Generational Dynamics World View

[Warren Dew]

(02-04-2017, 05:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: If China were NOT planning war, it would have no use for the thousands
of missiles targeting the US and Russia, or for those new missiles on
Russia's border, and China would not be confiscating other people's
fishing grounds and building military bases in the South China Sea.

It strikes me that China is trying to catch up with the US and Russia on nuclear weapons capability, not trying to gain a first strike capability.  Currently China is behind France; they have a lot of catching up to do.  By your definition of "planning war", are the US and Russia "planning war"?

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-04-2017, 06:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > - So, no mention of the complete absence of evidence for hordes of
> Chinese people pouring into the Russian Far East. So, are you
> abandoning this claim? Refusing to discuss it?

Despite your usual game of bait and mock, and your use of the word
"hordes," your own article proves my point:

http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/russia-ch...-question/

All that's needed is a steady stream of Chinese crossing the border,
forming villages with families with homes, businesses and schools.
Once those villages are established, the Chinese can invade in the
name of "protecting" the Chinese. No hordes are required.

(02-04-2017, 06:37 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > - The bit about WWII is a little odd. The proof that WWII
> happened is that it... actually happened. Lots of evidence
> (bombed buildings, mass death, people's memories, documents from
> the time, etc.) for it.

This bait and mock comment is totally moronic, and I would say you're
a total moron except that I believe that you're intelligent enough to
understand the actual point.

SomeGuy Wrote:> Oh, agreed, up to a point. The whole point I was making was that
> they don't flare up out of nowhere.

Really?? Then where did the bombing of Pearl Harbor flare out of?
Where did the invasion of Poland or of Russia flare out of? Where did
the attack on Fort Sumter flare out of?

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-04-2017, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > It strikes me that China is trying to catch up with the US and
> Russia on nuclear weapons capability, not trying to gain a first
> strike capability. Currently China is behind France; they have a
> lot of catching up to do. By your definition of "planning war",
> are the US and Russia "planning war"?

What do you perceive as my "definition" of "planning war," and
how would you apply your perceived definition to China, Russia,
and the US?

Is it your opinion that there's any scenario where the US could have
sided with the Nazis in WWII? If not, then why not?

[SomeGuy]

I really have no idea why you insist on taking this so personally.

Quote:All that's needed is a steady stream of Chinese crossing the border,
forming villages with families with homes, businesses and schools.
Once those villages are established, the Chinese can invade in the
name of "protecting" the Chinese. No hordes are required

I still think you are assuming your conclusion, here.  Why do you think the Chinese are plotting to invade Russia in the next few years?

Quote:This bait and mock comment is totally moronic, and I would say you're
a total moron except that I believe that you're intelligent enough to
understand the actual point.

I addressed what I thought your point actually was in the sentences immediately after the ones quoted.  I just thought the hyperbole was sufficiently over-the-top to merit a response.

Quote:Really?? Then where did the bombing of Pearl Harbor flare out of?
Where did the invasion of Poland or of Russia flare out of? Where did
the attack on Fort Sumter flare out of?

Let's see, in order of mention - 

Pearl Harbor:

- The most salient was the US oil embargo, restrictions on the purchase of aircraft engine and other strategic materials, etc. in response to Japan's invasion of China.  The US government was well aware of what it was doing when it put those policies into place.

Invasion of Poland/Russia (I am going to assume, so correct me if I'm wrong, that you mean the one in WWII.  I mean, they get invaded so many times...):

- (Poland) Really? Nazi Germany had been taking bites out of the other countries of Central Europe throughout the 1930s, they had large German-speaking minorities (not just "villages) throughout the region, active irredentist claims on the Polish Corridor and other parts of the country, etc.  It wasn't like they signed a peace treaty, and then sent troops in 20-30 years later to say "AHA!  FOOLED YOU!".  They broke treaties, signed new ones, broke those, annexed Austria, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslovakia, signed more treaties, broke them, then invaded Poland.

- (Russia) Again?  Hitler and his desire to prep for the coming war with Russia were a big part of Mein Kampf, the Soviet Union was busy sponsoring (more or less depending on the period) Communist revolutions elsewhere, they had fought a proxy conflict in Spain, they had fought an actual major war 20 years prior, with the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk presaging a lot of what the Nazis would eventually try to implement in Eastern Europe, and just prior to Barbarossa the Germans had conquered Czechoslovakia, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, France, etc.  With their allies in Hungary, Italy, Spain, and elsewhere, they had pretty much wrapped up every other major country in Europe with exception of Britain.  The timing of Barbarossa surprised Stalin, not the eventuality of war.

