As much as some may deem our current time "Endless War," in reality, we are in an interwar period.

Nothing which has happened since Summer 1945 has qualified as Total War.

If we ever have another Total War, you will know it. Millions will die in a very short period - the funeral pyres will be visible from Earth Orbit and perhaps even visible from The Moon.

The next question is, when will this interwar period finally end. It has certainly been a very long one.

If Trump wins the general, I believe the SCO and its followers will attack NATO and its followers early in his first term. Trump is a complete loon and shows signs of being blind to SCO evil plans. He may even be somewhat of a traitor - he has made statements similar to certain Kremlin bootlickers.

If Trump does not win, I suspect the onset will be delayed until at least 2019.

I certainly hope humanity has enough basic sanity and concern for survival of self and others that no such war will ever occur.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I certainly hope humanity has enough basic sanity and concern for survival of self and others that no such war will ever occur.

Humanity will survive WW3.

Current institutions?

Not so much.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Humanity will survive WW3.

But not a nuclear war. And those who survive will envy the dead. And grossly worse in its results than any possible justification.

Current institutions?

Not so much.

They may not survive much longer anyway, at least in their current form.

If there is a WW3 we can kiss our asses goodbye because we will destroy ourselves.

Originally Posted by Odin

If there is a WW3 we can kiss our asses goodbye because we will destroy ourselves.

That fear may have helped prevent a great many wars. But it may not be justified. We could very well see a 4T conflict involving such things as Chinese destroying US capital ships with missiles and railgun projectiles but NOT having it escalate into a nuclear exchange, or if it becomes a nuclear exchange, avoiding population centres. Though the power grid might go down and that would lead to a great deal of hunger and disease from spoiled food.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That fear may have helped prevent a great many wars. But it may not be justified. We could very well see a 4T conflict involving such things as Chinese destroying US capital ships with missiles and railgun projectiles but NOT having it escalate into a nuclear exchange, or if it becomes a nuclear exchange, avoiding population centres. Though the power grid might go down and that would lead to a great deal of hunger and disease from spoiled food.

There is no chance that US-China relations would devolve to that point in the next 12 years (so, not during this 4T, whether soon upcoming or current). I admit that Russia is another kettle of fish; if Putin (who could well be in office into the 2020s) attacks a NATO country that used to be Soviet, or even foments "rebellion" in such a country like he's doing in Ukraine, then all bets are off.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

That fear may have helped prevent a great many wars. But it may not be justified. We could very well see a 4T conflict involving such things as Chinese destroying US capital ships with missiles and railgun projectiles but NOT having it escalate into a nuclear exchange, or if it becomes a nuclear exchange, avoiding population centres. Though the power grid might go down and that would lead to a great deal of hunger and disease from spoiled food.

-- true. I remember seeing a TV show/docudrama dealing with if humanity could survive a nuclear war. The scenario was a limited drop, ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, except this time the targets were not population centers, but instead secret bases deep in Siberia (this was aired during the Cold War) After the initial acid rain that the jet stream spread around the world, humanity recovered within a decade, like 4 or 5 yrs. Except for Siberia, which was a dead zone & off limits to humans

Now an unlimited nuclear war involving drops on multiple population centers is a different matter. That's just plain MAD

Originally Posted by marypoza

-- true. I remember seeing a TV show/docudrama dealing with if humanity could survive a nuclear war. The scenario was a limited drop, ala Hiroshima/Nagasaki, except this time the targets were not population centers, but instead secret bases deep in Siberia (this was aired during the Cold War) After the initial acid rain that the jet stream spread around the world, humanity recovered within a decade, like 4 or 5 yrs. Except for Siberia, which was a dead zone & off limits to humans

Now an unlimited nuclear war involving drops on multiple population centers is a different matter. That's just plain MAD

I tend to be a bit of an apocolyptic thinker. Jordan and I went around on this a while back, and I think he convinced me that even an unlimited nuclear war would leave pockets of humanity left here and there. Like someone said, WW-IV will be fought with clubs, bows and arrows.

