Generational Dynamics World View

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 12:10 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 04:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.

Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

What I mean is that we aren't dealing with a unintelligent population chained to a medieval superstition like say Iraq or Libya.

Can the US destroy the sites?  Probably.  But I fully imagine that he has his nuclear scientists well protected and that as soon as he thinks its remotely safe they will be back to producing fissile material to make warheads.

The problem isn't so much physical as it is intellectual, unless you have a bomb that can make a population with a mean IQ around 105 to have a mean IQ around 85.

Sure.  But it takes time to rebuilt nuclear reactors to produce plutonium, and enrichment plants for bomb grade uranium.  Those can be destroyed faster than they can be rebuilt.  Nuclear weapons take good scientists, but they require a production infrastructure.

At current, the whispers around the Pentagon (and I'm only reporting scuttlebutt here because I still know people connected with the services) are that NK likely has already stockpiled that material.  And furthermore that if they have the capability of building said reactors the first time, they could do so again.  As I said when dealing with North Korea we have to keep in mind that we are dealing with the North East Asian racial group and not the Arabic racial group.  There is at least one standard deviation in difference in their IQs.

Furthermore, if we examine Korean culture itself (and this applies to South Korea too but with some modification) we see that they view the nation as more vital than the individual in nearly all aspects of life.  Kim has already demonstrated that he is more interested in maintaining his nuclear deterrent than feeding his population if it comes down to that.  Indeed from the same scuttlebutt he's been attempting to have the army convert some parts of their bases to the production of goats and vegetables to address some of the food shortage problems.

Overall the problem remains that if one wants to neutralize the North Korean nuclear threat (and it is expected they have about 10 or so warheads, or at least they did under Kim 2) then one must also completely occupy and then destroy the Kim Regime.

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > And Graham's is not contradictory either. It says that, one way
> or another, war with North Korea is "inevitable," and that an
> effort will be made to confine the war to the Korean peninsula.
> That's a worthwhile objective, but it's totally delusional to
> believe that it could succeed in a generational Crisis era.
>

(08-18-2017, 12:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > The Spanish Civil War was limited to the Iberian peninsula during
> a crisis era. There could be limited wars prior to the big one.
>

The Spanish Civil War (1936-39) led directly to World War II
(1939-45). One could just as easily argue that WW II began in 1936
with the Spanish Civil War, or even in September 1931, when Japan
invaded Manchuria, or even in 1930, when the US passed the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill.

Here are some excerpts from a history of the Spanish Civil War:

history-world Wrote:> The Spanish Civil War(1936-39), was a military revolt
> against the Republican government of Spain, supported by
> conservative elements within the country. When an initial military
> coup failed to win control of the entire country, a bloody civil
> war ensued, fought with great ferocity on both sides. The
> Nationalists, as the rebels were called, received aid from Fascist
> Italy and Nazi Germany. The Republicans received aid from the
> Soviet Union, as well as from International Brigades, a great
> number of volunteers who came from other European countries and
> the United States. ...

> The political and emotional reverberations of the war far
> transcended those of a national conflict, for many in other
> countries saw the Spanish Civil War as part of an international
> conflict between--depending on their point of view--tyranny and
> democracy, or Fascism and freedom, or Communism and
> civilization. For Germany and Italy, Spain was a testing ground
> for new methods of tank and air warfare. For Britain and France,
> the conflict represented a new threat to the international
> equilibrium that they were struggling to preserve, which in 1939
> collapsed into World War II.

> http://history-world.org/spanish_civil_war.htm

In an Awakening era, one war is unlikely to lead to another one,
because the survivors of the previous crisis war make sure that
doesn't happen.

But in a generational Crisis era, each "minor" war triggers the next
one because younger generations are in charge, and they have no clue
what the consequences of their actions are.

So the Spanish Civil War was only briefly confined to the Iberian
Peninsula, since it was a proxy war between Britain and France versus
Germany and Italy, leading directly to WW II.

Similarly, a war on the Korean Peninsula might be confined for a few
weeks or months, but the US would be involved immediately, and China
would certainly get involved, so it would be a proxy war between the
US and China that would directly lead to WW III.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-18-2017, 02:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 02:01 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: ? Another war?   No, wars are like playing cards. We have too many cards in our hand, so if we add another card,
NK, we need to discard another war, say like Afghanistan. Also, don ya think we need a war tax? I think if the US fights a war, it needs to be paid for. Since we have so many wars, lets put 'em on budget and raise taxes enough to pay for them all. 

Sure, pull out of Afghanistan.

Quote:Political issues = I think China among others would be involved in some of that political and real fallout, so to speak.

China will object but will be secretly pleased that we took care of the problem.

Quote:And...  campus unrest you bet.  Remember that man?  Alt Right = Wallace folks , assorted lefties, well, NOW then, SJW's into feminism now.

No draft, no boots on the ground.

Quote:I wonder if we're gonna then move on to Iran and get some more re-duxes. like a hostage crisis or oil shut off.

I'm sure after North Korea has been made an example of, Iran will be more than happy to renegotiate their deal to our liking.

1.  OK, now what about that war surtax I was describing?
2. I'd like to pull out of, in order as such:
a. Syria.
b. Iraq.
c. Cancel any remaining CIA spook support for "moderate rebels", which are nothing more than a conduit for US arms to go to Al Qaeda.
d. NATO
e. Clean out our overseas base inventory.
f. No draft:  Yeah, but I'd love to draft Neo-Nazis and Teanage Mutant Ninja Antifas to go to the front lines together, with random assignments to get 'em all mixed together in platoons right in infantry divisions.  I think all of them have the [url="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm"] warrior gene. [/ufl] .  So, a pox on both houses on my end needs satisfaction. I do not have the warrior variant of MAO-A myself. I just don't like groups or individuals who mess with my own self indulgence you know.


I don't see any need to do stuff to Iran either. Let Saudi Arabia handle that problem and China , which has NK on it's border can take care of that problem if they want to.  I don't think China cares to have some crackpot to possess nukes any more than we are. Fallout is fallout and if NK is nuked, China, Japan, and S Korea would all have some really big problems. If NK nukes somebody, I think it's clear to anyone that they'd get nuked in return.
...
It's like playing no limit hold'em. The goal in hold'em is to win pots of course. The best way to be a winner is to know your opponents. Always question yourself while at the table. Observe the action and make mental models for each opponent. Ask yourself, what sorts of hands does each opponent play, are they loose, tight, aggressive [lots of betting/raising) or passive, just call. That means you should play just a few hands [go to war sparingly] and spend the rest of the time making mental models.

[Warren Dew]

(08-18-2017, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:

(08-17-2017, 10:30 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: >   And Graham's is not contradictory either.  It says that, one way
>   or another, war with North Korea is "inevitable," and that an
>   effort will be made to confine the war to the Korean peninsula.
>   That's a worthwhile objective, but it's totally delusional to
>   believe that it could succeed in a generational Crisis era.
>  

(08-18-2017, 12:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: >   The Spanish Civil War was limited to the Iberian peninsula during
>   a crisis era.  There could be limited wars prior to the big one.
>  

The Spanish Civil War (1936-39) led directly to World War II
(1939-45).  One could just as easily argue that WW II began in 1936
with the Spanish Civil War, or even in September 1931, when Japan
invaded Manchuria, or even in 1930, when the US passed the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill.

