Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

War and Rumours of War

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:20:11

RdSnt wrote:Given your all out Russian attack scenario Evilgenious, would anyone in the US be capable of rational decision making? Likely not, nor would there be much in the way of overall control. Thus, submarine commanders would be on their own.
Come to think of it though, maybe we should encourage a major conflict amongst the major military powers. If they go at it toe to toe, then within 6 months they would all be militarily exhausted and it would take many years to rebuild their hardware. That scenario of course precludes the use of nukes, which wouldn't be likely. Sigh!!!

Tough as it is with this War Scenario discussion, you have to keep the discussion to conventional warfare options. If you pull the Nukes into the picture, its all TOAST. One or two nukes hitting selected cities, OK the Planet survives that, but it also makes little difference in terms of the conventional war necessary to gain control over another neighborhood. The Ruskies (or us) start pitching the Nukes out willy nilly to completely destroy the infrastructure of the other country just sets off a Nuclear Winter (would that balance out Global Warming? LOL)

Ignoring the Nuke option again for a moment, assuming the US and Russia declared full scale war on each other, just how long would it take for each side to blow out of the water the other's aircraft carriers and battleships? I think all that hardware would hit Davey Jones Locker inside a month.
Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:24:04

ReverseEngineer wrote:The Ruskies (or us) start pitching the Nukes out willy nilly to completely destroy the infrastructure of the other country just sets off a Nuclear Winter (would that balance out Global Warming? LOL)

That is very unlikely.

Sagan was expecting nuclear winter after setting of oilfields alight in Gulf War and look - nothing happened.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2007-01/sagan.html
Last edited by EnergyUnlimited on Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:37:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:31:17

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
ReverseEngineer wrote:The Ruskies (or us) start pitching the Nukes out willy nilly to completely destroy the infrastructure of the other country just sets off a Nuclear Winter (would that balance out Global Warming? LOL)

That is very unlikely.

Sagan was expecting nuclear winter after setting of oilfields alight in Gulf War and look - nothing happened.


Do I take this to mean that you think that even if the US and Russia just pitched out say 50 Nukes each of their arsenals, targeting all the major cities in Europe and the US, that at the end of that people would still be fighting a war? Who would want to live after that anyhow?

You think a Nuclear war could be fought and WON? That appears to be what you are saying, correct me if I misinterpret your post.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby evilgenius » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:32:08

If there is going to be wholesale war, that is to say a next world war, it will be a nuclear war. That is my opinion and I haven't seen any arguments strong enough that say otherwise. To accept anything else at this point I feel would be too Amerocentric.

Yes, RdSnt, the missile boats are the key. The boomers are the only thing holding back the tide on so many scenarios. If it was up to me I would never let a situation develop where the US did not have enough of them out at sea at any given time to fully retaliate, but that is just me. I understand from articles I have read over the years that there is tremendous pressure to bring the Trident missile boats back into port and keep them there in order to save money. I think that is the kind of thinking that invited Pearl Harbor.
When it comes down to it, the people will always shout, "Free Barabbas." They love Barabbas. He's one of them. He has the same dreams. He does what they wish they could do. That other guy is more removed, more inscrutable. He makes them think. "Crucify him."
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:48:42

ReverseEngineer wrote:Do I take this to mean that you think that even if the US and Russia just pitched out say 50 Nukes each of their arsenals, targeting all the major cities in Europe and the US, that at the end of that people would still be fighting a war?

Certainly yes.
Power structures would be decapitated and lawlessness would spread.
Greater Somalia scenario would result.
Who would want to live after that anyhow?

I suspect, you would.
That is the only scenario in which you could personally see packs of peoples (eg small & close communities) living freely in some secluded locations like Alaska unhindered by civilization.
I believe that such situation is something what you consider desirable.

You think a Nuclear war could be fought and WON? That appears to be what you are saying, correct me if I misinterpret your post.

Nuclear war against minor nuclear nation (means all except US & Russia) could be fought and won if undertaken by one of these two.