Originally Posted by TnT

I tend to be a bit of an apocolyptic thinker. Jordan and I went around on this a while back, and I think he convinced me that even an unlimited nuclear war would leave pockets of humanity left here and there. Like someone said, WW-IV will be fought with clubs, bows and arrows.

Nevertheless, such remains just plain MAD, as maryposa said. That's my "diagnosis" too.

Originally Posted by TnT

I tend to be a bit of an apocolyptic thinker. Jordan and I went around on this a while back, and I think he convinced me that even an unlimited nuclear war would leave pockets of humanity left here and there. Like someone said, WW-IV will be fought with clubs, bows and arrows.

That was Albert Einstein ... as always, a good quote source.

I will reiterate - if Trump, then WW3 during the current decade. He is a geopolitical dufus. I'm thinking back to the last time there was a President who was that geopolitically clueless - Bush 41 was pretty bad but not that bad ... I'm thinking maybe Cleveland. That's pretty far back.

If Sanders, we can possibly forestall WW3 until the 2020s.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I will reiterate - if Trump, then WW3 during the current decade. He is a geopolitical dufus. I'm thinking back to the last time there was a President who was that geopolitically clueless - Bush 41 was pretty bad but not that bad ... I'm thinking maybe Cleveland. That's pretty far back.

If Sanders, we can possibly forestall WW3 until the 2020s.

OK, we'll see. But I think astrology trumps Trump. The USA is unlikely to go to war, certainly not a major world war, until the 2020s; probably 2025. No matter who is president.

To me it seems clear that Rubio is the most war-like candidate. But Trump is certainly dumb, aggressive and unstable at times.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Humanity will survive WW3.

Current institutions?

Not so much.

... but back to the Middle Ages. Just about every technology will be rendered ineffective and irreparable.

Update on Missile Defense

Homeland Missile Defense Projects Remain in Limbo


http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ininLimbo.aspx


… "U.S. officials aren’t just worried about ballistic missiles. Cruise missiles — such as the ones that Russia has developed — are also raising red flags. The Russian military recently launched such weapons from ships stationed in the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas against militants in Syria.


“They were making a point,” said retired Navy Rear Adm. Archer Macy, former director of the joint integrated air and missile defense organization. “I think this was an opportunity for the Russians … to demonstrate a capability that, ‘Hey, you know we’ve had these things, they really work … [and] we’re going to use our stuff’” when it is advantageous.”…


… "Directed energy technologies could have transformative missile defense applications, he said. “Modestly-sized directed energy weapons on the spine of a high flying, persistent UAV … really have the potential to revolutionize our concept of operations and our capacity for dealing with foreign missile threats.””

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

As much as some may deem our current time "Endless War," in reality, we are in an interwar period.

Nothing which has happened since Summer 1945 has qualified as Total War.

If we ever have another Total War, you will know it. Millions will die in a very short period - the funeral pyres will be visible from Earth Orbit and perhaps even visible from The Moon.

The next question is, when will this interwar period finally end. It has certainly been a very long one.

If Trump wins the general, I believe the SCO and its followers will attack NATO and its followers early in his first term. Trump is a complete loon and shows signs of being blind to SCO evil plans. He may even be somewhat of a traitor - he has made statements similar to certain Kremlin bootlickers.

If Trump does not win, I suspect the onset will be delayed until at least 2019.

It isn't Trump who will push the Russians and Chinese too far. It is Bush or Rubio or Clinton. Trump is more likely to cut a deal with the Russians. As is Sanders.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It isn't Trump who will push the Russians and Chinese too far. It is Bush or Rubio or Clinton. Trump is more likely to cut a deal with the Russians. As is Sanders.

You are mixed up here. Trump is blind to the evil of the SCO. What that means is, the SCO will undertake a surprise attack on the US and allies. Not every Evil Empire needs to be pushed to act out. You learned nothing from the last 3T if you fail to see this.