There were five months between the end of the Spanish Civil War and the beginning of World War II proper in Europe.  I don't think you can say that the Spanish Civil War led to WWII either in the sense that had it not happened, WWII would not have happened nor in the sense that the Spanish Civil War caused general war in Europe to break out earlier.

Seeing it as part of the greater use of military as a result of the crisis era is correct, and that would apply to an attack on North Korea.  But that wouldn't in itself be a reason not to attack North Korea.

[Warren Dew]

(08-18-2017, 06:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 12:10 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 04:58 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Removing Kim's nuclear capabilities without removing his regime is an impossible task.

Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

What I mean is that we aren't dealing with a unintelligent population chained to a medieval superstition like say Iraq or Libya.

Can the US destroy the sites?  Probably.  But I fully imagine that he has his nuclear scientists well protected and that as soon as he thinks its remotely safe they will be back to producing fissile material to make warheads.

The problem isn't so much physical as it is intellectual, unless you have a bomb that can make a population with a mean IQ around 105 to have a mean IQ around 85.

Sure.  But it takes time to rebuilt nuclear reactors to produce plutonium, and enrichment plants for bomb grade uranium.  Those can be destroyed faster than they can be rebuilt.  Nuclear weapons take good scientists, but they require a production infrastructure.

At current, the whispers around the Pentagon (and I'm only reporting scuttlebutt here because I still know people connected with the services) are that NK likely has already stockpiled that material.  And furthermore that if they have the capability of building said reactors the first time, they could do so again.  As I said when dealing with North Korea we have to keep in mind that we are dealing with the North East Asian racial group and not the Arabic racial group.  There is at least one standard deviation in difference in their IQs.

Furthermore, if we examine Korean culture itself (and this applies to South Korea too but with some modification) we see that they view the nation as more vital than the individual in nearly all aspects of life.  Kim has already demonstrated that he is more interested in maintaining his nuclear deterrent than feeding his population if it comes down to that.  Indeed from the same scuttlebutt he's been attempting to have the army convert some parts of their bases to the production of goats and vegetables to address some of the food shortage problems.

Overall the problem remains that if one wants to neutralize the North Korean nuclear threat (and it is expected they have about 10 or so warheads, or at least they did under Kim 2) then one must also completely occupy and then destroy the Kim Regime.

As of a few months ago, I believe we thought they had enough plutonium for about 20 nuclear warheads.  Many of those would probably survive, whether they are stockpiled or installed on missiles.  Without a working reactor, though, they couldn't produce more.  And we could bomb it back faster than they could fix it - though I'd expect we'd take the regime out too the second or third time.

It currently seems like we're headed toward letting them have the weapons, though.  I guess we're just going to wait until they or someone they sell nuclear weapons to decides to use one.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 19-Aug-17 World View -- Germany accuses Turkey's Erdogan of jailing Germans as hostages

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Erdogan tells Turks living in Germany not to vote for Angela Merkel
  
• Germany accuses Erdogan of extortion by 'hostage diplomacy'
  

****
**** Erdogan tells Turks living in Germany not to vote for Angela Merkel
****


Recep Tayyip Erdogan

The rapidly deteriorating relations between Germany and Turkey took
another bizarre twist on Friday when Turkey's president called on
Turks living in Germany not to vote for the Christian Democrat Party
(CDU) the party headed by Chancellor Angela Merkel, or for any party
that supports Merkel. Speaking after Friday prayers in Istanbul,
Erdogan said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I call on fellow Turks in Germany not to vote for the
> CDU, the SPD or the Greens, which are all hostile to
> Turkey. Support those who are not enemies of Turkey. ...
>
> I think Turkish voters should teach a necessary lesson at the
> ballot box to those political parties who are so aggressive and
> disrespectful toward Turkey."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Merkel will be running for a fourth term in the upcoming elections on
September 24. Merkel rejected Erdogan's "meddling," and said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"German voters, including the ones with Turkish
> background, have a right to vote freely. We will not stand for
> any kind of interference."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Yeni Safak (Ankara) and Deutsche Welle and BBC

****
**** Germany accuses Erdogan of extortion by 'hostage diplomacy'
****

Erdogan's speech was probably prompted by a statement on Thursday by
Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel accusing Turkey of
practicing "hostage diplomacy" by arresting foreign nationals on bogus
charges and then holding them in prison while demanding the
extradition of someone he claims was part of last year's July 2016
aborted coup.

In February, Turkey arrested Deniz Yücel, a Turkish-German political
correspondent working for Die Welt, accused of reporting on the
activities of the Kurds in Turkey. Erdogan has accused Yücel and
other foreign nationals of terrorist activities. In July, Erdogan
ordered the arrest of Peter Steudtner, a German human rights activist
in Turkey.

The arrest of Steudtner caused Sigmar Gabriel told a press conference
that it was no longer safe for German people and businesses to travel
to Turkey.

On Thursday Gabriel was asked by Yücel had not been released. His
response:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Because Turkey, in my opinion, holds him as a
> hostage."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In fact, Erdogan is holding a number of German and American nationals
on bogus charges. In particular, North Carolina Christian pastor
Andrew Brunson was imprisoned on October 7 of last year, on charges of
"membership in an armed terrorist organization," with no evidence
whatsoever. When President Trump met with Erdogan in May, Trump asked
that the Turkish government “expeditiously” return Brunson to the
United States.

What Erdogan wants to do is force the US to extradite Felhullah Gülen
back to Turkey. Gülen is a 76-year-old political enemy of Erdogan,
living since 1999 in self-imposed exile in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania,
after splitting with Erdogan. Erdogan claims that Gülen orchestrated
the coup from his easy chair at his resort in the Pocono Mountains.

Erdogan arrested or fired over 100,000 people since the coup on vague
charges. Anyone could be arrested for any reason. If someone's child
went to one of Gülen's schools, then the child's parents could be
arrested.

As I've written in the past,

Erdogan's claims make no sense. For one thing, Erdogan started
shutting down media and arresting reporters months before the
attempted coup even occurred. After the coup attempt, Erdogan moved
so quickly to arrest tens of thousands of people that it was pretty
clear that the arrests had been planned all along, just waiting an
excuse to execute them.

The reason that Erdogan has been arresting American, German and other
nationals and holding them hostage is to use them as bargaining chips
to force the extradition of Turks in other countries. Erdogan wants
to force the US to extradite Gülen, even though Erdogan has been
unable to provide evidence to satisfy a US court that Gülen had
anything to do with the coup attempt.

From Germany, Erdogan wants to extradite a prominent cleric, Adil
Öksüz. Erdogan accuses Öksüz of being a middleman between Gülen and
coup plotters. Erdogan claims that he's provided Germany with 1,500
documents, but apparently Germany's courts are also not satisfied that
there's any actual evidence that Öksüz was actually doing what Erdogan
accuses him of.

Recently Erdogan explained his hostage diplomacy by saying that it's
the policy of the "new Turkey," since the "old Turkey" no longer
exists:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Here in Pennsylvania, there is a known charlatan
> [Gülen]. His back team [Öksüz], they are also in Germany, mainly
> in Germany, and they are all around. You feed these terrorists,
> then you get up and say 'Give us Filjan.' Do not look up, if you
> have a reputation, I have a judgment. First you will give it, then
> you will receive it from us. You are not here. There is no old
> Turkey anymore, this Turkey is new Turkey. You should see it as a
> flag race."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

There's a little lost in translation, but apparently "You feed these
terrorists, then you get up and say 'Give us Filjan'" is an accusation
that the US and Germany feed the terrorists, and then demand that
prisoners like Brunson, Yücel, and Steudtner.

