Will There Be A Near-Future Global War? - jordan179
Will There Be A Near-Future Global War?|
Will there be another major war in our lifetime? Will the missiles fly, and the mushroom clouds rise as colossal cenotaphs over the graves of entire cities? Will America once again be in a position similar to that which we were in 1945?
I once didn't think it would, because I thought that the lessons of the 1930's - 1940's, coupled with the fears of the Cold War, were so obvious -- and the strength of the Free World so great -- that another World War would never happen in my lifetime. At most I feared one or two medium-sized wars on the on the Asian margins.
But the West seems to be in the most delusional or suicidal mode that I've ever seen it,worse in some ways than we were in the 1930's (it's not producing immediate catastrophe mainly because our enemies are right now relatively weaker than they were back then). America has not only launched onto a course of diplomatic and economic self-destruction, but confirmed that course in the 2012 elections. Europe is admitting swarms of openly-hostile immigrants and destroying its own liberties in a quest to suppress any voices who object to this. India's own democratic system has been corrupted in ways giving its own Muslim population an influence out of proportion to its numbers.
Outside the West, our main international rivals seem to have embarked upon an utterly-insane course of diplomacy. Russia, with a declining demographic and Muslim enemies right on its doorstep, has apparently-decided that its long-term enemy is America and its long-term interests lie in blocking by armed threat any action to stop the Terrorist States from acquiring nuclear weapons. In other words, the one country that you'd think would have had a memory of the mistakes that led up to World War II seared into its soul at such a level that it would never forget it is reprising the NAZI-SOVIET PACT. If that's not the definition of a national deathwish, I don't know what would be.
China's, unfortunately, being quite rational in opposing us, because China's own Muslim minority is relatively minor and in a totalitarian society easily suppressed: if they make too much trouble, they can always be assigned some new work projects that they won't survive. They figure that they can get the Muslims to make just enough trouble for us that they can snap up some of the countries on their border. They may well be right, though I doubt they'll get Japan -- too easy for the Japanese to build missile defenses and offensive missiles.
I think we're just 5-10 years at most on our current course from an outbreak of actual large-scale global war, and if we avoid this fate it will be because of the tension being drawn off (and the Terrorist States themselves literally cauterized, as in many of their cities being burned to ashes and large portions of their populations killed) by medium-scale nuclear warfare on the Asian margins. Because of the massive infiltration of Muslims into Europe, this is probably going to collapse Europe's economy; because of Muslim aggressions against Russia, also completely abort any Russian economic growth. Meanwhile, Pakistan and India are very likely to be two of the countries that actually fight an atomic war, and China and Japan might go at it as well.
Come 2025 or so, America (and maybe Australia) might well be the only major industrialized parts of the world that don't have significant damage from nuclear attack. Maybe (shades of de Camp) Brazil and the rest of South America will be similarly lucky.
But -- unless we get a really competent President in office in 2017 -- I don't see any way out of this. Obama is either an incompetent or an outright traitor -- I can't figure out which. A similar successor would be a disaster for the whole world. And we may GET one.
Tags: diplomacy, nuclear, strategy
Incompetent or traitor Obama needs to be stopped because everything he's done in office has hurt this nation far, far more than he has helped. Moreover, if one of these wars break out before he leaves office he's largely left us in a position where we can do little to stop it by both diminishing the U.S.'s influence in foreign affairs and by reducing the strength of our military.
Incompetent or traitor Obama needs to be stopped because everything he's done in office has hurt this nation far, far more than he has helped
And the Constitution provides a remedy -- impeachment. Which is why a major Republican victory in 2014 could be really important to our nation's future.
Moreover, if one of these wars break out before he leaves office he's largely left us in a position where we can do little to stop it by both diminishing the U.S.'s influence in foreign affairs and by reducing the strength of our military.
Worse, there's a time lag between a new President taking office and his being able to actually implement major new defense spending and military reforms. We'll be vulnerable through 2017 and maybe through 2018 or 2019.
I think it's *very* likely that we will see the war you're describing.
The US is in decline. We are not going to be able to enforce "Pax Americana" for much longer. After "pax", you have "Bellum".
I don't see Islam as quite the threat you do. Primitive screw-heads do not win wars against modern technological militaries. Which is why Russia and China are both dealing with the Islamic world as allies, they know that when the time comes, they CAN annihilate the Islamic world without breaking a sweat. But there will be war nonetheless.
Japan is in a very precarious military situation. They're an Island without much in the way of natural resources. Furthermore, they have taken the suicidally insane step of mothballing their nuclear plants. This means that you don't *have* to invade or bomb, you can blockade and wait a little while, and go in, not as invading army, but as *savior* to the starving hordes. Japan produces only half of their own food.