Originally Posted by radind

Update on Missile Defense

UAVs and / or the modern equivalent of barrage balloons.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It isn't Trump who will push the Russians and Chinese too far. It is Bush or Rubio or Clinton. Trump is more likely to cut a deal with the Russians. As is Sanders.

What if it's a very bad deal?

Allow Russia and Iran to take over Syria. Break off deal with Iran. Result: refugees never go home; MORE millions flood the First World. Rebellions continue to break out.; no peace restored. More rebels join the IS to fight Russia and Assad. IS takes more territory, at least for a while. More terrorists come there to join the fight. Turkey attacks Russia/Assad and the Kurds too. The USA no longer looked to as peacemaker of the Middle East; Egypt and Iraq become Russia's allies. Iran resumes rapid nuclear development. Israel attacks Iran; USA joins in, war with Iran results. Russia defends Iran; world war results.

Trump breaks NATO treaty commitments, or winks at Putin that he won't fulfill them. Result: Russia steps up attacks on Ukraine and moves into the Baltic. Russia emboldened to go even further, and so is China. World War results, with USA and its allies in a weaker position than today.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What if it's a very bad deal?

Allow Russia and Iran to take over Syria. Break off deal with Iran. Result: refugees never go home; MORE millions flood the First World. Rebellions continue to break out.; no peace restored. More rebels join the IS to fight Russia and Assad. IS takes more territory, at least for a while. More terrorists come there to join the fight. Turkey attacks Russia/Assad and the Kurds too. The USA no longer looked to as peacemaker of the Middle East; Egypt and Iraq become Russia's allies. Iran resumes rapid nuclear development. Israel attacks Iran; USA joins in, war with Iran results. Russia defends Iran; world war results.

Trump breaks NATO treaty commitments, or winks at Putin that he won't fulfill them. Result: Russia steps up attacks on Ukraine and moves into the Baltic. Russia emboldened to go even further, and so is China. World War results, with USA and its allies in a weaker position than today.

I think he believes the US is a bad imperialist and needs to lose the next WW. He may even relish the notion of the US being conquered and colonized (or make that, colonised) by the SCO or one of its major players.

As for me, even though the US has its warts, it beats all the major alternatives.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think he believes the US is a bad imperialist and needs to lose the next WW. He may even relish the notion of the US being conquered and colonized (or make that, colonised) by the SCO or one of its major players.

I wouldn't go that far; I'm sure most people wouldn't. It's more possible that his impulsive shortsightedness will lead him to make decisions that will cost us in the long run.

As for me, even though the US has its warts, it beats all the major alternatives.

I dunno; maybe northern and western Europe are better.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

OK, we'll see. But I think astrology trumps Trump. The USA is unlikely to go to war, certainly not a major world war, until the 2020s; probably 2025. No matter who is president.

To me it seems clear that Rubio is the most war-like candidate. But Trump is certainly dumb, aggressive and unstable at times.

Does your astrology tell us who our opponent is likely to be in the 2020s? And the likely outcome of such a war?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What if it's a very bad deal?

Allow Russia and Iran to take over Syria. Break off deal with Iran. Result: refugees never go home; MORE millions flood the First World.

Which, as a current Atlantic article http://www.theatlantic.com/…/syria-aleppo-assad-rus…/462231/ points out can enhance the appeal of right wing parties in Europe. Though Europeans may be able to deflect a great deal of the refugee flow to Brazil, which so far, has something of an open door to Syrian refugees and much more room to settle in, though it has fewer social benefits and often workers in frontier states work under slave labour conditions).
We need to face the fact that Sunnis and Kurds are no longer able to live in multi-ethnic states in the Mideast. Either borders get redrawn and independent states created or millions of Sunnis and Kurds will have to find new homes elsewhere in the world. If neither is possible, the result will be genocide, just as it was for the Armenians 100 years ago in the same places. When people in the Mideast rebel against a subordinate place in society, unless they win hands down (as they did in Syria when the Alawites took over) they no longer have a place. And no intervention by outside Great Powers can change this.