US Civil War:

- South Carolina declared its secession in December of 1860, they fired on Fort Sumter in April 12, 1861.  They wrote a letter demanding the evacuation of Fort Sumter in January 31, after firing shots to prevent its resupply on January 9.

- The overall buildup to the Civil War including intense factional fighting, rising declarations in favor of secession over the slavery issue, Bleeding Kansas, the caning of Charles Sumner, etc.

So, with China/Russia, where are the border skirmishes (no, not the ones 50 years ago)?  The political speeches denouncing the other country?  Threatening diplomatic letters?  Diplomatic maneuvering?  Peace talks that dissolved in acrimony, or that led to resolutions swiftly broken?  Embargoes?

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-05-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: > Pearl Harbor: - The most salient was the US oil embargo,
> restrictions on the purchase of aircraft engine and other
> strategic materials, etc. in response to Japan's invasion of
> China. The US government was well aware of what it was doing when
> it put those policies into place.

So today, China is threatening the Senkaku islands on a daily basis,
with continuing military confrontations with Japan's forces. A couple
of years ago, there were widespread violent anti-Japan riots in China,
and China imposed an embargo sanction on Japan. China is confiscating
other countries' territories in the SCS, building illegal military
bases, and threatening the US for "destabilizing" the region over
freedom of navigation operations.

In September, China sent a fleet of 240 fishing boats to the region
around Japan's Senkaku Island, and then used the fishing boats as an
excuse to send in over a dozen military patrol boats, presumably to
"protect" the fishing boats.

Incidentally, that's the technique that China would use to "protect"
Chinese people in Russia's Far East.

China has also been illegally threatening Vietnam's fishing grounds.
In August, Vietnam deployed rocket launchers on five of its bases in
the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea to confront China.

(02-05-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: > (Poland) Really? Nazi Germany had been taking bites out of the
> other countries of Central Europe throughout the 1930s,

So today, China is illegally taking bites out of other countries'
territories and fishing grounds in the SCS. China has stated that it
plans to annex India's province of Arunachal Pradesh, which China
refers to as "South Tibet," and both China and India are building
up forces along that border.

(02-05-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: > US Civil War: - The overall buildup to the Civil War including
> intense factional fighting, rising declarations in favor of
> secession over the slavery issue, Bleeding Kansas, the caning of
> Charles Sumner, etc.

So today we have China building up military forces along the border
with India. China has also made repeated military incursions into
India, threatening to confiscate regions along their common border.

Even worse, as I've been documenting frequently in the past year, the
Kashmir/Jammu region is becoming explosive, with escalating tensions
and violence on both sides. China participates with its own
incursions into Indian territory.

(02-05-2017, 11:51 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: > So, with China/Russia, where are the border skirmishes (no, not
> the ones 50 years ago)? The political speeches denouncing the
> other country? Threatening diplomatic letters? Diplomatic
> maneuvering? Peace talks that dissolved in acrimony, or that led
> to resolutions swiftly broken? Embargoes?

China and Russia are like the Nazis and Russia in the 1930s. They're
great pals because they're both criminal enterprises, and they stand
together because all they have is each other to support them when the
West points out their illegal activities. But there's no honor among
thieves. The Nazis turned against Russia when it was convenient,
making complete fools out of the Russians, and China will similarly
turn against Russia when it's convenient.

So the point is that everything that happened in the "gathering storm"
that led to WW II is happening again today. It really takes a vivid
imagination to explain away everything that's going on as anything but
a prelude to war.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Boomers refuse to allow deviation from the Wilson/Clemenceau/Roosevelt/Churchill line of geopolitical thought in the western world. A big reason why The boomers have excluded the generations that came after them from political office is because. Boomers realize Xers and Millies reject the boomers' ideological "purist" interpretation of geopolitical Relations. Boomers know that Xers and Millies Properly immersed into the political/Military/Geopolitical would and allowed to gain experience and ascend to leadership would be threats to the Boomers Ideals. Out of Pure selfishness and refusal to admit that their ideals might be wrong the Boomers therefore have largely excluded Gen-X and Now Gen-Y/Millennials as well from real world decision-making Examples of this are obvious.

