DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Collapse
HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1383--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: RE Date: October 24, 2021, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fighting as a bloc, certainly together the Ruskies and Chinese
have more firepower than the FSoA. Any 2 of the 3 allied are
more powerful than the one left alone. It's still a war that
cannot be won militarily, and all sides know this.
The potential does exist for large scale "terrorism", such as
for instance as you mention poisonimg the water flowing down
from the Himalayas. Those actions though can always be blamed
on 3rd party "rogue" states. The North Koreans could be
provoked to send missiles at Japan. The Saudis could be
provoked to bomb Iranian Oil fields. etc. None of it makes any
economic sense, and no action of this kind will save the
monetary system.
As to the stability of the Russian and Chinese Goobermints, I
don't think either is more stable than the FSoA. Chinese
stability won't last long with lights out, no heat and closed
factories. Vlad the Impaler may be popular, but he is popular
with a rapidly dwindling population which is all that he polls
to get those numbers. I doubt he is near so popular as you move
east and south out of Moscow.
Computer hacking is definitely a means for one of the Big 3 to
destabilize the others, but I think all are capable of it and
all already do it. I think all are equally capable of it. All
have good Geek Squads. lol. This is economic warfare, and it is
ongoing. So far though, nobody has launched a Hydrogen Bomb
level computer virus because it would take down all 3 economies.
It is Mutually Assured Destruction on the economic level.
Projecting the eventual Civil War in the FSoA, it won't be as
simple as the North-South divide of the 19th Century. The
conflict will be multi-polar, based of the 4 Rs. Region,
Resources, Race & Religion. Back in Diner Days, I projected 8
Regions to form out of the crumbling FSoA & Canada. Each region
will have its own internal conflicts based on the other 3
variables. In a word, it will be very messy.
Meanwhile, I did score today 2 more beef fillets at the low, low
price of $12.99/lb! :)
RE
#Post#: 1389--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: K-Dog Date: October 24, 2021, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The question this leaves us with is which of the 3 main
powers will be FIRST to descend into anarchy and Civil War?
Opinions welcome.[/quote]
Is this supposed to be a hard question?
Hint1: The main power in question is currently in a
pre-revolutionary state. It's citizens are without compass and
believe nonsense as belief even in the false is better than
having no belief at all. The brain abhors a vacuum. For those
who have a brain. The brains of many citizens of this main
power resemble hot-house vegetables of questionable nutrition.
#Post#: 1391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: K-Dog Date: October 24, 2021, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Anarchy is preferred to tyranny for me,[/quote]
I am fine with a personal preference. But:
What puts TP on the shelves. One Brand is better than no brand.
[img
width=170]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.3bnKm2wK6uFyzn_2lS-FLwHaEb%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img][img<br
/>width=135]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.kGIF2wsQmcHbDgDhUCV1GQHaFm%26pid%3DApi&f=1[/img][img<br
/>width=192]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fagnituslife.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F04%2FCorncob-Toilet-Paper-1140x606.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
Which one is Anarchy?
#Post#: 1392--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: Phil Potts Date: October 24, 2021, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Pentagon's computer wargaming shows it can't win against
China alone or Russia alone, not just as a block. It's just the
proximity problem. Yet they seem to be going ahead. That raises
the question of who is really in control, who talks about need
to depopulate. That would be the financiers of wars.
A full nuke exchange can't be won because it destroys all life
on earth. the Russians and Chinese have plans for moving a
large segment of population inland away from radioactive cities
if necessary. It may not come to that though. There may be only
a conventional war between the 3 majors.
I meant a tactical nuke exchange in open war between India and
China in the himalayas. We are working hard on supporting
India's expansion there at Pakistan and China's expense, as a
second front.
We can't have it both ways that both overpopulation and
declining population are collapse. Declining population is only
a problem with the GDP growth based paradigm and that's over
anyway. There is now the final transfer of assett ownership
underway, just look at how something like 2 trillion $ were
moved in the past two years.