Rebellions continue to break out.; no peace restored. More rebels join the IS to fight Russia and Assad. IS takes more territory, at least for a while. More terrorists come there to join the fight. Turkey attacks Russia/Assad and the Kurds too. The USA no longer looked to as peacemaker of the Middle East; Egypt and Iraq become Russia's allies.

So let Russia have another Afghanistan on it's hands. Syria and Iraq (along with Yemen) are going to be an Afghanistan for somebody. Frankly, the only nation which MIGHT be able to commit enough troops (if so inclined) to put a complete damper on the Mideast is China.
Israel is moving closer to Russia and China too. Selling desal technology to China. Agreeing to allow Gazprom to market it's natural gas for export. Even Israel can make it's peace with a dominant Russia and China if it comes to that. Unlike some countries, Israel is only in this world to survive and remain independent.
Iran resumes rapid nuclear development. Israel attacks Iran; USA joins in, war with Iran results. Russia defends Iran; world war results.

Trump breaks NATO treaty commitments, or winks at Putin that he won't fulfill them. Result: Russia steps up attacks on Ukraine and moves into the Baltic. Russia emboldened to go even further, and so is China. World War results, with USA and its allies in a weaker position than today.

The lessons of WWII are not the lessons we were taught in Cold War history books, Eric. The US is actually in a stronger position in a world war if it allows other belligerents to kill each other for a few years before intervening. Waiting until the end of the two world wars was the way the US won both those wars. China understands this fact very well, which is why China is determined to be the last Great Power entering any world war. China loves it when the US and Russia exhaust themselves with proxy wars and interventions. It makes things so much easier for them. They may not even need to be involved if the US and Russia damage each other enough. Remember how the Netherlands became the dominant actor in the 17th Century by default after France, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Austria exhausted themselves in the Thirty Years War.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think he believes the US is a bad imperialist and needs to lose the next WW. He may even relish the notion of the US being conquered and colonized (or make that, colonised) by the SCO or one of its major players.

We have been indoctrinated into the idea of Wilsonian interventionism for so long in this country that it is difficult to conceive of any other alternatives. But what happens when our will to intervene exceeds our means? When we can no longer afford to "pay any price, bear any burden" as Kennedy (paraphrasing Rudyard Kipling 60 years earlier) said in his 1960 Inagural Address?
I think that what Trump realises that no one else running but Bernie understands is that any window the US had in the 1990s to create "The Second American Century" and be the world hegemon has closed (if it wasn't covered with armoured glass to begin with). The US might be able to mobilise to win another world war after a few years of unity building New Deal style under Sanders. The US cannot mobilise, cannot economically afford such a commitment under the financialised capitalism it has now. Where would be the will to raise the taxes to pay for such a war? Or the will to impose a draft on men (and now women) of all social classes, including the very rich in any Republican Administration? All we can do now is deploy the 135,000 troops we have available for each rotation spread amongst whatever theatres of operation the jihadists engage us in (and somehow spare enough troops to deter the Russians in Eastern Europe and the Chinese in SE Asia). That is a recipe for failure. And oh, yes, pay for it all with deficit spending the way we did under George W Bush. We saw how well THAT turned out.
So maybe in retreat and power sharing with Russia and China, Trump is simply being realistic and accepting the world now as it is.
How well that kind of realism will go over with Republicans is an interesting question, which we may see some answers to next Saturday night in South Carolina, which per capita is probably the most military state in the Union (Naval bases in Charleston, AFBs at Sumter SC, lots of military families and retired military). If Trump can hold his plurality in South Carolina after criticising former President Bush the way he did in the debate, it's a sign that Republicans may have had it with neo-conservatism and well realise what neo-conservatism has cost this country. Even and perhaps especially the military families that make up the core of our Armed Services.

I wouldn't go that far; I'm sure most people wouldn't. It's more possible that his impulsive shortsightedness will lead him to make decisions that will cost us in the long run.
As for me, even though the US has its warts, it beats all the major alternatives.



I dunno; maybe northern and western Europe are better.

Try Australia or New Zealand. Or if you like your society a bit more dog eat dog capitalist, learn Portuguese and try Brazil.