World War III

reply to post by GargIndia

Chaos is what America uses to thrive,we do it by independent thinking so anything is indeed possible with the right ideas. That is the equation.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


This is the worry.

Spreading chaos around the world while expecting to live in peace.

I have studied US strategy greatly since about 1998. I have discussed the strategy with many people.

The US strategy has many diehard fans (Asians too).

However the strategy has pitfalls which are great as well. The biggest flaw is high cost. The next is uncertain outcome, specially when faced with a great and determined adversary.

While USSR died, the reason of its death are more its own internal problems rather than what USA did. I know USA claimed victory but I think such a claim is irrelevant. USSR's biggest problem was a lack of communists. The majority never believed in communism so the regime turned repressive to keep the majority in line. This turned to apathy and low productivity which ultimately led to economic doom. The failure of USSR lies in the economic failure of the socialist system.

USA has turned increasingly socialist by increasing government jobs and welfare programs. This is communism by backdoor. Hard to say how it can be good when it failed elsewhere.

Increasing welfare because if they dont they will have riots on their hands possibly. I don't think the USA are anywhere near commie.

Bankrupted, Trying to Maintain Power, On the March, On the Back Foot but not Commie?

reply to post by GargIndia


Russia fell back and is regrouping.I myself don't need to spread the American way anywhere.It is based on a trust from the citizenry because it is quite hard to figure out and hard work is what it requires.
As I think we are about to see,the majority doesn't see eye to eye with these few.

An interesting article - Russia, the West and World War II

www.counterpunch.org...

This article also proves the misconception about communism - that American or British capitalism are opposed to Russian communism, or have been always so.

The communist Russia was an "ally" of capitalist USA in world war II. So how "communism" became a war cry in the United States?

The unfortunate reality is that all governments are resorting to propaganda. They want to fool the public by creating enemies so that they can spend tax payer money as they wish. The military industrial complex and the oil cartel have ruled USA because they paid the leaders, and got them to do their bidding.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by GargIndia

 

Russia fell back and is regrouping.I myself don't need to spread the American way anywhere.It is based on a trust from the citizenry because it is quite hard to figure out and hard work is what it requires.
As I think we are about to see,the majority doesn't see eye to eye with these few.

Russia is still not strong enough to be called a super-power. It should be called a regional power. However Russia has recovered enough that it is no pushover.

I worry about China though. China has the technology now for producing modern weapons. It has the industrial base in producing micro-electronics and advanced materials. China can easily put 10 million people in its war effort without hurting its civilian economy.

I do not measure super powers by number of nuclear weapons. China is closing the gap fast with the USA in normal measures of military power.

Originally posted by guidetube
Increasing welfare because if they dont they will have riots on their hands possibly. I don't think the USA are anywhere near commie.

Bankrupted, Trying to Maintain Power, On the March, On the Back Foot but not Commie?

50 million people are on welfare, and another 50 million may be dependent on government spending outrageous amount of money.

Around 60% of labor force in the USA are dependent on government policy to support their livelihood.

What else is the definition of communism?

Points about NATO and European security:

1. Over the past 20 years, defense budgets of European countries have halved. The armed conflict in Libya, when the United States played the leading military role, was quite indicative at this point. In 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the United States would withdraw from NATO in the event allies continued to cut their defense forces. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder said not that long ago that the U.S. would not be able to fund European defense for long.

2. The U.S. spends 4 percent of its GDP on defense, while the spending of France and the UK accounts for 2 percent. Other non-NATO countries spend even less. China spends 7.8 percent of GDP on its defense system.

3. European politicians and statesmen are very reluctant to finance Washington's ambitions in different parts of the globe.

I see USA and Europe pulling in different direction in future. There will be more dis-agreement than agreement. There will be budget pressures in European countries worse than USA that will curtail their choices.

NEGATIVE. What happened to the USSR was a completely calculated move by Reagan and the administration. Please go do some research and avoid places like the Washington Post and the NY times LOL.

The US knew that Russia was trying to match them in defense spending and they also knew (while it was gamble) that if they continued to spend like crazy, the Ruskies would as well and they would spend themselves into economic oblivion.