War between Russia and US would result in MAD, but in all probabilities would not lead to human extinction.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 14:55:51

evilgenius wrote:If there is going to be wholesale war, that is to say a next world war, it will be a nuclear war. That is my opinion and I haven't seen any arguments strong enough that say otherwise. To accept anything else at this point I feel would be too Amerocentric.

Yes, RdSnt, the missile boats are the key. The boomers are the only thing holding back the tide on so many scenarios. If it was up to me I would never let a situation develop where the US did not have enough of them out at sea at any given time to fully retaliate, but that is just me. I understand from articles I have read over the years that there is tremendous pressure to bring the Trident missile boats back into port and keep them there in order to save money. I think that is the kind of thinking that invited Pearl Harbor.


Putting the Nuke Subs in dry dock where they could be taken out in a first strike is plain stupid, but they do not have to be cruising the ocean either with a full crew. You park them a few miles offshore with a skeleton crew in 300 feet of water, they will be quite safe. There are money saving options here that do not require dry dock.

Also, you do have your "Wargames" issue. If the Ruskies set off ICBMs, they would appear on the radar in plenty of time to fire back in equal numbers. You could not make a first strike in either direction without the other side having time to fire back before impact.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 15:03:15

EnergyUnlimited wrote:That is the only scenario in which you could personally see packs of peoples (eg small & close communities) living freely in some secluded locations like Alaska unhindered by civilization.


Even on the assumption Alaska was not targeted for a Nuke, the exchange you are talking about would put so much poison up in the atmosphere, with weather pattern dispersal you die of radiation poisoning even in the absence of nuclear winter.

Hopefully, those with their fingers on the button do not think as you do that Nuclear war can be won by anyone. That is an even dumber concept than building an economy on Prostitution.

EU, you clearly are a bright guy. I have to wonder how you got so twisted in your thinking?

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 15:04:57

ReverseEngineer wrote:Also, you do have your "Wargames" issue. If the Ruskies set off ICBMs, they would appear on the radar in plenty of time to fire back in equal numbers. You could not make a first strike in either direction without the other side having time to fire back before impact.

Reverse Engineer

You are certainly right here.

But unfortunately Russians attacked by US military machine would go for a draw.
Nukes are their only viable weapons capable to stop US... and they will never surrender if attacked.
Actually the biggest threat steams from Russian weakness in terms of conventional weaponry compounded with nuclear parity against US.

As an alternative they could try some luck (as Americans could) and go for massive first strike preceded by EMP attack and hope that retaliation may be substantially hindered.

I think, you are plain unreasonable, if you really believe that WW III involving major powers would not escalate to atomic war.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 15:12:18

ReverseEngineer wrote:
EnergyUnlimited wrote:That is the only scenario in which you could personally see packs of peoples (eg small & close communities) living freely in some secluded locations like Alaska unhindered by civilization.


Even on the assumption Alaska was not targeted for a Nuke, the exchange you are talking about would put so much poison up in the atmosphere, with weather pattern dispersal you die of radiation poisoning even in the absence of nuclear winter.

And Chernobyl accident accident have released about 300 times as much fallout as Hiroshima bomb did and it even didn't stop putative power plant working.

http://www.hiroshima-cdas.or.jp/HICARE/en/10/hi04.html
Hopefully, those with their fingers on the button do not think as you do that Nuclear war can be won by anyone. That is an even dumber concept than building an economy on Prostitution.

My bet is that we will try both. :-D

That will duly come after total ruin of current economy.
You are underestimating ability of humanity to do all sort of evil.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 15:17:26

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
ReverseEngineer wrote:Also, you do have your "Wargames" issue. If the Ruskies set off ICBMs, they would appear on the radar in plenty of time to fire back in equal numbers. You could not make a first strike in either direction without the other side having time to fire back before impact.

Reverse Engineer

You are certainly right here.

But unfortunately Russians attacked by US military machine would go for a draw.
Nukes are their only viable weapons capable to stop US... and they will never surrender if attacked.
Actually the biggest threat steams from Russian weakness in terms of conventional weaponry compounded with nuclear parity against US.