Furthermore, it would be *stupid* for China to attempt to invade Japan storm style. The "prize" of Japan is it's industrial capacity, and warfare tends to destroy that. However, starving them out, accepting their surrender, and installing a puppet government keeps it. South Korea, as a peninsula with only North Korea as it's only land connection has the same problem.
I don't see Islam as quite the threat you do. Primitive screw-heads do not win wars against modern technological militaries.
Your second sentence does not address your first sentence as fully as you imagine. Islam is a threat by infiltration (especially in Europe where they have opened their doors wide and invited the Muslims in) and due to its willingness to launch attacks without regard to retaliation.
The threat is not that Islam will conquer the world -- it can't -- but rather that Islam will do a lot of damage in the attempt.
The Muslim strategy is simple. Attack, induce non-Muslims to kill lots of Muslims by having Muslims kill lots of non-Muslims, and then when God directly intervenes on their side step into world dominion.
The delusional part of their strategy has been bolded for your convenience. The fact that it will not happen does not mean that the Muslims, who believe their own delusions, will not do the italicized part of the strategy in order to achieve it. The fact that God will not in fact intervene when the vindictive missiles of the West and Russia begin raining down on Teheran and Islamabad and Karachi and Damascus does not mean that the dead of Rome and Tel Aviv and Mumbai or whatever cities they destroy to generate the needed provocation will spring happily back to life afterward. Nor will the economic and social damage done by such destruction vanish after such a successful retaliation.
Yes, the question: Is Obama merely an incompetent, though a dangerous one, or an out and out traitor? I don't know either. Or, maybe a little of both...
I am also worried about a huge global war, and it becomes more likely each day. Islam is something to worry about, and take very seriously, which is odd, given that it appears to be stuck now in the Middle Ages. I agree that the damage they do, which could be catastrophic, could be epic and -- while I doubt they will win... we had better start taking them more seriously. And, of course, the left is in their holding hands with them...
I do hope this all does not happen. It might not, but --
And, of course, the left is in there holding hands with them.
One of the most astonishing development has been the degree to which the Left has been willing to ally with radical Islam, despite the fact that the Muslim fundamentalists are opposed to every positive value the Left claims to hold. This demonstrates that the modern Left has become entirely negative: they will support anyone who is against the West, no matter what else the anti-Westerners are also against. The modern Left has become a purely negative, even nihilistic, force in history.
I think "nihilistic" in effect is absolutely true. Entirely destructive... It is astonishing, and it has to be a weak spot in pulling people away from the left, persuading otherwise reasonable people that the left is on the wrong side of history, in a dangerous way. Their odd alliance with radical Islam is one of the key factors that got me looking elsewhere. However, most people who are leftist are not inclined to look too far afield, though I think when you scratch the surface, many are put off by Islam's treatment of women and gay people. But they choose to ignore it, or -- even excuse it. I will never understand that. This may change however, we can only hope.
Part of it is that the Leftists are very parochial people. They don't really see anyone outside their own tiny social worlds as being real, and their tiny social worlds tend not to be directly affected by radical Islam. It's easy for them to intellectually sacrifice not-real people to the "greater good" of showing up their political opponents.
I think you have something there. I just got back to the Bay Area, to stay at least until I am driven elsewhere by cost of living and left wing loons (my adorable friends and peers to one degree or another, I do love them but...) -- I do get hits of this parochialism again. A good friend at one point told me a week ago that she really believes that 40% of all the people outside California, out in the rest of the US - are hardcore fundamentalist Christians who believe in that father daughter bonding ritual where the daughter promises to stay a virgin for her father and exchanges a ring. Some kind of promise ritual... I told her flat out, that I had recently lived in "fly over country" and believe me, this was NOT TRUE. That group of Christians are a minority. She insisted it was true, and that she would never, ever want to live there or go there to find out -- to 'fly over country." The contempt and willful ignorance was astounding. I think she ended up believing it was possible I was right and said, "I hope you are right." But, this just never fails to astound me. She's far from atypical. So yeah, they are in a fantasy world about the rest of the country, and feel very smug and superior.
Edited at 2014-02-22 09:01 pm (UTC)
And, by the way, once I settle in - we will have to get together for coffee or beer or what ever - for a chat. I need some buddies out here in left wing loon land! Haha - I know many are not that way, but I do immediately feel the difference in thinking. Maybe in March or April - soonish. If you like!
I would love to meet with you some time. :)
Not only is it untrue that most Americans off the coasts are Christian fundamentalists, and untrue that most Christian fundamentalists have elaborate ritual virginity pledges (it's more like it's seen as a bad thing to have sex not intended to at least lead to marriage) I think it's amusing that her concept of the "evil" of being Christian is pre-marital female virginity. It shows a certain lack of comprehension of the depths to which humans can really descend: the obvious example being that the Muslim fundamentalists whom we're supposed to tolerate not only believe in pre-marital female virgnity but in enforcing it by killing daughters who have sex before marriage, a practice which would utterly horrify the vast majority of Christian fundamentalists.