Erdogan has promised that after the September 24 elections in Germany,
relations between Turkey and Germany will improve. Erdogan is
assuming that Merkel will lose in the election, but even if she does,
it seems unlikely that the new Chancellor will give into hostage
extortion from Turkey, and so relations are expected to continue
worsening.

As I've been writing for years, Generational Dynamics predicts that
the coming Clash of Civilizations world war will pit the US, India,
Russia, Iran and the West against China, Pakistan, and the Sunni
Muslim countries, including Turkey. Worsening relations between
Turkey and Germany are following that trend line. BuzzFeed and Anadolu (Ankara) (Trans) and Asheboro NC Courier-Tribune and Arab News

Related Articles

• Relations between Germany and Turkey spiral into crisis (21-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Turkey's Erdogan gives himself dictatorial powers, moving Turkey away from the West (22-Jul-2016)
  
  
• Turkey's 'shameful day for free press' as government seizes Zaman media (06-Mar-2016)
  
  
• More than a million of secularists rally in Turkey (14-May-2007)
  
  
• Turkey debates Islam versus secularism (26-Feb-2010)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Fethullah Gülen, Fetullahist Terror Organization, FETÖ,
Germany, Angela Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel, Peter Steudtner,
Deniz Yücel, Andrew Brunson, Adil Öksüz

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 20-Aug-17 World View -- Chinese vessels massing near Philippines island in South China Sea

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Chinese vessels massing near Philippines island in South China Sea
  
• Official warns may be necessary to invoke US-Philippines mutual defense treaty
  

****
**** Chinese vessels massing near Philippines island in South China Sea
****


Philippines Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio says that the government must confront China now. Carpio helped the Philippines win the Hague Tribunal ruling that declared illegal China's activities in the South China Sea

A statement by Philippines Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio warns that government must act in response to an
"invasion of Philippine territory by China" in the South China Sea.

The warning was triggered when Rep. Gary Alejano said that the
military reported early last week that Chinese vessels appeared to be
massing north of Pag-asa Island (Thitu Island), a Philippine
territory. The Philippines maintains a small population of about 100
people on Pag-asa Island in order to guarantee that it maintains its
sovereignty.

Images released by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI)
confirm the military's information, showing nine Chinese fishing
vessels and two Chinese Navy ships near Pag-asa island. According to
AMTI:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The number and rapid coordination of naval and coast
> guard ships suggests that this was purposely organized in advance
> and was not just an ad hoc response by government vessels that
> happened to be in the area."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

AMTI has repeated used satellite images to prove that China is
continuing land reclamation activities, building artificial islands,
and creating large military bases. These activities are all illegal
under international law, since July 2016, when a Tribunal at the
United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague eviscerated
all of China's claims to the South China Sea. Since then, China has
continued its criminal activities, and has continued to annex regions
of the South China Sea belonging to other countries, as Hitler did in
1939.

In October of last year, Philippines president Rodrigo R. Duterte
traveled to Beijing and announced:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation
> from the United States. Both in military... not maybe social, but
> economics also, America has lost. I will be dependent on you. ...
>
> I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will
> also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are
> three of us against the world — China, Philippines and Russia.
>
> Americans are loud, sometimes rowdy. Their larynx is not adjusted
> to civility."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

And that statement was made at a time when Barack Obama was president,
not Donald Trump.

At the time of that statement, I said this new relationship wouldn't
last long because the Philippine people like and trust the United
States, while the dislike and distrust China. Duterte's statement has
been highly controversial in the Philippines, and Duterte has been
forced to backtrack in some ways.

Ever since then, it's been official government policy that China and
the Philippines are friends. That's way Foreign Affairs Secretary
Alan Peter Cayetano ridiculed the concerns about Chinese vessels
massing near Pag-asa Island, saying "China is not the enemy of the
Philippines." ABS-CDN (Manila) and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI)

Related Articles

• Philippines leader Rodrigo Duterte in comic dance with China (23-Oct-2016)
  
  
• Philippines humiliates China in harsh Hague Tribunal ruling over South China Sea (13-Jul-2016)
  
  
• Would America not defend Israel after all? (08-Sep-2013)
  

****
**** Official warns may be necessary to invoke US-Philippines mutual defense treaty
****

Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio raised the
stakes on Saturday by describing China's actions as a "invasion of
Philippine territory." He said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"This means China is now virtually occupying a new
> geologic feature within the territorial sea of Pag-asa, a
> Philippine territory, in clear violation of China's supposed vow
> not to occupy any more islands in the Spratlys. This is worse than
> what happened in Scarborough Shoal. Sandy Cay is a newly-created
> island and could not have been owned by China even under its
> discredited historic nine-dashed line claim. Sandy Cay emerged
> within the territorial sea of a Philippine territory. If Sandy Cay
> becomes Chinese territory, it will reduce by a third or more
> Pagasa's territorial sea. It will also prevent the Philippines
> from extending the territorial sea of Pagasa to include Subi
> Reef. By any yardstick, this is seizure of Philippine
> territory. ...
>
> It is the constitutional duty of President Duterte, and DFA
> Secretary Cayetano, to defend and protect Philippine
> territory. Both have vowed to the Filipino people that they will
> not concede a single inch of Philippine territory to China. ...
>
> If both are courageous, they should send a Philippine navy ship to
> guard Sandy Cay, and if the Chinese navy ships attack the
> Philippine navy vessel, they should invoke the Philippine-US
> Mutual Defense Treaty."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Carpio was part of the team that won the Hague Tribunal ruling last
year that declared illegal China's activities in the South China Sea.

According to Philippine media, there are now known discussions at the
US Pentagon about putting the contested Scarborough Shoal under the
1951 Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which requires each party to
defend the other in the case of an external attack on its territory.
Rapplier (Manila) and Asia Times and Inquirer (Manila)

Related Articles

• Philippines President Duterte seeks to appease China at ASEAN meeting (27-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Philippines president Duterte orders military to occupy South China Sea islands (07-Apr-2017)
  
  
• US will upgrade Philippines military bases, despite Duterte's threats (31-Jan-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, China, Antonio Carpio,
Gary Alejano, Pag-asa Island, Thitu Island, South China Sea,
Rodrigo R. Duterte, Alan Peter Cayetano, Sandy Cay,
United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration,
1951 Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, Scarborough Shoal

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Kinser79]

(08-18-2017, 09:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 06:37 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 12:10 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-16-2017, 09:35 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-14-2017, 09:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Can you clarify - in what way do you think it's impossible?  Are you talking about the technical issues of identifying and destroying the sites and launchers, or are you talking about the political issues of who does what afterwards?

What I mean is that we aren't dealing with a unintelligent population chained to a medieval superstition like say Iraq or Libya.

Can the US destroy the sites?  Probably.  But I fully imagine that he has his nuclear scientists well protected and that as soon as he thinks its remotely safe they will be back to producing fissile material to make warheads.

The problem isn't so much physical as it is intellectual, unless you have a bomb that can make a population with a mean IQ around 105 to have a mean IQ around 85.

Sure.  But it takes time to rebuilt nuclear reactors to produce plutonium, and enrichment plants for bomb grade uranium.  Those can be destroyed faster than they can be rebuilt.  Nuclear weapons take good scientists, but they require a production infrastructure.