As an alternative they could try some luck (as Americans could) and go for massive first strike preceded by EMP attack and hope that retaliation may be substantially hindered.

I think, you are plain unreasonable, if you really believe that WW III involving major powers would not escalate to atomic war.


First off, I do not think the Ruskies have an EMP device that could knock out all the sattelites and all the radars all over the world simultaneously. I do not think a "Stealth" Nuke attack is highly likely.

Insofar as being unreasonable goes, I certainly think its possible it wouldn't escalate to atomic war, good grief if we just sink each other's ships its CLEAR to even Polish people I would think that we can't invade each other. Once the aility to mass invasions across the oceans is squashed, what is the POINT of pitching nukes? There IS no point. So we could declare war on each other, but shortly be completely unable to wage such a war. Each side on their respective continents would have WAY more to deal with in internal problems than to worry about what is happening on a continent half a world away you can't even GET to.

Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby ReverseEngineer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 15:23:28

EnergyUnlimited wrote:You are underestimating ability of humanity to do all sort of evil.

I never underestimate the Dark Side. I make it my job here to take on the forces of Evil on Peak Oil :-)

See you on the Other Side.
Reverse Engineer
User avatar
ReverseEngineer
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 15:30:28

ReverseEngineer wrote:First off, I do not think the Ruskies have an EMP device that could knock out all the sattelites and all the radars all over the world simultaneously. I do not think a "Stealth" Nuke attack is highly likely.

Who knows, maybe a dosen of EMP devices are already waiting in space to be detonated all in one go. You will never know it unil it is too late.
Insofar as being unreasonable goes, I certainly think its possible it wouldn't escalate to atomic war, good grief if we just sink each other's ships its CLEAR to even Polish people I would think that we can't invade each other. Once the aility to mass invasions across the oceans is squashed, what is the POINT of pitching nukes? There IS no point. So we could declare war on each other, but shortly be completely unable to wage such a war. Each side on their respective continents would have WAY more to deal with in internal problems than to worry about what is happening on a continent half a world away you can't even GET to.

I disagree with that assessment. Tactical nukes would be used against naval assets, against naval bases, airstrips...

Final exchange could come out of fear.
All warning systems damaged and unreliable, nukes already used so more may be used, silos with ICBM intact on enemy territory and ready to use and fear of them being used.

Fear leads to aggression so aggression would proceed...
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7356
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby galacticsurfer » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 16:25:45

Ok I have thought of this for a while and just researched and wrote this all down. I am not sure if this fits here as it is Geopolitics and pertains to the possibility of WWIII but most people dismiss this view out of hand but I have nowehre else otput it and a new thread would be ignored:

I want to posit that there are natural cycles which take precedent over human actions. I always suspected a certain cyclicality from what I read in the press, about say fashion trends, music, etc. whatever is old is new again. However beyond Zeitgist there is also critical events like 9/11, wars, assasinations also influenced by the energies of the planets.

There are several basic cycles:
Saturn/Jupiter - every twenty years conjunction- 1900/1920/1940/1960/1980/2000- in between, 1910, 1930, 1950, 1970, 1990, 2010 they are in oppositon and the energy is much weaker than at the conjunction. One quite frankly can get the impression that the 50s, 70s, 90s and probably 2010s are a weak continuation of the trend established in the previous decade. In terms of music and movies and technology concentration in 2nd decade of cycle it is a denouement. At the beginning of the cycle in 1960 or 1940 or 1980 or 2000 we had brutal times indeed for several years with heavy military problems and explosions of New wave music styles, etc. The second decade with say Ike, Nixon / Carter, Bush was nothing compared with war years/founding years of 40s, 60s , 80s where the country's values were tested to the core.

To take wind out of the sails of 9/11 conspiracy freaks, Pluto was in direct opposition to Saturn on 9/11 2001. An astrologer named Robert Hand made a fairly good prediction of something like 9/11 one month before based on this constellation.

Saturn is now almost in direct opposition to Uranus, accounting for the current problems. This is the second main constellation effecting the bigger picture.