Not that I think that premarital female virgnity is bad. Nor that it should be required. My sexual morality could be summed up as believing that people should save sex for those they really love, and that marriage is a good outcome of love; however, that it is wrong to persecute other people for their romantic or sexual choices.
It's also just as untrue that New Englanders are all a bunch of liberal nutcases who want to take all your freedoms away.
Most people citing cases of this are actually talking about New York in general and NYC in particular, which most of New England sees as a neat place to take a day trip sometimes, but generally a hive of scum and villainy.
Trying to describe New Englander liberals and conservatives to someone who lives Down South can get really interesting and bizarre. For instance, nobody outside of New England seems to understand the latest development in Connecticut, which I figured as a foregone conclusion... roughly 96% of the population, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in *equal measure*, are simply refusing to cooperate with the new gun laws that were shoved through by Obama supporters in questionable ways.
If Connecticut becomes oppressive enough to leave, I would probably go to New Hampshire and join the libertarian movement, even though I'm not a libertarian.
I wonder, though, what she imagines would happen to her in "flyover country?" I've lived in a rural, backwater part of New Jersey (the coast near the Pine Barrens) which was pretty heavily Christian -- this meant that a high percentage of the town went to church, not that they conducted regular witch-burnings. I had a Christian girlfriend there, and sometimes went to church with her even though I'm not Christian. They were pretty nice people. I wouldn't have wanted them running Natural History Museums, but they were basically kind, and even tolerant of dissent.
Yeah,she's not trans, and she is straight, so who knows? I mean, it is nothing obvious... she's an artist, a screenwriter who hates Hollywood. She's whip smart and has had an unconventional life, but one does wonder... what is the fear really, again - nothing obvious. I know the choice thing is big, though she's past the age of childbearing and she's been married for a long time, but who knows.
It was an interesting conversation. She did want to talk politics and I was not in the mood to get into any disagreements (my birthday dinner) but she asked me a question I do find interesting as I was not sure how to answer, and was even shocked in some way at how she asked, "You support Israel... WHY DO YOU CARE?" She's Jewish BTW... she really thinks Israel is the cause of so much that is bad in the world and that our support of them will bring us down. I did defend Israel... but, she was unconvinced. I did not know how to answer since it seems now so obvious to me why I should and do care... she really doesn't, even though she had relatives who perished in the holocaust. And, of course, that idea that Israel is the cause of so much that is bad is just another variation of "the Jews are to blame"... I guess I should have asked her, "How can you not care?"
She's a great friend and has a stimulating mind but how does one even begin to explain...
We should care about what happens to Israel because Israel is the only real liberal democracy in that part of world, and one of the few countries in the Mideast which has been even roughly a consistent ally of the United States of America and opponent of international terrorism over the last half-century. Americans should care because a good portion of the Israeli population is of American descent -- when the Terrorists attack Israel they often wind up killing Americans.
Jews should care because the hostility against Israel on the part of Muslims is based mainly on the fact that its people are majority-Jewish, and if the Terrorists succeeded in wiping out Israel they would continue to attack Jews worldwide just because they would still be Jewish. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that Muslim Terrorists attack Jewish community centers worldwide, even though these centers are neither owned, operated nor patronized to any significant degree by Israelis.
Most deeply, Jews should care because the principle being defended in attacking Israel is "Jews don't have the right to defend themselves; if they try we must punish them severely for their temerity." This is evident in the fact that Israel is condemned for ordinary actions of self-defense which almost nobody but a country's bordering enemies would normally condemn a nation-state. The principle here is that Jews are less than other people, and Jews around the world should realize that it applies to them too.
|Date:||March 4th, 2014 03:13 am (UTC)|| |
I assume nobody's saying the Left has a monopoly on stilted opinions, parochialism, wacky beliefs, or feeling "smug and superior." In my opinion The Stupid tends to be pretty well-distributed.
That's part of why I like reading through the content here... it's right-leaning, but thoughtful and with some foundation presented rather than "I feel this way because [Jesus, McCain, Fox News] told me to." And, correspondingly, the opinions that are arrived at here are much more plausible!
It seems like you're (collectively) hitting on a paradox about representative democracy. Is it better to be a benevolent dictator and do what's best for the country? Does any one person know what really (REALLY) is best?? Or is it better to give people what many claim to want, as far as less defense spending (a loooong time rallying point), getting troops and resources out of stale conflicts, getting more in line with the rest of the English-speaking world in terms of social programs, etc. All of these things have tradeoffs, of course, and some will be more significant than people realize in the short term, no question.
That all said, I don't know about the doom-and-gloom, but it's definitely going to be an "interesting" several years. Global stability certainly doesn't seem to be on the upswing.