United States - Preparing for a Crisis War

[Higgenbotham]

There is the difference that, as the elites loot the system during the early stages of financial destruction, there is a short term perception of gain that is temporarily real.

I would think overall, though, that financial destruction is still an illogical process. It involves destroying the pie while thinking that somehow you can grab a bigger piece. This is how I would compare it to using nuclear weapons.

As an aside, the elites are dependent on the complexity of the financial system to skim profits from the labor of the masses. In the extreme case, if the system collapses and the masses are forced to provide for themselves by growing their own food or whatever, then there's no labor available to skim profits from and the money they looted won't do them any good. If they loot the gold, that may have some long term value but in the short run there probably won't be much to buy because there likely won't be any surpluses.

Back to nuclear weapons. The way the elites' minds work is somehow different than that of the typical logical thinking person. Similar to how they somehow convince themselves that there will be gain by looting the financial system when in reality there is none long term, some world leader or group of world leaders will convince themselves they can do the same with nuclear weapons. The logic may be that their defense shield is impenetrable when it is not, their nuclear bunkers will allow them to survive better when they will not, or some other illogical reason I can't think of. But the justification will still be that by destroying the pie they can somehow grab a bigger piece.

[Trevor]

Yes, after we dropped two atomic bombs on their cities and firebombed them for over a year, killing more people than the atomic bombs themselves did. Even then, there were a sizable percentage of commanders who did not want to surrender and intended to keep fighting. I would expect them to launch what they have, believing that they could take out our production facilities, that their defenses were enough to survive anything we could do to them, and that their underground bunkers would keep them safe.

[Higgenbotham]

John has described a repeating situation in the computer industry where X'ers convince their Boomer bosses that projects are on track for completion when in fact they are not. I would envision a similar process in the case of a war. The leaders of the particular country will have X'ers in charge of missile defense projects, nuclear bunker projects and various other projects designed to give the country an edge in the coming war. The penalties for failing to comply with goals and schedules for completion of these projects may be harsh, including death. The X'ers who are working on these projects will lie about the efficacy and tell the leaders things they want to hear. The leaders will want to believe the lies and that will give them incentives to use the nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, believing there may be some edge in doing so.

[Reality Check]

The way the elites' minds work is somehow different than that of the typical logical thinking person.

Think about this same argument if you use the term blacks', or whites', or jews' or muslims' in place of the word elites'

That statement is a stereotype, and if my recollection is correct using stereo types to support an argument is one form of false logic.

[Reality Check]

John has described a repeating situation in the computer industry where X'ers convince their Boomer bosses that projects are on track for completion when in fact they are not. I would envision a similar process in the case of a war. The leaders of the particular country will have X'ers in charge of missile defense projects, nuclear bunker projects and various other projects designed to give the country an edge in the coming war. The penalties for failing to comply with goals and schedules for completion of these projects may be harsh, including death. The X'ers who are working on these projects will lie about the efficacy and tell the leaders things they want to hear. The leaders will want to believe the lies and that will give them incentives to use the nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, believing there may be some edge in doing so.

The thing that is unique about the decision to use strategic thermal nuclear weapons as a strategic weapon during a war is that the punishment for taking that decisions arrives in 20 to 60 minutes after you make the decision. You can not bribe a judge, or a politician or a prosecutor to avoid punishment. The punishment includes a death sentence for the families of those making and carrying out the decision. That is very different from the banking fraud that happened, and continues to happen, to this day.

John's argument is NOT that bank executive's did not know they were being lied to, it was that they were making so much money they chose to go along with the lies.

The elites in the United States who have a role in using thermal nuclear weapons as a strategic weapon on a country that is also a major nuclear weapons power know full well anyone telling them they, and their families, are immune to a retaliatory thermal nuclear strike is a liar. The incentive for the elites to go along with such a lie is just not there, given the almost certain, almost immediate punishment they, and their families, would suffer.

[Reality Check]

The prediction on this forum for a crisis war between the United States and China is the prediction of a world wide war between China and the Sunni Muslim countries on the one hand, and the U.S., Western Europe, Russia and the Shia Muslim countries on the other hand.

Nuclear weapons are most useful as an offensive weapon when a country with many Strategic Thermal Nuclear Weapons attacks a country without any Strategic Thermal Nuclear Weapons. For example: even much less capable atomic bombs worked great against Japan at the end of World War II.

One could easily see China using such weapons against it's troublesome neighbors: Vietnam, the Philippines, South Korea, Burma or even Japan.

Russia might use such weapons against it's traditional mortal enemy, Sunni Muslim led Turkey.

The next easiest target would by a very limited nuclear power such as Pakistan being attacked by the United States, or France being attacked by China.

These later type attacks would demonstrate to allies of China and also to Europe, respectively, just what a major nuclear power could do to allies of China and allies of the United States, respectively. Such an attack would also demonstrate that countries such as the United States and China would not commit suicide to retaliate for a nuclear strike on an ally. Finally, attacks on France and Pakistan could go a very long way to changing these countries from limited nuclear powers to non-nuclear powers.

The major argument for becoming a major nuclear weapons power is to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons against you. If you use those weapons to start a strategic nuclear war with another major nuclear power you have consumed the weapons you were counting on to deter, but worse yet, you have also done the one thing that will force the major nuclear power you were trying to deter to immediately attack you with strategic nuclear weapons.

Elites have other options other than total military defeat by conventional means or certain death by strategic nuclear weapons. Negotiated cease fires, negotiated truces, or even negotiated surrenders where the elites survive is preferable to the elites, and the elites' families, committing near certain suicide.

[Reality Check]

I would think overall, though, that financial destruction is still an illogical process. It involves destroying the pie while thinking that somehow you can grab a bigger piece. ...