At current, the whispers around the Pentagon (and I'm only reporting scuttlebutt here because I still know people connected with the services) are that NK likely has already stockpiled that material.  And furthermore that if they have the capability of building said reactors the first time, they could do so again.  As I said when dealing with North Korea we have to keep in mind that we are dealing with the North East Asian racial group and not the Arabic racial group.  There is at least one standard deviation in difference in their IQs.

Furthermore, if we examine Korean culture itself (and this applies to South Korea too but with some modification) we see that they view the nation as more vital than the individual in nearly all aspects of life.  Kim has already demonstrated that he is more interested in maintaining his nuclear deterrent than feeding his population if it comes down to that.  Indeed from the same scuttlebutt he's been attempting to have the army convert some parts of their bases to the production of goats and vegetables to address some of the food shortage problems.

Overall the problem remains that if one wants to neutralize the North Korean nuclear threat (and it is expected they have about 10 or so warheads, or at least they did under Kim 2) then one must also completely occupy and then destroy the Kim Regime.

As of a few months ago, I believe we thought they had enough plutonium for about 20 nuclear warheads.  Many of those would probably survive, whether they are stockpiled or installed on missiles.  Without a working reactor, though, they couldn't produce more.  And we could bomb it back faster than they could fix it - though I'd expect we'd take the regime out too the second or third time.

It currently seems like we're headed toward letting them have the weapons, though.  I guess we're just going to wait until they or someone they sell nuclear weapons to decides to use one.

Some problems with your argument.

1.  It doesn't matter if they have 1, 10, 100 or 1000 warheads.  It only takes one to nuke Tokyo or Guam or Anchorage.
2.  If the CIA thinks they have enough plutonium for 20 warheads they likely have enough for around 60.  It is a good idea to overestimate an enemy than to under estimate one.
3.  Production of plutonium is not that difficult.  If they have the means to quickly set up a solid state reactor they can be producing it by the kilogram not long after setting it up.  And that is assuming that they don't set up such reactors underground.  The DPRK has loads of mines to hide shit like that in.
4.  I think you overestimate American intelligence.  I do not.  For two reasons, I've been in the military and thus know the CIA in particular is not very effective at its job and the terrain of the state in question is perfectly suited to establishing secret sites and has the intellectual capacity to do so.

5.  I would argue that unless the regime is liquidated we cannot prevent them from having nuclear weapons.  That being said, if the Koreans have to have nuclear weapons I would be more comfortable with the ROK having them then the DPRK, the question really should be can we get the PRC to agree to that.

The DPRK on its own is not a credible threat to the US, but the PRC most definitely is.

[Warren Dew]

I'm not just trusting the CIA; I'm also checking against my nuclear engineering knowledge. For example, I figured out Korea's first tests were plutonium bombs long before the CIA did - or at least before the announced it.

But as you say, it doesn't matter that much how many warheads they have. The difference between you and me, I think, is that I'm willing to give up Guam to prevent North Korea from having nuclear weapons.

I read you to believe that we can permit nuclear proliferation with a good chance of nuclear weapons never being used. Is that correct?

I do disagree, for engineering reasons, regarding how difficult plutonium production is.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 21-Aug-17 World View -- Turkey warns of sectarian war as Iraq ejects ISIS from Tal Afar

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Done with Mosul, Iraqi forces begin operation to eject ISIS from Tal Afar
  
• Turkey warns of sectarian war following battle of Tal Afar
  
• President Trump to announce US strategy in Afghanistan
  

****
**** Done with Mosul, Iraqi forces begin operation to eject ISIS from Tal Afar
****


Iraqi girls play in a Mosul schoolyard (Reuters)

Iraqi forces launched an offensive Sunday to recapture the city of Tal
Afar, which fell in 2014 to the so-called Islamic State (IS or ISIS or
ISIL or Daesh). The offensive comes a month after the forces declared
that the city of Mosul had been recaptured from ISIS, leaving Tal Afar
as the only remaining large stronghold for ISIS in Iraq.

The recapture of Mosul took nine months of extremely brutal house to
house fighting, as the streets were too narrow for tanks and other
vehicles. Furthermore, the ISIS forces used women and children as
hostages in houses where explosives were stored and ISIS militias
fought off the Iraq forces.

The Iraqi military is claiming that the recapture of Tal Afar will be
much easier, because it's smaller and because the streets are much
wider in most parts of the city. The Iraqi air force dropped leaflets
across the city say, "The battle is imminent and the victory is
coming, God willing."

Prime Minister of Iraq Haider al-Abadi announced Sunday in a televised
speech to the nation that ISIS militias should surrender or die:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I am saying to Daesh [ISIS] that there is no choice
> other than to surrender or die. [To the Iraqi troops] the whole
> world is with you."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

However, ISIS fighters have dug trenches around the city and can use
light machine guns, improvised explosive devices, and car bombs to
stop the Iraqi forces, using a strategy similar to what they had
adopted in Mosul.

Some 40,000 Iraqi fighters are participating in the offensive. As in
Mosul, a US-led coalition will provide support to the Iraqi forces.
According to a statement issued by Army Lt. Gen. Stephen J. Townsend
on Sunday:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"The coalition will continue to help the government
> and security forces to liberate the Iraqi people and defeat ISIS
> through five means: by providing equipment, training,
> intelligence, precision fires and combat advice. ...
>
> In accordance with the laws of armed conflict and in support of
> its partnered forces who are risking their lives every day in the
> fight against an evil enemy, the coalition will continue to strike
> valid military targets, after considering the principles of
> military necessity, humanity, proportionality and
> distinction."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Before 2014, Tal Afar had a population of around 200,000. However,
most of the people have been fleeing the city, and it's estimated that
only 10,000 to 40,000 civilians remain. It's believed that there are
about one or two thousand ISIS militants and their families still in
the city. Iraqi News and International Business Times and Dept. of Defense

****
**** Turkey warns of sectarian war following battle of Tal Afar
****

The population of Tal Afar is mostly ethnic Turkmens, which are
ethnically related to Turks, and which are part of Turkey's identity
group. An estimated 60% of the Turkmens are Sunni, while the
remaining Turkmens are Shia.

So Turkey is expressing a great deal of concern that most of the
fighters in the Iraqi forces are from the Iran-backed Shiite
paramilitary group Hashd al-Shaabi militias. Turkey is concerned that
once Hashd al-Shaabi takes control of Tal Afar, there will be ethnic
cleansing of the Turkmens.

Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan is on record as saying that
Turkey would intervene if this kind of ethnic cleansing takes place.
In October 2016 he said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"I conveyed this to all authorities loud and
> clear. Tal Afar is entirely a Turkmen town. Half the town is
> Shiite and the other half Sunni. We are looking at them
> holistically as Muslims rather than Shiite or Sunni. However, if
> Hashd al-Shaabi terrorizes [Tal Afar], our response would
> certainly be different."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Iran's last generational crisis war was the Iran/Iraq war of the
1980s. This was not a war of Sunnis versus Shias. It was an ethnic
war of Arabs and Turkmens versus Persians, with Sunnis and Shia
involved on both sides. It was an extremely bloody war, with
something like 1.5 million people killed, climaxing when Saddam
Hussein began using chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

So Turkey's concerns are that now you have Iran-backed militias that
will take control of Tal Afar, with its population of Turkmens, and
conduct revenge attacks for the Iran/Iraq war -- which is possible and
may even be likely.