Boomer Political Line regarding Russia: Putin's regime is illegitimate and Criminal, the west should support democratic opposition and sanctions.

Xer/Millie Solution: The west should extend genuine recognition to putins government and cooperate in areas where we both have shared interests, in more difficult areas, Military buildups would provide deterrence.

Boomer Political Line regarding China/Taiwan/Japan/etc: Taiwan is a democracy and must be defended simply because it is a democracy and without regards to US and other western geopolitical and Material interests. The Chinese General's bluff will be called even if it is not a bluff (This is in reference to conversation between a Chinese general and a US policy advisor back around 2000 or so where the general said that a future Invasion of taiwan would not lead to a larger war because the US would not sacrifice Los Angeles for Taipei). US and other western countries will shoulder the brunt of any deterrence in the region and discourage local armament.

Xer/Millie Solution: Taiwan is largely strategically worthless geopolitically. The west has no cultural or even historical ties to Taiwan and the current commitment there is purely ideological. The US should offer a grand bargain which likely sacrifices Taiwan but stabilizes the Geopolitical environment. The Chinese General Mentioned above observation is largely a correct one because the US and the west have little or no tangible Assets that are worth defending in Taiwan. If deterrence is an absolute must: Local Militarization and Nuclear proliferation would provide deterrence. US should allow Japan and South Korea to arm themselves with Nukes and point out how unrealistic Japanese Pacifism is.

Boomer Political Line Regarding Muslims: The US and other western Countries should continue allowing Muslims into our countries. The Majority of Muslims are regular people Just like you and me. Islamic Terrorism should be treated as a scaled up version of Police vs Criminals. US/West should work with Muslim Countries to help root out the threat.

Xer/Millie solution: Islamic Terrorism is a symptom of the Islamic Worlds long held ambitions of Conquering the west. Moderate Muslims are a misnomer and share the same goals as the Jihadists, more insidious because "moderates" are used to infiltrate western countries. This is a war, not a police action. US/West should carry out mass pacification campaigns with all methods including Mongol-style/conquistador-style/Nazi-style Methods Being potentially on the table in order to reestablish deterrence.

Boomer political Line regarding "rogue" states like North Korea/Iran/Syria/Etc: These Regimes are pure evil and a no more than groups of Criminals; The US and West should not extend any form of recognition/ or conferring of any form of legitimacy to them whatsoever.

Xer/Millie Solutions: These regimes are hostile to the west and Consider the west to be overt enemies of them and Vice-versa and are often brutal within their countries. Even so The US should at least establish diplomatic recognition to them, they ARE the governments of those Countries, even though they hate us and we hate them. Iranian and North Korean Treatment of Iranian and North Korean Citizens is not the business of the US. Governments look after their own Citizens not those of Foreign Nations. The US should focus on the military threat from those nations and carry out Military Buildups and increase Readiness in order to facilitate deterrence.

[Cynic Hero '86]

I Forgot to Post why I posted the Criticisms of Boomer leadership Mentioned above in the First place. Every Boomer Dominated Government ever since boomers started ascending to the top offices around the time of the fall of the Berlin wall; has conducted policy along the lines of the Boomer political Line Mentioned of above. They Refuse to even the Consider the alternative options mentioned above. This is why many Xers and Millies Consider boomers to be governing tyrannically. The Xer/Millie Solution isn't even Considered, yet alone Tried (actually calling it the Xer/millie solution is somewhat a misnomer as some boomers believe in it too, But it represents the will of the people). Boomers supposedly love democracy yet refuse to implement the will of the people. It's quite simple actually, the people often overwhelmingly want one policy on a certain issue but the government is often implementing a completely different one, often diametrically opposed to what the will of the people was. Xers and Millies are demanding their rights Back. That is Why for example President Trump Must carry though his campaign promises on Immigration/Protectionism.

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-05-2017, 02:14 PM)Cynic Hero 86 Wrote: > Boomer political Line regarding "rogue" states like North
> Korea/Iran/Syria/Etc: These Regimes are pure evil and a no more
> than groups of Criminals; The US and West should not extend any
> form of recognition/ or conferring of any form of legitimacy to
> them whatsoever.