Chinese factories are not ALL closed and the ones that have been
is not permanent. For the US bound exports it makes no
difference when there are so many container ships waiting to be
unloaded anyway. For everyone else waiting on things in
shortage, it means high prices and slow delivery times. That's
one more reason we can't have continued growth, either there is
a lot less consumption not just of goods but also energy, or
there are less people. It makes sense to have less high
consumers of energy. That's us.
#Post#: 1394--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: K-Dog Date: October 24, 2021, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If the Chinese and Russians manage to develop low cost
hyper-sonic missiles all the 18 wheelers in America could be
taken out at once. No nuclear war, game over.
[img
width=400]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.globaltimes.cn%2FPortals%2F0%2Fattachment%2F2021%2F2021-10-24%2Fc0005141-604e-460b-a923-e364b5d26cdc.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
HTML https://youtu.be/n5DOEqXN8d4
#Post#: 1400--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: RE Date: October 24, 2021, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
An intercontinental war with missiles with conventional warheads
is conceivable, and you don't need hypersonic missiles or target
trucks to do it. Just use ICBM with MIRV warheads and target
all refineries, oil & gas storage hubs, power genrating
facilities, electrical substations and transformers,
telecommunications routers, sattelites, miltary bases and
Goobermint headquarters. Instant Anarchy everywhere!
This however is not Invasion and does no faction of the
Illuminati any good economically. Everyone ends up in an
economic sewer. To maintain control, the Illuminati must keep
all these systems operational. These Conduits are the means of
control.
I still maintain the position that direct Global military
conflict between the Big 3 is unlikely. The vulnerability of
shipping anything across the oceans, soldiers, oil or gas makes
it impossible for armies to invade and occupy. Without the
boots on the ground, you can't control the population. You can
Bomb them back to the Stone Age, this has been tried even with
smaller countries like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. All
failed. The technique won't work any better on a larger
opponent.
So it's thrust & parry, and see who holds together longest.
RE
#Post#: 1402--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: Digwe Must Date: October 24, 2021, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=RE link=topic=70.msg1373#msg1373 date=1635017095]
The last BIG invasios took place in WWII The Nazis invaded all
of continental Europe, quite successfully for a while. The
tactic was Speed & Surprize, the BLITZKRIEG. However, they
never were able to invade Britain, just a short hop across the
English Channel. Nor could they invade the Scandinavian
countries across the North Sea. They remained neutral for the
duration of the war. Nor could they invade Switzerland,
mountains are no good for tank battles. They tried and failed
to invade Mother Russia, but it was too big and the weather too
harsh.
The final invasion of WWII was a maritime one, D-Day. It had to
be carefully concealed for time and location, and even so was
extremely costly. The Brits never could have pulled it off by
themselve, it took the Amerikan entrance into the war to pull it
off.
The question this leaves us with is which of the 3 main powers
will be FIRST to descend into anarchy and Civil War? Opinions
welcome.
[/quote]
Well RE, you certainly know how to chum the water. Great,
important topic. I'm already impressed with what both you and
Phil Potts have to offer. I'm already late at working on an
important letter - but it rains again today and I'm going to
take the time to dip my toe in - since you asked.
Just to clear up two small points. The Germans invaded and
occupied Norway early on after a tough but brief fight. The
resistance continued throughout the war. It's an important
point because it tied up hundreds of thousands of German troops
who were already spread thin. The Germans also used Norwegian
ports as bases from which they harrassed the supply convoys
headed to Murmansk in the USSR.
D Day was certainly the big one, but the US invaded Iwo Jima and
Okinawa by sea (obviously) a bit later and there were amphibious
operations in the Philippines until the end of the war.
