Generational Dynamics World View

[Cynic Hero '86]

(10-25-2017, 10:42 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(10-24-2017, 01:20 AM)Cynic Hero 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.

But a north korea strike leads to us involvement in ww3 only when ww3 is in a very advanced state. No strike means the US would be involved in WW3 from day one.