> Xer/Millie Solutions: These regimes are hostile to the west and
> Consider the west to be overt enemies of them and Vice-versa and
> are often brutal within their countries. Even so The US should at
> least establish diplomatic recognition to them, they ARE the
> governments of those Countries, even though they hate us and we
> hate them. Iranian and North Korean Treatment of Iranian and North
> Korean Citizens is not the business of the US. Governments look
> after their own Citizens not those of Foreign Nations. The US
> should focus on the military threat from those nations and carry
> out Military Buildups and increase Readiness in order to
> facilitate deterrence.

Wait. Suddenly I'm very confused. I must have missed that memo.
Don't Boomers already recognize those countries?

[Cynic Hero '86]

(02-05-2017, 02:44 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 02:14 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: >   Boomer political Line regarding "rogue" states like North
>   Korea/Iran/Syria/Etc: These Regimes are pure evil and a no more
>   than groups of Criminals; The US and West should not extend any
>   form of recognition/ or conferring of any form of legitimacy to
>   them whatsoever.

>   Xer/Millie Solutions: These regimes are hostile to the west and
>   Consider the west to be overt enemies of them and Vice-versa and
>   are often brutal within their countries. Even so The US should at
>   least establish diplomatic recognition to them, they ARE the
>   governments of those Countries, even though they hate us and we
>   hate them. Iranian and North Korean Treatment of Iranian and North
>   Korean Citizens is not the business of the US. Governments look
>   after their own Citizens not those of Foreign Nations. The US
>   should focus on the military threat from those nations and carry
>   out Military Buildups and increase Readiness in order to
>   facilitate deterrence.  

Wait.  Suddenly I'm very confused.  I must have missed that memo.
Don't Boomers already recognize those countries?

Not As Legitimate Governments. During the 2013 North Korean Tensions regarding the Missile test. It was Mentioned that north Korea sent Messages to the embassies in their Countries Saying they Couldn't protect the diplomats there, basically as a threat to the US. I was surprised to Learn That Britain had an embassy there, I think France also Has one as well. The US however never does that kind of Diplomacy, the US has historically had a hard time having relations with overt enemies and/or countries with which we fought a war against but did not achieve a complete regime change of the former enemy state.

[SomeGuy]

John Xenakis,

I absolutely agree with you that we are in a position analogous to the 1930s, now.  I view a major crisis war as a real possibility, which I have discussed on this and the previous board at length.  My readings of S & H, Thompson and Modelski, Mearsheimer, and others inclines me to believe that China, as the major rising power in the international system today, and the US, as the existing hegemon, will play a major role in coming conflicts.  That's why I am talking about this with you, Mikebert, and others.  The only difference I see (beyond some quibbles over finer points of theory/turning placement for certain countries) is that I disagree that China and Russia are going to be adversaries this time around.  I absolutely support the efforts of Trump and some of his advisors, and similar right-wing parties in Europe, to effect a rapprochement with Russia, even if only for the short-term.  I simply don't see bearing fruit to the extent you seem to.

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-05-2017, 03:27 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > John Xenakis, I absolutely agree with you that we are in a
> position analogous to the 1930s, now. I view a major crisis war
> as a real possibility, which I have discussed on this and the
> previous board at length. My readings of S & H, Thompson and
> Modelski, Mearsheimer, and others inclines me to believe that
> China, as the major rising power in the international system
> today, and the US, as the existing hegemon, will play a major role
> in coming conflicts. That's why I am talking about this with you,
> Mikebert, and others. The only difference I see (beyond some
> quibbles over finer points of theory/turning placement for certain
> countries) is that I disagree that China and Russia are going to
> be adversaries this time around. I absolutely support the efforts
> of Trump and some of his advisors, and similar right-wing parties
> in Europe, to effect a rapprochement with Russia, even if only for
> the short-term. I simply don't see bearing fruit to the extent
> you seem to.

That would mean that Russia, China and Pakistan are all going to be at
war with India and Iran. That's not going to happen.

This isn't a political judgment. I've been saying for ten years that
it would be China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries versus the
US, India, Russia and Iran. Whether Trump gets along with Putin has
absolutely nothing to do with it. Enemies in generational crisis wars
are determined by the generations, the populations, not by the
politicians. What the politicians do is irrelevant. What Trump does
is irrelevant. That's the way the world works.