McArthur successfully used amphibious landings in the Korean
War. I think this helps reinforce your overall point about
similar invasions being impossible now. There were 1,300 US
ships and 50 British ships involved in the Okinawan invasion
alone. 39 aircraft carriers. For one small island and some
extremely determined defenders. The degree of naval superiority
and air superiority necessary to invade China would be nearly
impossible now. The over-the-horizon capabilities today
transform the entire concept. Of course, missile technology,
but I also read that the Russians have a very fast torpedo with
cross-ocean capability.
Aside from some energy there wouldn't be much point in an
amphibious invasion of Russia in the Pacific. An invasion of
Russia by land has enough history behind it to deter Europe or
the US, you'd think.
I just can't see a serious plan to invade the US by a major
power. Even when weakened by civil war and revolt, the logistics
would be incredibly daunting. And the occupation would be a tad
problematic for anyone. (Interesting piece of trivia that came
to light in German archives in the 1970s- Keiser Wilhelm of the
newly unified Germany on three different occasions had plans
drafted to invade the US starting around the time of the Spanish
American War. Their last plan was to invade Long Island and
take NY City with 100,000 men. They were sure the US would then
capitulate. I use this as an example of just how wrong national
leaders can be. - They actually started building ships.)
Besides, navies are very expensive. Phil Potts is on to
something about the dollar. The US navy's main purpose these
days is to enforce the dollar regime. They have to control the
main shipping lanes to do it. This is where I believe the most
dangerous risk of escalation due to miscalculation lies.
Of course any use of nukes, even an EMP in the upper atmosphere
or underwater to take out a carrier group would be suicidal.
Unfortunately for our species that has not been a deterrent for
major military folly - even in the recent past. Just ten years
before I was born Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in Operation
Barbarossa - the largest land invasion in recorded history.
Germany was already fighting in the Mediterranean, in North
Africa and as you noted, they hadn't been able to subdue and
occupy the Brits. Later that year Hitler declared war on the
US. In hindsight all this obviously was the suicidal folly of a
madman. Dead in the many millions, incalculable misery. His
country shattered. This obviously was not the plan, and that is
what scares me.
What did Afghanistan and Iraq cost? And these were relatively
small, geographically. Massive miscalculation.
I don't think the original purpose of a major war now would be
occupation. I see it as the inevitable fight over dwindling
resources. Capitulation and economic domination would be the
goal.
The potential for escalating beyond the original plan is the
difference between a collapsing empire and a collapsing
civilization. If one of the powers launched a conventional
missile attack on Galveston or the big oil facilities in the
gulf it would do the trick of taking out the US as an empire -
and there is no administration in the history of the US that
would not launch the big one in response.
PPs point about India vs China is well taken. The Chinese just
stopped exporting fertilizer to Pakistan and India. There will
be ripple effects. The radiation poisoning of the Himalayas
would also effect the "Stans between the Caspian Sea and the
Himalayas. Much of their water comes from the mountains.
We are already in a global Hobbsian struggle over resources.
The elites who control most financial activity can't want to see
their golden goose incinerated. But as has been noted, something
is sure the hell going on, and they have been known to make
mistakes.
The idea of a civil war in the US is gaining traction. However,
as you guys have noted, the geography is tricky. We have a very
mobile population. People move great distances to other regions
often with economic and cultural reasons being the drivers.
Sooner or later everybody goes to California, or at least it
seems that way. Folks in Texas are complaining that all the
Californians moving in are trying to bring LA and SF values with
them. Urban areas around the south are much less conservative
than in the past.
Here in Washington State there is a clear cultural divide along
the Cascade Range. The much more heavily populated west is a
lefty bastion. In the NE corner of the state, where I live,
Trump got over 70% of the vote in '16 - a little lower last
time. There has been a secession movement here to form the
state of "Liberty" with Eastern Oregon. There has also been the
birth of the Greater Idaho initiative with ballot measures in
eastern Oregon to join Idaho.
John Wesley Powell, an extraordinary guy, after mapping much of
the intermountain west 150 years ago, thought that state
boundaries should be along rivers and mountain ranges instead of
the giant rectangles. This would have made much more sense.