Furthermore, Iran is known to have a strategy of taking control of a
swath from Baghdad to Damascus, and Iranian control of Tal Afar would
be a big advance on that strategy. Anadolu (Ankara) and Sabah (Ankara) and Al Monitor (1-Dec-2016) and NY Times

Related Articles:

[*] Concerns grow over chaos in Iraq after ISIS is defeated in Mosul (22-Mar-2017)

[*] Recapturing Mosul from ISIS leaves the future of Iraq in question (09-Jul-2017)

[*] Turkey and Iraq in dispute over Turkish participation in Mosul operation (18-Oct-2016)

[*] Iraq sending Shia militias to Mosul, directly violating promise to Turkey (28-Nov-2016)


****
**** President Trump to announce US strategy in Afghanistan
****

President Donald Trump is planning a nationwide televised
address from the Oval Office on Monday evening, with the
purpose of explaining decisions that he's made regarding
the US strategy in Afghanistan.

A couple of weeks ago, I discussed the whole US strategy in Afghanistan
at length, including the
options recommended by Steve Bannon. Now that Bannon has left the
White House, it will be interesting to see whether Bannon's
recommendations are followed on Monday evening.


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Iraq, Mosul, Tal Afar, Haider al-Abadi,
Islamic State / of Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, IS, ISIS, ISIL, Daesh
Stephen J. Townsend, Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan,
Iran, Turkmens, Hashd al-Shaabi, Iran/Iraq war, Syria, Afghanistan

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Kinser79]

(08-20-2017, 05:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: I'm not just trusting the CIA; I'm also checking against my nuclear engineering knowledge.  For example, I figured out Korea's first tests were plutonium bombs long before the CIA did - or at least before the announced it.

But as you say, it doesn't matter that much how many warheads they have.  The difference between you and me, I think, is that I'm willing to give up Guam to prevent North Korea from having nuclear weapons.

I read you to believe that we can permit nuclear proliferation with a good chance of nuclear weapons never being used.  Is that correct?

I do disagree, for engineering reasons, regarding how difficult plutonium production is.

Plutonium production is difficult if you don't have reactors, and have never built reactors.  Just like manufacturing cars is difficult if you have no car factories and have never built a car factory.  Once there is an intellectual base to work with it is far easier.

As for Guam.  I'm not willing to sacrifice one square centimeter of US territory.  If the DPRK wants nukes, they will get nukes anyway.

As to nuclear proliferation, I have reason to believe that states acquiring nuclear weapons is not that big of a deal, why did the US and USSR not go to war during the Cold War?  The answer is simple, both could annihilate each other in minutes.  The problem is when non-state actors gain access to nuclear weapons, especially if we're speaking of non-state actors attached to medieval superstitions.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 22-Aug-17 World View -- Hong Kong cracks down on illegal immigrants after death of foreign worker from Philippines

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Philippines maid Lorain Asuncion employed in Hong Kong killed in mainland city
  
• Demand for Filipina maids creates thriving black market in China
  
• Hong Kong cracks down hard on illegal foreign workers
  

****
**** Philippines maid Lorain Asuncion employed in Hong Kong killed in mainland city
****


Lorain Asuncion, Filipina maid died after falling from seventh floor of Shenzhen high-rise

Lorain Asuncion, a 28-year-old Filipina domestic helper, died after
falling from the seventh floor of a high-rise in the city of Shenzhen
in China's mainland on July 24. Chinese officials classified the
death as suicide related to human trafficking," but her sister has
said, "We were told that she jumped. But we think the death of my
sister is very suspicious,” the deceased’s kin told the news
outlet. “We want to know what happened and have justice."

Asuncion had come to Hong Kong to be employed as a domestic worker,
but her employers forced her to work for a family on the mainland,
which is illegal. Although Hong Kong residents are permitted to
employ foreign maids, mainland residents are prohibited from doing so.

Asuncion was contracted to work in Hong Kong only, but her employer
forced her to travel repeatedly in the last year. Her sister said
that when she went to Shenzhen on July 22, she was surprised that the
only person living in the home was the father of the Hong Kong
employer's wife. Two days later, on July 24, she fell to her
death from the building in which the father lived.

Asuncion's Hong Kong employers were arrested last week on suspicion of
conspiracy to defraud. Inquirer (Manila, 15-Aug) and Shanghaiist (14-Aug) and Kwentong OFW (Overseas Filipino Workers)


****
**** Demand for Filipina maids creates thriving black market in China
****

It's illegal for China's mainland residents to employ foreign
maids, and yet it's estimated that there are nearly 200,000
undocumented Filipina maids in China's thriving black market.
Typically, these women earn around $2,000 per month, but
because they're working illegally, they're at the mercy
of their employer, and can't return home.

Filipina maids are said to be highly prized in China for several
reasons:

• Hiring foreign maids signifies a higher social status for some
  Chinese people.
  
  
• The quality of Filipina maids is high, because they are
  required to graduate with a college degree if they want to work
  overseas.
  
  
• They are also required to receive training for household work.
  
  
• They usually speak English. It is "killing two birds with one
  stone" for a Chinese family with a Filipina domestic helper that can
  also teach their children English.

On the other hand, Chinese maids demand higher salaries, even though
they're less well-educated than the Filipinas, and less professional.
The news sources don't mention this, but presumably the shortage of
women in China from decades of the one-child policy and abortions of
female babies has caused a shortage of Chinese maids, and raised
salaries because of the law of supply and demand.

China is considering a plan to allow Filipina maids to work legally in
five Chinese cities, including Beijing, Shanghai and Xiamen. Shanghaiist (31-Jul) and Global Times (19-Oct-2016) and NextShark

****
**** Hong Kong cracks down hard on illegal foreign workers
****


Cartoon showing Filipina maid in China (Global Times)

The death of Filipina maid Lorain Asuncion has led to a harsh
crackdown on Filipinos and other illegal foreign workers in Hong Kong.
The Asuncion case was unusual in that it was the employers who are
being prosecuted. Advocates for foreign works complain that the
authorities accuse the workers of being criminals in most cases,
rather than the employers. That might have happened to Asuncion,
except that she was killed instead.

Last week, Hong Kong's immigration police raided two restaurants, one
Chinese and one Japanese, and arrested two female and two male
Vietnamese illegal workers, aged 27-45. According to the Hong Kong
government's web site:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"When intercepted, they were found working in the
> kitchens of the restaurants. Upon identity checking, they produced
> for inspection recognizance forms issued by the ImmD, which
> prohibit them from taking employment. ...
>
> The four illegal workers were charged at Shatin Magistrates'
> Courts yesterday with taking employment after landing in Hong Kong
> unlawfully and remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the
> Director of Immigration or while being a person in respect of whom
> a removal order or deportation order was in force. The four
> Vietnamese illegal workers pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 15
> months' imprisonment. Furthermore, the two male illegal workers
> were also charged with using or being in possession of forged Hong
> Kong identity cards while a female illegal worker was also charged
> with using a false instrument. They were sentenced to imprisonment
> of 15 months for each charge respectively. All sentences are to
> run concurrently. ...
>
> [Illegal foreign workers] are liable upon conviction to a maximum
> fine of $50,000 and up to three years' imprisonment. The Court of
> Appeal has issued a guideline ruling that a sentence of 15 months'
> imprisonment should be applied in such cases. ...
>
> The spokesman reiterated that it is a serious offence to employ
> people who are not lawfully employable. The maximum penalty is
> imprisonment for three years and a fine of $350,000. The High
> Court has laid down sentencing guidelines that the employer of an
> illegal worker should be given an immediate custodial
> sentence."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Those four foreign workers were not the only ones arrested. In just
two days last week, the immigration police in Hong Kong arrested a
totally of 39 people on suspicion they were working without permits.
South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) and Hong Kong government and Asia Times

Related Articles

• China repudiates its Hong Kong 'One Country, Two Systems' agreement with Britain (01-Jul-2017)
  
  
• China orders Hong Kong to disqualify anyone not taking 'sincere' loyalty oath to China (08-Nov-2016)
  
  
• Hong Kong legislature in chaos, under threat of intervention by mainland China (03-Nov-2016)
  
  
• Sharply polarized Hong Kong electorate hands Beijing a stinging setback (06-Sep-2016)
  
  
• Hong Kong leader suggests that the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote (22-Oct-2014)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Philippines, Lorain Asuncion,
Hong Kong, China, Shenzhen

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Warren Dew]

So China has an illegal immigrant problem too? A smaller one than the US has, though.