As an aside, the elites are dependent on the complexity of the financial system to skim profits from the labor of the masses. In the extreme case, if the system collapses and the masses are forced to provide for themselves by growing their own food or whatever, then there's no labor available to skim profits from and the money they looted won't do them any good. If they loot the gold, that may have some long term value but in the short run there probably won't be much to buy because there likely won't be any surpluses.

I agree.

One could make an argument, and a very good one based on history, that the elites believe they can escape the negatives resulting from their financial looting. They have their mansions and other assets and the government is their to serve them and protect what is theirs. They believe because they have always gotten theirs in good times and bad, and because the government police forces and corrupt politicians have always been their to protect them, all the good things in their lives will continue. There is much historical evidence that this is exactly how elites in many failing societies behave.

There is much evidence of this in the United States today.

I agree with your points in this regard.

But, the remote ( in time ) ultimate destruction of financial markets and the eventual indirect destruction of the local governments that protect you and your property, are vague, distant concepts to the banking and political elite.

Strategic thermal nuclear weapons ( fusion bombs if you will ) detonating above the cities and the mansions the elites live in are not remote ( in time ) nor are they indirect consequences of the elite's actions.

Such explosions are known, predictable, near immediate responses to the actions you must knowingly decide to take when launching a strategic attack, using thermal nuclear weapons by say China on the United States, or by say the United States on China. Regardless of your location: if you are an elite in China, or an elite in the United States, ( and you also control or facilitate the release of nuclear weapons ) these near immediate consequences of your actions known and predictable.

[Higgenbotham]

The way the elites' minds work is somehow different than that of the typical logical thinking person.

Think about this same argument if you use the term blacks', or whites', or jews' or muslims' in place of the word elites'

That statement is a stereotype, and if my recollection is correct using stereo types to support an argument is one form of false logic.

It is the unique personal characteristics (not the ethnicity, genetic makeup or historical group experience) that results in certain individuals (from all races and creeds) wanting and having the ability to enter into leadership positions at the top of the pyramid. The unique personal characteristics that those select persons possess is what correlates with their thought process being different. Entering into the top of the pyramid and the unique perspective that gives further changes the thought process. As a leader, a person finds themselves outside the mass of humanity and almost like a separate species. Try to imagine what that must be like. It probably explains why the world leaders enjoy hobnobbing once per year at Davos. Bill Gates would be a different human today with different ideas were he just a worker bee.

As an aside, I do happen to believe that substituting the word (to use one of your choices and the "best fit") "Jew" into my sentence that you quoted makes it accurate. The mind of the average Jew works differently from the mind of the average human for many reasons, one obvious reason being, genetic differences aside, the Jews have a history of being a small and persecuted minority group, the knowledge of which changes that group's thought process, actions and group dynamic, as well as how others respond to the members of that persecuted minority group. However, I don't believe whether that is true or not supports or refutes my argument.

[Higgenbotham]

But, the remote ( in time ) ultimate destruction of financial markets and the eventual indirect destruction of the local governments that protect you and your property, are vague, distant concepts to the banking and political elite.

Strategic thermal nuclear weapons ( fusion bombs if you will ) detonating above the cities and the mansions the elites live in are not remote ( in time ) nor are they indirect consequences of the elite's actions.

Such explosions are known, predictable, near immediate responses to the actions you must knowingly decide to take when launching a strategic attack, using thermal nuclear weapons by say China on the United States, or by say the United States on China. Regardless of your location: if you are an elite in China, or an elite in the United States, ( and you also control or facilitate the release of nuclear weapons ) these near immediate consequences of your actions known and predictable.

Where I would deviate from my own statement would be to say that nuclear weapons will not be the top choice of the elites and that is a big factor in my opinion as to what is delaying the onset of the worst of the financial crisis and war that may result.

The elites would prefer to use genetically targeted weapons or some other type of weapon that can be targeted. For example, if they can't figure out how to genetically target the weapons, they may dream up the idea of making a biologically based weapon that is programmed to self destruct before air currents can carry it to their location.

I'd also add that, as briefly touched on previously, it will only take one world leader or a small group of world leaders to start the chain reaction of using nuclear weapons. And it would likely be whoever is losing the war and can't see any other way to get out of their losing position. That conundrum in this particular setup doesn't ensure that whoever has the better weapons will ultimately win, but just ensures that nobody wins. Maybe at this point it would be best to quote Einstein and ask whether or not anything has changed since he made this statement, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

[Higgenbotham]

Such explosions are known, predictable, near immediate responses to the actions you must knowingly decide to take...

The main differences I see that inform your opinion versus the other posters who believe nuclear weapons will be used in an all out manner are:
You believe the decision making process will be logical, based on accurate information, and not accident prone.
The other posters believe the decision making process will be illogical, panic driven, based on inaccurate information, and accident prone.
As I see it, that's a Generational Dynamics question mostly, which is why I originally said I don't have much to add to this discussion except for how it relates to the process of financial destruction, which in crisis periods is also a process driven by these same attributes. As you and I have pointed out, though, the fact that it is driven by these same attributes does not make it exactly the same due to the time factor. But when a decision making process is driven by the crisis era process, the time factor may not be the key factor.

One last comment. Back in 2005, John was saying there would be a crisis war and nuclear weapons would be used (same thing he is saying now). I told him I didn't think there would be a nuclear war and gave my reasons (they had to do with historical cycles). I've changed my mind since then. The reason I have is because I've been watching the total ass clowns in the US leadership "respond" to the financial crisis. Back in 2005, I could not have written a more horrific fictional financial horror story than what I see going on right in front of us.