[SomeGuy]

Or, you know, it could mean that some of them don't participate at all.  Just because India and Pakistan go to war, or the Chinese and the US go to war, or the US and Iran go to war, does not mean that everyone else on the planet is obligated to pick sides and immediately attack one of their neighbors in a fit of hysteria.  I mean, really, is that how you imagine the world works?  India and Pakistan go to war, and China and Russia are going to look at each other and go, "To hell with it, we should go to war, too!  With each other!  Sure, we've been cooperating against the Americans for years now, spent decades resolving outstanding issues, and they're still our primary geopolitical concern.  But we can't just get left out like this.  The missiles are launching in five minutes!"?  The only way what you are talking about makes sense is if you assume that every country on the planet is run by a complete lunatic.  Popular hysteria plays a part, but it isn't just a random spasm, it's a sign of pressure that has been building up for years.  Absolutely no "reference" you've cited bears out your conclusion that these things happen out of the blue.  

"What about Pearl Harbor!  What about Fort Sumner, huh!" 

The only way you could think that is if you've been coasting entirely off of the history you learned in middle school.

Speaking of references, where's the actual Generational Dynamics research you keep claiming exists?  Every time I or anyone else asks you a question, you either sputter indignantly or toss off some link that obviously came from the first result you found on a Google search.  Need I remind you of the article from a white supremacist website you posted in response to a question of mine a couple of years ago?  I can dig up the post if you like.  I thought this was supposed to be based on MIT's System Dynamics, and a complex analysis of contemporary events and history?  Do you ever do original research?  All I've seen is a half-assed attempt to take S & H's work and pass it off as your own, coupled with a skimming of news stories which you then twist to fit an interpretation that you seem to have based on nothing more than your own opinions.  Take your Chinese missiles story.  The article you quoted basically says that they were moved to China's border to better target the United States, and that with their range it would be unecessary to move them their to target Russia, and yet you immediately crow about how this is "proof" that the Chinese are years away from nuking and invading Russia.  It's like you don't even read your own sources before putting it out.

I guess there's a reason Bannon and others keep referencing S & H, while nobody ever seems to reference the Xenakis model except you. 

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-05-2017, 07:43 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: > Or, you know, it could mean that some of them don't participate at
> all. Just because India and Pakistan go to war, or the Chinese
> and the US go to war, or the US and Iran go to war, does not mean
> that everyone else on the planet is obligated to pick sides and
> immediately attack one of their neighbors in a fit of hysteria. I
> mean, really, is that how you imagine the world works? India and
> Pakistan go to war, and China and Russia are going to look at each
> other and go, "To hell with it, we should go to war, too! With
> each other! Sure, we've been cooperating against the Americans
> for years now, spent decades resolving outstanding issues, and
> they're still our primary geopolitical concern. But we can't just
> get left out like this. The missiles are launching in five
> minutes!"? The only way what you are talking about makes sense is
> if you assume that every country on the planet is run by a
> complete lunatic. Popular hysteria plays a part, but it isn't
> just a random spasm, it's a sign of pressure that has been
> building up for years. Absolutely no "reference" you've cited
> bears out your conclusion that these things happen out of the
> blue.

> "What about Pearl Harbor! What about Fort Sumner, huh!"
>

> The only way you could think that is if you've been coasting
> entirely off of the history you learned in middle school.

> Speaking of references, where's the actual Generational Dynamics
> research you keep claiming exists? Every time I or anyone else
> asks you a question, you either sputter indignantly or toss off
> some link that obviously came from the first result you found on a
> Google search. Need I remind you of the article from a white
> supremacist website you posted in response to a question of mine a
> couple of years ago? I can dig up the post if you like. I
> thought this was supposed to be based on MIT's System Dynamics,
> and a complex analysis of contemporary events and history? Do you
> ever do original research? All I've seen is a half-assed attempt
> to take S & H's work and pass it off as your own, coupled with a
> skimming of news stories which you then twist to fit an
> interpretation that you seem to have based on nothing more than
> your own opinions. Take your Chinese missiles story. The article
> you quoted basically says that they were moved to China's border
> to better target the United States, and that with their range it
> would be unecessary to move them their to target Russia, and yet
> you immediately crow about how this is "proof" that the Chinese
> are years away from nuking and invading Russia. It's like you
> don't even read your own sources before putting it out.