Saturn/Uranus have a 44 year cycle being in conjunction in 1941-2 and 1987-8 and in oppostion in 1965-6 and 2008-10. The oppositions are apparently very keen on leftist mood swings(60s and now) and the conjunctions in right wing mood swings(nazi war and fall of Soviet Union).

Now anybody with some curiosity and half a brain will ask themselves "if this is so easy to predict approximate direction of
history and the planets are predetermined then when is the next really bad time". The most dangerous time is when several really heavy conjuncitons appear at the same time. WWII had both major conjunctions Saturn/Jupiter and Saturn/Uranus here within a year or so. This is very difficult to overcome like divorce and losing job and major cancer all in one year and still pulling through so WWII was really big.

We see that such an almost triple conjunction like in 1941-1942 recurs first in 2079-80, so that although lots of stresses are to be expected as in current crisis or mid 60s but WWIII or end of world crisis, according to such an analysis could only be expected at that time. This is also very bad analysis for 2100 as well where 3-4 major outer planets have tense aspects around the same time.

Uranus-Neptune opposition 2080.
Uranus-Saturn conjunction 2079 together gives
Saturn-Jupiter-Uranus conjunction in opposition to Neptune in 2080
Saturn- Jupiter conjunct in opposition to Uranus near pluto in 2100
Pluto conjunct Uranus in 2103

However we are not out of serious danger in next ten - fifteen years just because it is not the worst possible case now.

Uranus and Saturn remain in opposition till 2010 and in 2010 have a T-square combined 90 degree square to Pluto, which last happened in 1931. It is worse as it occurs in so-called cardinal signs of the horoscope,Libra, Aries and Capricorn which have more energy and the square of Uranus and Pluto recurs in 2012. The parallels to 1931 are appearing pretty clear here already in GDII sceanrio unfolding. Since the triple conjunction of 1941 does not follow in 10 years at same time as the Saturn Jupiter Grand Conjunction like last time history cannot be expected to follow identically. This is critical for our expectations of TEOTWAWKI. In 2020 Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction as every twenty years but beyond that a Uranus Saturn Conjunction occurs only 10 years later meaning a lot less stress so that the severest WWIII is not to be expected.

An older article from Mountain Astrologer Website goes through the planetary aspects through 2004-2012 and mentions PO, LATOC and From the Wilderness. link

So if we survive the current energy crash, which should really tear the BAU apart, to move to Powerdown without a WWIII being the immediate resultca. 2020 then the next big hurdle will occur in 2079-2103 time span when the alternative energy infrastructure we build up now will be literally falling apart due to lack of FFs for repairs or some other problems will occur like massive climate change and rising sea levels. The generational theory fits ok with this analysis as 1929-45 / 2008-2025 / 2079-2105 could be winter phases of complete cycles.

I just don't think Napoleon or Hitler has to happen every 80 years as would be proposed in generational theory. Perhaps on a national level such crises can happen but WWII or WWIII or Napoleonic wars are quite heavy stuff and require a great deal of things to come together just right in terms of planets and people. I checked out July 1802 and found that Saturn and Jupiter Conjunction in oppostion to Pluto and Napoleonic wars were 1803-1815 so that could correspond well.

Free charts can be made at Astrodienst astro.com to check out any constellation for a particular date.

Converted Url to hyperlink per COC 3.1.2 "Graphic content: In addition, do not include long URLs that cause the page view to widen and requires the reader to scroll." -FL
"The horror, the horror"
User avatar
galacticsurfer
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed 09 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby errorist » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 20:42:54

galacticsurfer wrote:[..]I want to posit that there are natural cycles which take precedent over human actions. I always suspected a certain cyclicality from what I read in the press, about say fashion trends, music, etc. whatever is old is new again. However beyond Zeitgist there is also critical events like 9/11, wars, assasinations also influenced by the energies of the planets. There are several basic cycles- [..]