Our area has much more in common with northern Idaho and western
Montana than it does with Seattle or the Olympic Peninsula.
Climate, economic base, population density, ecotypes, culture,
all are noticeably different from a few hours west of here. It
is likely that this country's regions will eventually self
organize into zones with mutual interests and reasons to
cooperate. I don't know that a kid 100 years from now learning
geography (if the kid and studying still exist) will recognize
a political map of today's US. I suspect the boundaries of
administrative zones then will make more intuitive sense to the
kid.
Speaking generally, I think the decline of the huge nation-state
will follow the decline of energy availability. Of the 3 you
mention, Russia would seem to have the best reserve of
undeveloped energy. China has the least, domestically anyway.
The US still has energy - but we overconsume per capita.
I only know what I read on the subject, but I rate Russia as the
least likely for violent revolt at the present time. Much could
change quickly. Putin's plane goes down over the Urals and I'd
change my opinion. They have a unifying religion, plenty of
space, a world hungry for their main product, and a national
history of repression.
Russia's obvious weaknesses would be the lack of economic
diversity and climate change. Much of their infrastructure is
built on melting permafrost.
I get two conflicting reads on China. Economic powerhouse,
unstoppable accumulation of resources. Economic stranglehold on
the west. New terrifying weapons. New aggressive attitude.
Or, frantic, low quality production-construction, weighed down
by a lack of energy and resources, phenomenal crushing debt,
opaque accounting and corruption on a massive scale. Both can
lead to disaster. Are Xi and the CCP ready to lose face over
Taiwan? Flood after flood, they can't come close to feeding
themselves. Their air and water are polluted to an extreme.
The surrounding nations are getting together for defense and it
doesn't take a large leap to see either domestic trouble or war
for China. Or both. They rely so heavily on imports they have
many vulnerabilities in a conflict.
I see the US as ripe for kinetic conflict. I think war and
civil disturbance are inevitable. It is a chicken and egg
scenario. One will cause the other and round and round we'll
go. But I don't see a Red Dawn scenario. Even if an EMP took
down the entire grid and all went to hell in three days,
exploitation of the situation by a foreign power would still be
very difficult. It's a big place with many armed people who
might be just a tad unstable in that situation.
I worry more about domestic trouble first. We suddenly have
factions who know the only true path and are not troubled by
considering any opposing views. We have those on the corporate
left who will happily impose their view of the world on the rest
of us if given a chance. They know what is good for everyone
else and a giant government program will fix it- complete with
authoritarian rule and the right pronouns - as long as they run
the program. Only smart people in cities need apply. Bigger
problems just mean we need bigger government solutions
administered by the enlightened. Meanwhile, God is telling the
Christian right that he speaks through them and they need to
cleanse the earth of gays, refugees, Antifa, socialists, climate
science, CRT, taxes and abortion - for a start. They demand the
kids be born and then whoops they're on their own. God loves
you as long as you are wealthy and white - or at least can act
white.
Neither of these main groups, in my opinion, have much of a
grasp of our current situation. Just old tired ideas that will
keep the populace at each others throats while serving the
desires of their masters.
Our cities are generally deteriorating shitholes and our
infrastructure antiquated and failing. There is no plan.
The elite have successfully turned the little people against
each other while they rob them blind. This will end badly, and
pretty soon.
One more brief thought. Another player could incite a crisis
that gets out of control. North Korea, Iran, Israel, Turkey -
any of them could have a crisis or conflict that spreads rapidly
and with unforeseen consequences.
Phil Potts, how do you rate Australia's stability? Do you see
things staying together in a crisis? How tough can the
government be? Is there enough of them to hold down a
pissed-off populace?
I didn't mean to write War and Peace here, but I had an extra
coffee and lost control. - sorry
#Post#: 1403--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: Digwe Must Date: October 24, 2021, 9:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I should have tacked this on to my last post.