It worked.

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by cavtrooper7

 

This is the worry.

Spreading chaos around the world while expecting to live in peace.

I have studied US strategy greatly since about 1998. I have discussed the strategy with many people.

The US strategy has many diehard fans (Asians too).

However the strategy has pitfalls which are great as well. The biggest flaw is high cost. The next is uncertain outcome, specially when faced with a great and determined adversary.

While USSR died, the reason of its death are more its own internal problems rather than what USA did. I know USA claimed victory but I think such a claim is irrelevant. USSR's biggest problem was a lack of communists. The majority never believed in communism so the regime turned repressive to keep the majority in line. This turned to apathy and low productivity which ultimately led to economic doom. The failure of USSR lies in the economic failure of the socialist system.

USA has turned increasingly socialist by increasing government jobs and welfare programs. This is communism by backdoor. Hard to say how it can be good when it failed elsewhere.

The "different direction" will only happen becaus eof who is in power and how the economy is doing. The US economy is picking up steam.

Originally posted by GargIndia
Points about NATO and European security:

1. Over the past 20 years, defense budgets of European countries have halved. The armed conflict in Libya, when the United States played the leading military role, was quite indicative at this point. In 2011, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the United States would withdraw from NATO in the event allies continued to cut their defense forces. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder said not that long ago that the U.S. would not be able to fund European defense for long.

2. The U.S. spends 4 percent of its GDP on defense, while the spending of France and the UK accounts for 2 percent. Other non-NATO countries spend even less. China spends 7.8 percent of GDP on its defense system.

3. European politicians and statesmen are very reluctant to finance Washington's ambitions in different parts of the globe.

I see USA and Europe pulling in different direction in future. There will be more dis-agreement than agreement. There will be budget pressures in European countries worse than USA that will curtail their choices.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
NEGATIVE. What happened to the USSR was a completely calculated move by Reagan and the administration. Please go do some research and avoid places like the Washington Post and the NY times LOL.

Nothing like that was calculated. Reagan's job was to refresh military industrial complex that suffered under the Carter administration. The Star Wars was a nice and very expensive option, and so Reagan started to demonize the Soviet Union - he presented the American public with an "Evil empire" in the east against which the Americans must protect themselves to keep dreaming the American dream. What followed surprised everyone: The Russians bought the fairy tail about America being technologically capable of building an effective antinuclear missile umbrella! Since the Russian currency was not the reserve currency, they couldn't borrow like the Americans did to deal with the new American defense technology. Also, after being militarily humiliated during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the new leader Leonid Brezhnev vowed that the Soviet Union will never blink again, and the Soviets started an unprecedented military build up, which cost them enormous amount of money and was hurting their economy. When Gorbachev came to power, he inherited a mess. So he decided to deal with it through negotiations and planned to substantially ease the tension between the two superpowers. Reagan of course didn't like the idea and flatly said to Gorbachev that the development of the anti-missile shield couldn't be stopped - The American people must feel save. Lol.

Anyway... The USA did greatly contribute to the world peace by policing the world after WWII. Who knows how that war would end up without the US entering it. But the heydays of joyful spending are over and the USA may lose the important benefit of supplying the world with the reserve currency in the future. Junking the dollar would amount to a fiscal catastrophe and the USA would have a hard time to flex its muscle as a cop of the world. The US strategic military influence around the world will diminish as an consequence and that may lead to unchecked regional conflicts which may erupt to something more substantial, depending on the interest of China, Russia or other militarily capable countries. The chances of WWIII being fought in this century are probably small, but the scenario is not impossible.

reply to post by princeofpeace


USSR was bound to fail due to the huge inertia that built up in that society.

People want good houses, good civic infrastructure, and good pay. The USSR economy failed to provide people what they wanted.

If USSR could meet the aspirations of the people, it could have survived despite what Reagan did.

I know about currency manipulation. How ruble was depreciated by international bankers forcing USSR to defend the ruble and thus waste precious gold and foreign currency reserves.