> I guess there's a reason Bannon and others keep referencing S & H,
> while nobody ever seems to reference the Xenakis model except you.
>

Whatever.

[John J. Xenakis]

By the way, I'm used to dealing with this kind of thing. Here's a
comment that someone posted on Breitbart in response to my article on
the Myanmar Rohingyas:

Quote:> Space Cowboy

> Man...it take a real mentally unhinged writer like this lunatic to
> believe the fake news that comes out of the UN. In any event, I
> recommend that Myanmar does all it can to kick every last Muslim
> out of their country, because Muslims and non-Muslims are
> thoroughly incompatible. My only wish is that Trump would order
> the same exact thing over here in the USA before it is too
> late.

So I'm used to dealing with all kinds of loons.

[Warren Dew]

(02-05-2017, 08:44 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 05:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: If China were NOT planning war, it would have no use for the thousands
of missiles targeting the US and Russia, or for those new missiles on
Russia's border, and China would not be confiscating other people's
fishing grounds and building military bases in the South China Sea.

It strikes me that China is trying to catch up with the US and Russia on nuclear weapons capability, not trying to gain a first strike capability.  Currently China is behind France; they have a lot of catching up to do.  By your definition of "planning war", are the US and Russia "planning war"?

What do you perceive as my "definition" of "planning war," and
how would you apply your perceived definition to China, Russia,
and the US?

I don't know what your definition of "planning war" is; that's why I'm asking for a clarification.  You say that the only use for China having "thousands of missiles targeting the US and Russia" is that they're "planning war"; by that logic, it seems to me that the US and Russia are also "planning war", since we both have thousands of missiles targeting each other and China as well.

I feel reasonably confident that I understand what the US is planning.  We have contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios in which war could occur; in that sense we are "planning war".  We may well be planning conventional strikes in Syrian territory, and keeping our nukes in reserve as a deterrent against unwanted escalation; in that sense also we may be "planning war", or at least we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.  On the other hand, we aren't likely to attack China or Russia in an unprovoked war of aggression; in that sense, we are not "planning war".

I'm trying to get a feel for which of these senses you are using when you say China is "planning war".  If it's in the contingency plan sense, I'd agree; I think all nations with significant military power "plan war" in that sense.  If you're talking about use as a deterrent against escalation while they wage a limited conventional war, I'd be interested in what limited conventional war you think is planned.  If you think they are planning an unprovoked war of aggression against the US in the sense that we are not planning an unprovoked war of aggression against China, I'd want to know why you think the situation is not symmetric.  And if you think the US is planning an unprovoked war of aggression against China, I'd be interested in that too.

So, can you clarify in which of those senses you are using "planning war", and in particular, do you see the US and Russia fitting that sense as well?

Quote:Is it your opinion that there's any scenario where the US could have sided with the Nazis in WWII?  If not, then why not?

Except in the deterministic sense that what happened is obviously what happened, yes, I think there are scenarios where the US could have sided with Nazi Germany in WWII.  If the Great Depression had hit France harder, causing the centrist French government to be replaced by a militant Communist government strongly allied with the Soviet Union, for example, I can see Churchill and the US intervening to help Nazi Germany survive to prevent Communist hegemony over the continent.  I can think of other scenarios too, up until 1938 or 1939.  I'm not sure what relevance that has, though.

[Marypoza]

(02-05-2017, 05:44 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 03:27 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: >   John Xenakis, I absolutely agree with you that we are in a
>   position analogous to the 1930s, now.  I view a major crisis war
>   as a real possibility, which I have discussed on this and the
>   previous board at length.  My readings of S & H, Thompson and
>   Modelski, Mearsheimer, and others inclines me to believe that
>   China, as the major rising power in the international system
>   today, and the US, as the existing hegemon, will play a major role
>   in coming conflicts.  That's why I am talking about this with you,
>   Mikebert, and others.  The only difference I see (beyond some
>   quibbles over finer points of theory/turning placement for certain
>   countries) is that I disagree that China and Russia are going to
>   be adversaries this time around.  I absolutely support the efforts
>   of Trump and some of his advisors, and similar right-wing parties
>   in Europe, to effect a rapprochement with Russia, even if only for
>   the short-term.  I simply don't see bearing fruit to the extent
>   you seem to.  