"We'll save Australia. Don't want to hurt no kangaroos."
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqBrw3rQvKo
#Post#: 1404--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: Phil Potts Date: October 24, 2021, 11:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Digwe Must link=topic=70.msg1403#msg1403
date=1635128075]
I should have tacked this on to my last post.
"We'll save Australia. Don't want to hurt no kangaroos."
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqBrw3rQvKo
[/quote]
The fat boy was my favourite Harley until I learned how it got
it's name.
To answer your question, the situation here is dire. All state
borders are blocked, let alone international travel. The
untermenschen lepers, you know who I mean, are fast becoming
prisoners. There were some recent very valiant efforts with
giant crowds of hundreds of thousands initially, but the
crackdown was brutal. It's now up to individuals to make their
Faustian bargains or not. It remains to be seen if holdouts will
be cut off from food shops and small businesses can find
workarounds.
Anti china sentiment is strong as in the US, nobody had heard of
uighers before 2018, now plenty are ready to go to war over them
and of course that's just a desire to save western hegemony.
I used to always wonder why various cities vied for hosting the
Olympics or various World cups, when the spending on new
stadiums etc was never recovered. It's because the politicians
are puppets of the rocker fellas and their ilk. Those stadiums
hold a lot of people and the train lines run to them, they not
only keep people without tickets out, but can prevent anyone
leaving. On top of that, gigantic quarantine centres have been
built, to which I expect all the pin cushions to gladly go when
they don't feel well in a few years.
I expect a too little too late recognition of adverse reactions
in a few weeks or months. That's a side show to being
immunocompromised and sterilised in puberty, which will not be
recognised. The conditioning is in place for everyone to be
effectively given an IV shunt with no questions asked and laws
passed where we don't need to be told anything about what we are
getting.
I believe we will fight the war in that sort of weakened state,
send some ships away to all be sunk and be forced to capitulate.
Also, a submarine in Sydney Harbour can take out a good chunk of
the population, making for everything they ate to be exported.
The UN guided by the WEF look to step in and be a one world
govt, but that's where they are most likely to come to grief and
the plans break down. I don't know anything for sure, but I
expect Indonesia to take most of the north, with china saying
hands off the north west where they get their iron ore. The
upside is it will be only loosely controlled after all that. The
whole half cyborg 7G control grid will not last, because there
will not be enough energy to run its highly complex systems.
#Post#: 1405--------------------------------------------------
Re: Geopolitics Errata.
By: K-Dog Date: October 25, 2021, 12:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Being as some are not as immune to the effects as I am:
[img]
HTML https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgifimage.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F10%2Fbong-rip-gif-6.gif&f=1&nofb=1[/img]
One of the most enduring myths around a motorcycle in the
industry is the reason this Harley Davidson classic was named
the “Fat Boy” is that it was named after the bombs dropped over
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The theory is that the name is derived
by combining the names of the two bombs that were dropped namely
“Fat Man” and “Little Boy” and also the color of fat boy
resembles the Bockscar B-29 and Enola Gay bombers that carried
out the attack. <-- the color coincidence thing is a hail Mary
pass and a complication from Occam's view as will be seen. An
unnecessary pile on. How many shades of silver are there?
Now, this does seem like a real reason to which the motorcycle
was named after, after all, how can you disagree with that many
examples of how it was named after that incident. However, it is
just a theory and the truth behind the name “Fat Boy” is quite
simple.
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/fea70d093fcab7964ab9e0f0301ec157/tumblr_nlf8i8bOBA1uqap5yo1_1280.jpg
"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"
The main reason that it is called a “Fat Boy” is that it is a
big bike and it does happen to be on the fat side when looked at
it head-on. When compared to other motorcycles, this bike is
actually fat or big if you want to call it that. It could have
been a great reason to name it after the atomic bombs but it was
not and its just simply called a Fat Boy because it is a fat boy
so to speak.
Occam's razor says the name happened because the boy is fat.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page