10-25-2017, 10:42 AM
(10-24-2017, 01:20 AM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Yet John X you advocate for the US doing nothing. If you actually
> believed that China is a threat to the west; you would be
> supporting an immediate strike on North Korea. Especially given
> that this is a prime time to do so and the Norks have given clear
> provocation. Yet you consistently advocate on your blogs doing
> absolutely nothing, even accepting establishment by North Korea of
> another nuclear arsenal pointed at the US augmenting the existing
> arsenals of Russia and China. Its delusional to accept a North
> Korean nuclear arsenal since it GUARANTEES a world war with either
> Russia or China or even both. I suspect you know full well that my
> and other proposals would lead either to success in preventing US
> involvement in a WW3, or at least toward the US being a stronger
> position in WW3. This ties in to your question of "saving los
> angeles or seoul" the generational decision would be to "save LA"
> the other choice "save seoul" (the boomer globalists/China and
> Russia democratizer advocates preference) can only be implemented
> by the US government using coercion.
As usual, I have no idea where you get this stuff. I did not
"advocate" either a North Korea strike or no North Korea strike. I
write Generational Dynamics analyses, and all I do is analyze the
likely consequences of either decision. So, from the point of view of
Generational Dynamics, a North Korea strike will lead to WW III, and
no North Korea strike will lead to WW III. I did not "advocate"
either of them.
If I did have to express my personal opinion and advocate one option
or the other, I really would have no idea which to recommend without a
lot of research. If it were up to me, I would get extensive military
and diplomatic analyses of the two options, and then I would try to
decide which option would be in the best interest of the United
States, and most likely to allow the US to survive WW III.
I'll say this: Since the world is headed for WW III anyway, then I
personally would lean towards whatever policy is least likely to be
viewed by historians as "stupid," and if possible I would prefer that
the United States not be blamed for starting WW III, if it's
possible to do so and still have the nation survive.