However none of this worked if USSR was strong.

You trying doing the same to China and you will fail. Why? Because Chinese are much smarter. Chinese made weapons using Soviet designs are much better quality that USSR made ones.

My conclusion is that people work hard when their aspirations are met. Otherwise you get a labor force with no desire to work.

reply to post by tremex


I think it is more economic ideology and technology that helped USA in post world war II scenario.

USA did not block economic development of the vanquished states like British empire did with India. American ideas of private industry and free trade were the magnets that attracted a lot of people.

American power is as much a "soft" power as it is a "military" power.

The USSR tried but failed to be a "soft" power. It was only a "military" power.

reply to post by JoeP2247

I agree with your prediction of 2014, and according the Bible, it will distory about 1/4 populaton of this world. this worldly event also called the Forth Seal,the pale horse.
the difference is, no more this kind of war after ww3, because nuclear weapeon will be used, the mordern civilization will be destorid.

Israel may have used tactical nukes of small yields (100-150 ton of TNT) in Syria.

Please see this old American documentary:
www.youtube.com...

Compare with videos from Syria:
www.youtube.com...

The attack on arms depot in Latakia is similar.

There are obvious advantages of using tactical nukes due to small size of the bomb that can be carried by any fighter. However it reduces the nuclear threshold.

Another video:

www.youtube.com...

The core of the smoke cloud is quite hot as it rises, as clearly seen in this picture.

The blast from conventional explosive turns into kinetic force and heat and flash last very briefly. This blast does not conform to the behavior of conventional explosives.

The size of the the blast is quite large and cannot be the result of conventional bombs carried by F-16 jets.

2006 - Peak of American power. A decline has set since.

2020 - USD is unlikely to last through 2020.

2016 - Euro is unlikely to last through 2016

Will shale oil save America - No.

Can USA survive - if USA changes its mindset of solving economic problems through war. Otherwise writing is on the wall.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Given the nukes in Pakistan I would change "China-Burma-India" (early ww2) to China-Pak-India but even that model fails to take into account the growing tensions and prophecied global conflict focused in the middle east.

I'm not to fawnd of the idea of WW3. That would suck. I mean it depends on a lot of factors really. But the major cities are gone. So whoever it remaining migrate to the smaller towns to live. Now everyone is living this archaic life in small towns, probably under martial law. Like that would suck. I guess you'd probably at least be fed. But you probably wouldn't be able to go live your big dreams anymore. What would be more interesting is one of these scenarios where a virus wipes out most people. But somehow you end up being one of the last survivors. Now that to me would be interesting. Not that I'd want that. But I'm just saying compared to like ww3 where everything is radioactive and messed up, it would be a bit more of an adventure. Anyway, hopefully nothing happens.

reply to post by GargIndia

The U.S.S.R. was socialist in name only, in reality it was communist / collectivist.

Socialism in it's most true form has never been allowed to exist in the world, because it removes power from those who desire power.

This "Desire for Power" is the basis of capitalism, communism and collectivism, and it is the reason for endless wars.

Most people who open their pie-hole and talk about how they think things should be are referring to those limited choices they have been led to believe there are so few of, when in actuality there are plenty of ways to live happily on this planet without the economic disparity between countries and races, without war.

It is possible to have a planet without war, if only people could remember the past. There is always conflict when resources become scarce, but resources are controlled by few to sell for profit to the many, remove contrived scarcity and you reduce conflict. Ever notice how most major conflicts and wars begin with sanctions?, that means one country is trying to coerce another to behave in a certain way. Nobody likes being coerced.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if that "New World Order" people ramble about may not be a good thing, maybe the "Old World Order" is really the only thing with power enough to fight the changes some are trying to make for the betterment of the entire planet and everyone and everything on it.

I am pretty much just a rambling around now, not making any specific point because the things I am using to try to explain what I mean do not yet exist. Everyone knows what they need to survive, let's start there and see where it ends up.

It's difficult trying to keep rival gangs out on the middle school playground from getting in each other's faces, because they are children and know no better, the whole world acts in a similar fashion.