$2000/month? That's more than they'd make in the US.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 23-Aug-17 World View -- Trump promises victory in Afghanistan by redefining 'victory'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Trump promises victory in Afghanistan by redefining 'victory'
  
• An Afghanistan policy guided by generational theory
  
• Pushing on to victory - as in WW II, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2007
  
• Rex Tillerson denies that 'battlefield victory' is possible
  
• America redefines its relationship with Pakistan and India
  

****
**** Trump promises victory in Afghanistan by redefining 'victory'
****


Trump giving speech on Monday evening (AP)

Most Americans are in denial about the fact that the US and China are
headed for a major world war, but the people in the Administration are
well aware of this. So any Afghanistan policy is going to be
formulated with the impending world war in mind, but without saying
so. This fact at least partially explains the confusion surrounding
the Afghanistan policy announced by President Donald Trump on Monday
evening. As I've written in the past, the Afghanistan war is a
problem with no solution. But the least bad solution is one which
prepares for the war with China.

Trump said in his speech:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"But we must also acknowledge the reality I am here to
> talk about tonight: that nearly 16 years after September 11th
> attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure,
> the American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is
> this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest
> war in American history -- 17 years. ...
>
> [O]ur nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of
> the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the
> sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in
> combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they
> need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to
> win."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

So, Trump is proposing a plan for victory. He describes what
"victory" means:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win.
> From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our
> enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the
> Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror
> attacks against America before they emerge."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

He explains further:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to
> take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to
> achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but
> we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to
> govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building
> again. We are killing terrorists."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Is victory possible, with this redefinition of "victory"?

Well, there will certainly be a lot of terrorists to kill. The
terrorists al-Qaeda in Iraq were able to withdraw and go home. The
Taliban cannot withdraw and go home, because they're already at home.
Furthermore, the generation of young Pashtuns will get larger and
larger, and they will gain more territory and conduct more terrorist
acts in Kabul and elsewhere. So does that conform to Trump's
definition of "victory"? I report, you decide.

I believe it's also true that Trump and the generals have a larger
purpose in mind than just killing terrorists in Afghanistan, and I
heard one analyst provide such a purpose.

There are several American military bases in Afghanistan, including
two air bases in Bagram and Kandahar International Airport. These
bases will be valuable in any future war with China. So remaining in
Afghanistan allows us continued use of those bases, as the war with
China and Pakistan approaches.

If that's the case, then the Administration had better brace
itself for a lot of continued bad news, before those bases
become useful.

As I've said many times before,

the Afghanistan problem has no solution, and by that I mean not that
no one has been clever enough to find a solution, but rather that no
solution exists. One could argue that the plan Trump announced was a
bad plan because there was no good outcome, but it's possible that
it's still the best plan available, in that other plans have worse
outcomes. White House and Military Bases

****
**** An Afghanistan policy guided by generational theory
****

I've always felt that the country would be much better off if foreign
policy could be guided by Generational Dynamics analysis, rather than
by ideology. Barack Obama's policies were purely (left-wing)
ideologically driven and never made any sense at all, and led to one
disaster after another. My hope was that Steve Bannon, who is an
expert on Generational Dynamics, could guide the Trump administration
to a foreign policy that would be analytically driven, and would be
best for the country.

With Bannon now out of the White House, the question now arises
whether Donald Trump's foreign policies will be purely (right-wing)
ideologically driven and still make no sense at all. The
announcement of the Afghanistan plan provides a first look.

First, it was clear that Trump based his plan on the advice of
military leaders. In interviews last year, all three of Obama's former
secretaries of defense confirmed that the Obama administration ignored
military advice, and made military decisions based on ideology. Trump
did not do that, but instead worked with the military to develop a
plan. This is a good thing.

Second, it has been widely reported that the (right-wing) ideological
driven policy advocated by Rand Paul and others was to withdraw
completely all forces from Afghanistan. Trump himself has recommended
this in the past. As I wrote two weeks ago in my analysis of US Afghanistan policy,
complete withdrawal
would have potentially disastrous results, giving the Taliban total
victory, collapsing the government completely, and dealing a huge blow
to India. In his speech, Trump pointed out these same issues, and
repudiated his previous recommendation for a completely withdrawal of
all forces. This is also a good thing.

Third, there had been rumors that Trump would announce an increase of
20,000 troops, with the intention of defeating the Taliban. As one
conservative analyst put it, "Don't do what Obama did and micromanage
the troops. Let them do their thing and win." That attitude is
highly delusional, as I'll come back to below. At any rate, Trump did
not do that. That is also a good thing.

Trump did not announce the number of additional troops that will be
sent to Afghanistan, but sources have put the number at around 4,500,
in addition to the 8,400 already there. But these troops will not be
there for "nation-building," according to Trump. Their purpose will
be for "attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda,
preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass
terror attacks against America before they emerge."

Related Articles

• Trump's review of the Afghanistan war seeks solution where none exists (08-Aug-2017)
  
  
• Massive Kabul bombing on Monday leaves US Afghan policy in tatters (25-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq (01-Apr-2007)

****
**** Pushing on to victory - as in WW II, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2007
****

I have previous written many times, victory in the Afghan war is
impossible. By that I meant victory in the sense of any of America's
previous victories -- WW II, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2007.
Instead, I pointed out that victory in Afghanistan now is impossible,
largely because of the relationship between the radicalized
ethnic Pashtuns (Taliban) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However, Trump in his speech did promise victory in Afghanistan. So
let's look at those four examples of victory from the point of view of
Generational Dynamics, and see why they're irrelevant to Afghanistan
today:

• WW II was finally won by a series of explosive actions,
  including firebombing Dresden and Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima. These
  kinds of actions are literally impossible at any time except at the
  climax of a generational crisis war, like WW II. We are nowhere near
  the climax of a generational crisis war in Afghanistan today, and so
  these kinds of actions are literally impossible.
  
  
• The purpose of the 1991 Iraq war was to expel Saddam Hussein from
  Kuwait. Iraq was in a generational Recovery Era, just three years
  after the climax of the horrific Iran/Iraq war, so the Iraqis had
  little will to fight. So expelling Iraq from Kuwait could be done
  quickly.
  
  
• The 2001 Afghanistan war was also in a generational Recovery era,
  just five years after the climax of the horrific Afghan civil war.
  Like the Iraqis in 1991, the Pashtuns in 2001 had little will to
  fight, and so they could be defeated.
  
  
• The 2007 victory in Iraq that followed President Bush's troop
  "surge" was a victory, but it was only supported by the American
  troops. It was won by the Iraqi Sunnis who ejected al-Qaeda in Iraq,
  a foreign jihadist group whose objective was to foment a civil war
  between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. The objective failed, as I
  described in my 2007 article, "Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq".

