07-19-2018, 09:59 PM
(07-19-2018, 02:44 PM)David Horn Wrote:(07-19-2018, 02:07 PM)Marypoza Wrote:(07-09-2018, 12:40 PM)David Horn Wrote:(07-05-2018, 04:30 AM)Marypoza Wrote: Full disclosure: l am a pacifist & l really don't care to see us get involved in any wars. Do you think it's possible to get thru a Crisis without a war?
Can we have a 4T without a hot shooting war? Yes, I think so. The only restriction I would impose, as if I have any authority to impose anything, is the need for a clash of ideas that invalidates one set of arguments while validating the other. Using war as a tool is intellectually easy, but getting there without war isn't impossible, just unlikely. A more likely outcome, sans war, would be a truce or some sort that tilted more one way than another … think the armistice on the Korean peninsula as an example, albeit one that required war to achieve. Typically, we would consider that a failed 4T.
-- of course a civil war doesn't necessarily have to be a war with traditional armies or militias. Just look @ the cops, the police brutality. It could devolve into a situation where groups of ppl fight back guerilla style. Or maybe the mob gets involved like in the 1920s. Of course that was over Prohibition. I can't think of anything these daze that would cause the mob to ramp it up like they did in the 1920s. But l see situations where groups of ppl band together against police brutality, destabilizing cities, the Govt steps in, & then they are fighting the Govt, & at that point maybe the mob would get involved. I dunno
The one viable option I simply forgot is cyber war. It's the exact opposite of the neutron bomb, that would have been designed to kill everyone but do no harm to the infrastructure. Cyber destroys the infrastructure, and leaves all the people alive and wondering what to do next.
BUT is that akin to an invasion or a hostile takeover? If a "cyber war" type of thing is what we are looking for as a signal, is that not the same as the 2008 financial graft that still lingers in America even now a decade later? I think of it as "was there a winner and a loser"? I'm not sure like even if there was some natural disaster like an earthquake that decimated Japan and the civilization was brought low, is that really a 4T event? There was no real "winner" in that and things were not "reset" so much as just left destroyed.
But I think possibly based on the s/h text, civilizations CAN in a 4T simply collapse and never return? Maybe there doesn't have to be a winner. What does anyone think?