~20 years is span of a human generation. Time from birth to nursing offspring. Do not miss this important cycle. It has a lot influence to our social world. More than Saturn and Jupiter combined I think :)
User avatar
errorist
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed 28 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby gypsybiker45 » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 20:59:42

I assume you want a scenario of events? The US could indeed feed a 5 million man army, they have done it before, kevlar vests would be unessasary, as M-1 garands were not issued to all troops during the ww2 opener,most troops used ww1 equipment at first. I also assume this war would have a theatre, and an actual enemy? lets assume the foe is Russia, the Russians would field large amounts of troops and equipment as well, the battlefield would be Europe probably from the Rhine to the Alps(CH) casualties would be huge,civilian and military, in other words the desired effect,fear, hatred and profit would rule the day,Canada would be allied with the US as would the EU,The EU would be forced to fight, as the US could not stop a Russian surge at first, and Euro territory would fall to the hordes,Canada's oil and wheat would supplement the US/EU resources and Russia would utilize Poland, Ukraine and Romanias resources, Germany would be ground zero for most of the fighting., this scenario of course removes nuclear options.
gypsybiker45
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 23 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby gypsybiker45 » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 21:06:55

EnergyUnlimited wrote:
RdSnt wrote:Watch the Navy. It is what the US uses to project power. See how it is deployed and how it might be dispersed. Really, the key is carrier battle groups. Remove the carriers and you pretty much neuter the US ability to wage effective warfare.
You have the navy deployed in the Black Sea, in response to the Georgia conflict. You have at least two carrier battle groups in the Gulf at all times. I could see a group being deployed off Somalia to deal with the pirates.
No way. US carrier could never go Somali waters. She could easily end up being hijacked by pirates, towed away to some hidden location and there would be a hefty ransom to pay. And they would not accept dollars, so Ben and Hank couldn't help.

I hope you were joking! a US carrier is escorted by many smaller ships, also the 5000+ crew members have rifles for all, not to mention the USMC companies assigned!
gypsybiker45
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 23 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby gypsybiker45 » Sun 23 Nov 2008, 21:11:38

ReverseEngineer wrote:
RdSnt wrote:Given your all out Russian attack scenario Evilgenious, would anyone in the US be capable of rational decision making? Likely not, nor would there be much in the way of overall control. Thus, submarine commanders would be on their own.
Come to think of it though, maybe we should encourage a major conflict amongst the major military powers. If they go at it toe to toe, then within 6 months they would all be militarily exhausted and it would take many years to rebuild their hardware. That scenario of course precludes the use of nukes, which wouldn't be likely. Sigh!!!
Tough as it is with this War Scenario discussion, you have to keep the discussion to conventional warfare options. If you pull the Nukes into the picture, its all TOAST. One or two nukes hitting selected cities, OK the Planet survives that, but it also makes little difference in terms of the conventional war necessary to gain control over another neighborhood. The Ruskies (or us) start pitching the Nukes out willy nilly to completely destroy the infrastructure of the other country just sets off a Nuclear Winter (would that balance out Global Warming? LOL)Ignoring the Nuke option again for a moment, assuming the US and Russia declared full scale war on each other, just how long would it take for each side to blow out of the water the other's aircraft carriers and battleships? I think all that hardware would hit Davey Jones Locker inside a month.

Not to be a know it all, but the Russian navy would have slim to no chance fighting the USN, Russian ground forces have the edge and their air force is adequate to stop a rout, the USAF and USN are clearly the dominate force over Russian equivilents, thats why i predict a European ground war, where the Russians have leverage, also Germans, and Poles would protest loudly for nuclear weapons used on their territory.
gypsybiker45
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun 23 Mar 2008, 03:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby galacticsurfer » Mon 24 Nov 2008, 07:18:45

errorist:

Considering comparative human and celestial cycles:
28 days: Moon circles earth: Female Menstrual
12 months: earht circles Sun: human Year
12-13 years: Jupiter circles sun :Puberty
20 years: Saturn: Jupiter cycle : Human Adulthood
30 years: Saturn circles Sun: Career / family, settling down phase
44 years: Saturn/Uranus cycle: Peak of career achievment
60 years: 2nd Satrun return: retirement, decline
84 years: Uranus circles sun: Death if you last that long