None of these examples is in any way comparable to Afghanistan today.
In particular, Afghanistan is completely different today than it was
in 2001. The main thing that's changed in the 16 years since the 2001
Afghan war is that a whole new generation of Pashtuns have come of
age. They are not war-weary like these parents. Furthermore, there
are more of them every day. Even if, by some miracle, most of the
existing Taliban fighters could be wiped out, they would be replaced
quickly by other Pashtuns in the young generations. That would be
true even if it weren't for Pakistan, but Pakistan makes it worse,
because the ethnic Pashtun community stretches across borders into
both countries.

For similar reasons, the 2007 Iraq war is not comparable. Al-Qaeda in
Iraq was a foreign force that could be ejected, but the Taliban and
the Pashtuns are basically the same people, differing only in extent
of radicalization.

Related Articles

• Kabul bombing brings back memories of bloody 1990s Afghan civil war (03-Jun-2017)
  
  
• Brief recent generational history of Afghanistan (25-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Brookings Institution does a full reversal on Iraq war (01-Jul-2009)
  

****
**** Rex Tillerson denies that 'battlefield victory' is possible
****

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made a significant clarification on
Tuesday, saying that there is no way to win a "battlefield victory."
It's impossible to tell whether Tillerson wanted to directly
contradict Trump's statement that he was proposing "a plan for
victory," or if he used the phrase "battlefield victory" to
distinguish his use of the word "victory" from Trump's use.

Since a victory in Afghanistan is impossible, but it's important to
maintain bases in Afghanistan for the coming war with China, Tillerson
said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"This entire effort is intended to put pressure on the
> Taliban to have them understand: you will not win a battlefield
> victory. We may not win one, but neither will you. At some point,
> we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring
> this to an end.
>
> There’s been an erosion in trust because we have witnessed
> terrorist organizations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan
> to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. servicemen,
> U.S. officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan.
> Pakistan in particular can play an important role here certainly
> in delivering the Taliban to the negotiating table."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The last part of this statement is completely delusional (assuming
that anyone in the Administration actually believes it), though it's
probably necessary to satisfy critics. There is zero probability that
the Taliban would agree to a negotiated peace, or that Pakistan will
help. If they agree to negotiate at all, it would be only for the
same reason that North Korea and Iran negotiate -- to get financial
aid or some other benefit in exchange for promising some concession,
and then renege on the promise once the benefit is received.

****
**** America redefines its relationship with Pakistan and India
****

For years, American foreign policy generally gave the perception of
not choosing sides between Pakistan and India, but Trump's Afghanistan
speech made a significant change by giving the perception that the US
is choosing India. This makes sense because it's inevitable. As I've
been saying for years, the approaching Clash of Civilizations world
war will pit the United States + India + Russia + Iran versus China +
Pakistan + the Sunni Muslim countries.

Trump's discussion of India and Pakistan in his speech was
highly significant. He said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to
> agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse
> because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose
> tense relations threaten to spiral. ...
>
> The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and
> how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about
> Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban,
> and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.
> Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in
> Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor
> criminals and terrorists.
>
> In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries
> have worked together against common enemies. The Pakistani people
> have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize
> those contributions and those sacrifices.
>
> But Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try
> every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan
> billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing
> the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to
> change, and that will change immediately. No partnership can
> survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who
> target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan
> to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to
> peace.
>
> Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to
> further develop its strategic partnership with India -- the
> world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner
> of the United States. We appreciate India’s important
> contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes
> billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want
> them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of
> economic assistance and development."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In other words, Trump is threatening to punish Pakistan for providing
safe havens to terrorists attacking American forces in Afghanistan,
with two kinds of punishment:

• Stop providing American aid.
  
• Bring India into Afghanistan.

The heightened presence of India will be fairly alarming to Pakistan
officials. It's pretty obvious that Pakistan can't control militants
causing terrorist acts in Kabul, since they can't control militants
causing terrorist acts in Karachi.

But even if the Pakistanis could control the Afghan militants, it's
highly doubtful that they would want to, according to an editorial
written in Pakistan media in June:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Missing in the policy matrix is the source of tension
> between Afghanistan and Pakistan that makes prospects for Afghan
> peace bleaker. Cross-border insurgent sanctuaries are a symptom
> and not the cause of the growing divide. Relations between the two
> countries have never been cordial since 2001, but they have hit a
> new low with the escalation in terrorist attacks that Kabul blames
> on the Haqqani network allegedly operating from Pakistan’s border
> areas. There has been a further breakdown of relations between the
> two countries with the recent measures taken by Pakistan to
> tighten border management.
>
> But the main reason for the increasing trust deficit is Pakistan’s
> concern at the growing Indian presence in Afghanistan. That is
> also the reason for Pakistan using the Afghan Taliban as a hedge
> against this development. The heightening tension between India
> and Pakistan has further intensified Islamabad’s apprehensions.
> Despite its own problem of violent militancy, Islamabad is not
> willing to take tougher action against the Afghan insurgent
> sanctuaries.
>
> It is apparent, that no matter how intense the US administration’s
> pressure, it cannot force Pakistan to change its
> position."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Well, this has turned out to be a fairly lengthy analytical article,
but the conclusions are pretty clear:

• There will be no 'victory' in Afghanistan.
  
• The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and the terrorist attacks
  will grow as more and more young Pashtuns growing up after the 1990's
  civil war come of age.
  
• Pakistan will continue to provide safe havens to Afghan
  Taliban.
  
• The US will continue to use its military bases in Afghanistan.
  
• At some point soon, the US and India will be at war with Pakistan
  and China.

In addition, if the US cuts aid to Pakistan, which is inevitable
anyway, then China will undoubtedly move to fill the gap, and has
already said they will do so. Dawn (Pakistan, 21-June) and Politico and Dawn (Pakistan)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, China, Pakistan,
Pashtuns, Taliban, Haqqani Network, Iraq, al-Qaeda in Iraq,
Rex Tillerson, India

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[Cynic Hero '86]

(08-18-2017, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: So the Spanish Civil War was only briefly confined to the Iberian
Peninsula, since it was a proxy war between Britain and France versus
Germany and Italy, leading directly to WW II.

Similarly, a war on the Korean Peninsula might be confined for a few
weeks or months, but the US would be involved immediately, and China
would certainly get involved, so it would be a proxy war between the
US and China that would directly lead to WW III.

The Spanish Civil war was not a proxy war between Britain and france versus Nazi Germany. It was a Proxy war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain and France both declared neutrality and specifically banned imports of arms from their countries to either side in the war.

North Korea can be made an example of by a preemptive nuclear strike, the particulars of mopping up North Korea can be negotiated with China in regards to the occupation of the Yalu line or possibly a Chinese occupation of North Korea. Making an Example of North Korea also helps the situation with Iran and bolsters deterrence with both Russia and China.

[Warren Dew]

(08-23-2017, 11:09 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: So the Spanish Civil War was only briefly confined to the Iberian
Peninsula, since it was a proxy war between Britain and France versus
Germany and Italy, leading directly to WW II.

Similarly, a war on the Korean Peninsula might be confined for a few
weeks or months, but the US would be involved immediately, and China
would certainly get involved, so it would be a proxy war between the
US and China that would directly lead to WW III.

The Spanish Civil war was not a proxy war between Britain and france versus Nazi Germany. It was a Proxy war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain and France both declared neutrality and specifically banned imports of arms from their countries to either side in the war.

