The guys in charge of that are as rational and dispassionate as Apollo astronauts.

Peter Taylor

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now