That would mean that Russia, China and Pakistan are all going to be at
war with India and Iran.  That's not going to happen.

This isn't a political judgment.  I've been saying for ten years that
it would be China, Pakistan and the Sunni Muslim countries versus the
US, India, Russia and Iran.  Whether Trump gets along with Putin has
absolutely nothing to do with it.  Enemies in generational crisis wars
are determined by the generations, the populations, not by the
politicians.  What the politicians do is irrelevant.  What Trump does
is irrelevant.  That's the way the world works.

-- you have  China vs Russia & India. Does that mean BRIC is gonna fall apart?

[Marypoza]

What do you make of this?

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/bre...di-arabia/

[Marypoza]

(02-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-05-2017, 08:44 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 05:27 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: If China were NOT planning war, it would have no use for the thousands
of missiles targeting the US and Russia, or for those new missiles on
Russia's border, and China would not be confiscating other people's
fishing grounds and building military bases in the South China Sea.

It strikes me that China is trying to catch up with the US and Russia on nuclear weapons capability, not trying to gain a first strike capability.  Currently China is behind France; they have a lot of catching up to do.  By your definition of "planning war", are the US and Russia "planning war"?

What do you perceive as my "definition" of "planning war," and
how would you apply your perceived definition to China, Russia,
and the US?

I don't know what your definition of "planning war" is; that's why I'm asking for a clarification.  You say that the only use for China having "thousands of missiles targeting the US and Russia" is that they're "planning war"; by that logic, it seems to me that the US and Russia are also "planning war", since we both have thousands of missiles targeting each other and China as well.

I feel reasonably confident that I understand what the US is planning.  We have contingency plans for all sorts of scenarios in which war could occur; in that sense we are "planning war".  We may well be planning conventional strikes in Syrian territory, and keeping our nukes in reserve as a deterrent against unwanted escalation; in that sense also we may be "planning war", or at least we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.  On the other hand, we aren't likely to attack China or Russia in an unprovoked war of aggression; in that sense, we are not "planning war".

I'm trying to get a feel for which of these senses you are using when you say China is "planning war".  If it's in the contingency plan sense, I'd agree; I think all nations with significant military power "plan war" in that sense.  If you're talking about use as a deterrent against escalation while they wage a limited conventional war, I'd be interested in what limited conventional war you think is planned.  If you think they are planning an unprovoked war of aggression against the US in the sense that we are not planning an unprovoked war of aggression against China, I'd want to know why you think the situation is not symmetric.  And if you think the US is planning an unprovoked war of aggression against China, I'd be interested in that too.

So, can you clarify in which of those senses you are using "planning war", and in particular, do you see the US and Russia fitting that sense as well?

Quote:Is it your opinion that there's any scenario where the US could have sided with the Nazis in WWII?  If not, then why not?

Except in the deterministic sense that what happened is obviously what happened, yes, I think there are scenarios where the US could have sided with Nazi Germany in WWII.  If the Great Depression had hit France harder, causing the centrist French government to be replaced by a militant Communist government strongly allied with the Soviet Union, for example, I can see Churchill and the US intervening to help Nazi Germany survive to prevent Communist hegemony over the continent.  I can think of other scenarios too, up until 1938 or 1939.  I'm not sure what relevance that has, though.

-- what if Grandpa Bush had been successful in overthrowing Roosevelt? Grandpa was a big Hitler fanboy, even after WW2 started. In 1942 he was busted for "trading with the enemy"

[John J. Xenakis]

(02-05-2017, 09:32 PM)Marypoza Wrote: > What do you make of this?

> https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/bre...di-arabia/
>

This is nothing new in the sense that the Houthis have been launching
missiles from the Yemen border striking Saudi military targets for a
couple of years now. What IS new about this is that the missile
reached Riyadh. It's not surprising that the Saudis would like to
cover it up, but that obviously isn't going to happen. What will
happen is that this will substantially increase tensions further
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and in some scenarios might result in
retaliation against Iran.

It will be interesting to see how the BBC covers this tomorrow,
after everything's been confirmed.

[SomeGuy]

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You've got nothing, so you've gone from bluster and insult to hiding.  My bad, I thought I was talking to a man.