North Korea can be made an example of by a preemptive nuclear strike, the particulars of mopping up North Korea can be negotiated with China in regards to the occupation of the Yalu line or possibly a Chinese occupation of North Korea. Making an Example of North Korea also helps the situation with Iran and bolsters deterrence with both Russia and China.

Exactly.  If necessary, the Chinese could install an actual puppet state in North Korea that would sign on to a nuclear free peninsula, instead of the independent actor that North Korea is now.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-23-2017, 09:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-23-2017, 11:09 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: So the Spanish Civil War was only briefly confined to the Iberian
Peninsula, since it was a proxy war between Britain and France versus
Germany and Italy, leading directly to WW II.

Similarly, a war on the Korean Peninsula might be confined for a few
weeks or months, but the US would be involved immediately, and China
would certainly get involved, so it would be a proxy war between the
US and China that would directly lead to WW III.

The Spanish Civil war was not a proxy war between Britain and france versus Nazi Germany. It was a Proxy war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain and France both declared neutrality and specifically banned imports of arms from their countries to either side in the war.

North Korea can be made an example of by a preemptive nuclear strike, the particulars of mopping up North Korea can be negotiated with China in regards to the occupation of the Yalu line or possibly a Chinese occupation of North Korea. Making an Example of North Korea also helps the situation with Iran and bolsters deterrence with both Russia and China.

Exactly.  The Chinese could install an actual puppet state in North Korea that would sign on to a nuclear free peninsula, instead of the independent actor that North Korea is now.

? In the meantime Seoul becomes a rubble heap from convential artillery , unless y'all want to nuke the DMZ which wouldn't work either. Last time I checked fallout's a bitch.


Ah yes, take "collateral damage" to a whole new level.

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 24-Aug-17 World View -- Afghan and Eritrean migrants clash at site of 'Jungle' in Calais France

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Afghan and Eritrean migrants clash at site of 'Jungle' in Calais France
  
• Authorities fear that a new 'Jungle' is forming in Calais France
  

****
**** Afghan and Eritrean migrants clash at site of 'Jungle' in Calais France
****


Ten court-ordered toilets for migrants have been set up near Calais (AFP)

As many as 200 migrants using sticks and iron bars as weapons were
involved in mass brawls on Wednesday in France's port city of Calais.
About 20 people were injured, though none seriously, and five people
were arrested.

The fighting was apparently caused by a drunk migrant during the
distribution of free food by a local charity, the Auberge des
Migrants.

Last year, Calais was the home to a huge migrant camp called "The
Jungle," housing about 7,000 migrants. French authorities shut the
camp down in October of last year, forcing the migrants to disperse or
to be housed in refugee centers in other parts of France. At those
refugee centers, migrants are given a chance to apply for asylum, and
are deported back to their home countries if asylum is not granted.

This is not the first brawl since the closure of The Jungle. In early
July, a brawl between African migrants from Eritrea and Ethiopia left
16 injured.

In April, a refugee camp in Dunkirk in northern France was burnt to
the ground. Many of the 1,600 migrants had been living in The Jungle,
before that camp was closed. The original population of the Dunkirk
camp was Iraqi and Kurdish migrants, but the new arrivals were Afghans
who did not get along with the Iraqis and Kurds, leading to violence.
Fighting between the different ethnic groups began in early evening
and continued well into the night. During the fighting, multiple
fires were set on purposing, burning the entire camp to the ground.

When The Jungle camp was demolished last year, many of the evicted
migrants burnt their tents and shanties to the ground as a way of
saying goodbye. Radio France Internationale and Sky News

Related Articles

• Migrant camp in northern France housing 1,600 people burnt to the ground (12-Apr-2017)
  
  
• Thousands of refugees hide from French police as Calais 'Jungle' refugee camp is demolished (28-Oct-2016)
  
  
• France to demolish 'The Jungle' migrant camp in Calais (22-Oct-2016)
  
  
• Bulldozers bury the 'Jungle' refugee camp in Calais France (02-Mar-2016)
  

****
**** Authorities fear that a new 'Jungle' is forming in Calais France
****

Migrants continue to arrive in Calais, and authorities fear that a new
"Jungle" is emerging. French authorities estimate that ther are 400
migrants to be in the Calais area, although aid agencies put the
number at closer to 700.

According to figures from France's Interior Ministry, migrants have
made over 30,000 illegal attempts to reach Britain from Calais so far
this year. There were 17,867 attempts to break into the fortified
zone around the port and Channel Tunnel, and there were 12,349
attempts to stow away on UK-bound trucks. There are reports that two
new migrant welcome centers will be opened near Calais.

As we reported several weeks ago,

a court in France ordered Calais officials, within ten days, to
provide drinking fountains, toilets and showers to migrants who are
"exposed to inhuman and degrading conditions" in the area.

French authorities did in fact set up portable toilets and water taps.
Ten portable toilets and a bank of five taps were installed outside a
refugee center run by the charity Secours Catholique a few miles from
Calais.

However, an official at the charity said that is not enough. "It's
less than minimal. [The authorities'] interpretation (of the order)
is worrying. We hope it's just a first step, which is clearly
inadequate."

France's new government under Emmanuel Macron has taken a tough line
on Calais. France's Interior Minister Gerard Collomb saying he does
not want Calais to become a "running sore." Daily Mail (London) and Express (London) and AFP (16-Aug)

Related Articles

• Court orders France to provide water and sanitation to Calais migrants (02-Aug-2017)
  
  
• Italy begs for help after 12,000 migrants arrive in four days (30-Jun-2017)
  

KEYS: Generational Dynamics, France, Calais, The Jungle, Dunkirk,
Afghanistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kurds, Auberge des Migrants,
Secours Catholique, Emmanuel Macron, Gerard Collomb

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe

[John J. Xenakis]

(08-23-2017, 09:14 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(08-23-2017, 09:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(08-23-2017, 11:09 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote:

(08-18-2017, 07:52 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: So the Spanish Civil War was only briefly confined to the Iberian
Peninsula, since it was a proxy war between Britain and France versus
Germany and Italy, leading directly to WW II.

Similarly, a war on the Korean Peninsula might be confined for a few
weeks or months, but the US would be involved immediately, and China
would certainly get involved, so it would be a proxy war between the
US and China that would directly lead to WW III.

The Spanish Civil war was not a proxy war between Britain and france versus Nazi Germany. It was a Proxy war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Britain and France both declared neutrality and specifically banned imports of arms from their countries to either side in the war.

North Korea can be made an example of by a preemptive nuclear strike, the particulars of mopping up North Korea can be negotiated with China in regards to the occupation of the Yalu line or possibly a Chinese occupation of North Korea. Making an Example of North Korea also helps the situation with Iran and bolsters deterrence with both Russia and China.

Exactly.  The Chinese could install an actual puppet state in North Korea that would sign on to a nuclear free peninsula, instead of the independent actor that North Korea is now.

? In the meantime Seoul becomes a rubble heap from convential artillery , unless y'all want to nuke the DMZ which wouldn't work either. Last time I checked fallout's a bitch.


Ah yes, take "collateral damage" to a whole new level.

There's also the issue that China WANTS to have a nuclear-armed North
Korea to draw forces away when China attacks the United States. So
right now China is just playing a game, pretending to care.

[Cynic Hero '86]

Xenakis All of these issues can be resolved by a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea. Such a war would have a similar effect on China as Khalkhin-Gol Campaign had on Japan.