There are books on human cylces and astrology. For example seasons and solar energy for year is obvious, water amounts and moon affecting feamale hormones is another. What glands are effected by particluar electrical properties of which conjunction or opposition I cannot tell. Say a conjunction of two planets makes people more fearful and conservative due to slight magnetic effect on a certain brain gland. The opposition of the planets has opposite effect. This would effect similar to bird homing in on old nesting grounds. Astrology would be explained. The planets are very large and very active bodies and relatively near. We are very active electrically ourselves and our glands translate that to our feelings. I speculate but frankly I observe and see correlations in real life. There must be a scientific explanation or these correlations would not be so strong. This is scientific in a real sense. Observation, facts, proof,etc.

At any rate we can hope I am right in my presumption of not suffering worst case scenario and that most of what history is, is just like in the markets, acting out emotions as a mass movement, feelings over which we have too little control, and that the glands, body electrical cuircuitry react to these things. So we can say that we are like birds and that the weather is not that bad and that if we try we might make it through to the other side of this particular crisis, at least in our lifetimes. Since we live so long, mch more than other animals tehn paying attention to longer celestial cylces than birds with a 5 year life span makes scientific sense.

The Ying Yang thing I find interesting. A pendulum from right to left in politics seems preprogrammed depending on major planets being in conjunction or opposition. So nature finds a balance by having us build up new structures for "The common good" or "for individual rights" and then back again in apermanent cycle every generation or so.

I bet therefore on a big global fascist/nationlistic blow out war around early 2080s but not before. By then things will be so different perhaps that specifcs could be hard to discuss. However countries pretty much stay same based on language/culture.
"The horror, the horror"
User avatar
galacticsurfer
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed 09 Nov 2005, 04:00:00

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby RdSnt » Mon 24 Nov 2008, 13:36:29

gypsybiker45 wrote:
ReverseEngineer wrote:
RdSnt wrote:Given your all out Russian attack scenario Evilgenious, would anyone in the US be capable of rational decision making? Likely not, nor would there be much in the way of overall control. Thus, submarine commanders would be on their own.
Come to think of it though, maybe we should encourage a major conflict amongst the major military powers. If they go at it toe to toe, then within 6 months they would all be militarily exhausted and it would take many years to rebuild their hardware. That scenario of course precludes the use of nukes, which wouldn't be likely. Sigh!!!
Tough as it is with this War Scenario discussion, you have to keep the discussion to conventional warfare options. If you pull the Nukes into the picture, its all TOAST. One or two nukes hitting selected cities, OK the Planet survives that, but it also makes little difference in terms of the conventional war necessary to gain control over another neighborhood. The Ruskies (or us) start pitching the Nukes out willy nilly to completely destroy the infrastructure of the other country just sets off a Nuclear Winter (would that balance out Global Warming? LOL)Ignoring the Nuke option again for a moment, assuming the US and Russia declared full scale war on each other, just how long would it take for each side to blow out of the water the other's aircraft carriers and battleships? I think all that hardware would hit Davey Jones Locker inside a month.

Not to be a know it all, but the Russian navy would have slim to no chance fighting the USN, Russian ground forces have the edge and their air force is adequate to stop a rout, the USAF and USN are clearly the dominate force over Russian equivilents, thats why i predict a European ground war, where the Russians have leverage, also Germans, and Poles would protest loudly for nuclear weapons used on their territory.


Actually I give the edge to the Russian submariner. They know the water and ocean floor much better.
While there have been much publicized disasters, their boats are quite good and their attack subs are quieter than anything the US has.
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
User avatar
RdSnt
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Canada

Re: War and Rumours of War

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 24 Nov 2008, 18:31:38

There is another choice that has been overlooked. Genocide. We have biological agents now that can be targeted with great specificity. Be it crops or people. And it is nearly impossible to pin such a thing on the perpetrator.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests