by Trevor » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:47 am
Marc wrote:CrosstimbersOkie wrote:Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?
Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...
True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.
I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.
Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.
I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.
I appreciate the insights there. I do kindly think, however, that just as World War II and its Allies had their Manhattan Project which helped win that war, that a "21st-century Manhattan Project" that wouldn't be bad to start immediately would be to do everything reasonably possible to beef up America's (and its allies') anti-ballistic-missile defenses. This would get into laser-, pulse-, sonic- and lightning-beam technologies which could be crucial for victory, as well as to avoid paying a horrific price for victory. This effort could be a godsend if/when we get into a total-war scenario, which could quite possibly turn seriously nuclear.
Again, thanks for the valuable thoughts. —Best regards, Marc
If I was president and I knew that was coming, that would be my number one priority. This war will end up being nuclear, even if it doesn't start out that way. Building up our ballistic defense would be essential.
One big advantage we had during WWII is that we were surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. We could build and mobilize and there was nothing the Axis could do to stop us. We were the only ones not being bombed every single day for years on end. That's a big advantage that we aren't going to have this time around. The oceans will provide some protection, but it's not going to be the kind of barrier that it was 70 years ago.
Most of the ships we lost in Pearl Harbor were repaired and in spite of the setbacks, we were very, very lucky. If they had managed to hit our oil refineries or caught our aircraft carriers or if they destroyed the dockyards. That would have kept us from launching any real assaults for over a year and we certainly wouldn't have been able to fight at the Coral Sea or Midway; not and win, anyway. We'd have won, certainly, since we were much bigger and stronger than Japan, but it would have been a much harder road for us.
China can match our strength and match our capabilities, so we can't count on any of that this time around. According to my calculations, in real military spending, we outmatch them by 3-1 to 3.5-1. Not nearly as reassuring as you might think, because they'd catch up to us in 5-7 years, especially with our plans to gut everything.
In terms of who I think is best suited for what's coming, I'd have to say Newt Gingrich. Not only is he very knowledgeable about the world, but he is also familiar with Generational Theory, meaning that he has an idea of what we're going to end up facing in future years.
[quote="Marc"][quote="CrosstimbersOkie"]Next President. According to Strauss & Howe a crisis leader should be of the Prophet archetype. That eliminates Obama. I wonder, should Obama win another term, will the crisis be extended for four more years?
Or, say Obama wins. Biden is an Artist, so he's the wrong archetype also. We don't know who the Speaker of the House will be but, there will likely be a Prophet as Secretary of State--number three in the line of succession after the President. Say China were to launch a preemptive missile attack against Washington DC and kill the President, VP, and Speaker. Who's most likely not to be in Washington when it happens? The Madam Secretary of course...
True it would be a disaster if Ron Paul were to actually be nominated, or win. He would fail, and with his failure would be the failure of the Libertarian ideals that have had a few successes in the protection & advancement of personal liberty the past 20 years. Libertarians have no business in public office. Their proper place is in helping shape the debate from outside of the parties and outside of power.
I think Newt Gingrich would be a good choice. He's the right generation and understands history. Watching him on TV it seems that he's tired or that he's in poor physical condition. Being President is a tough job. Of course FDR went into it in poor health and did almost four terms.
Bachman I wouldn't follow around the block--as President anyway. She's not a leader.
I'm not sure how much preparation for war with China is a positive thing. Too much preparation is a disadvantage because such an investment in strategy will hinder the flexibility required to respond to the threats of the moment. China's leaders are flexible and adaptable. They play Go, not Chess. We have to be just as flexible & adaptable--or more so. We won WWII because we were more flexible & adaptable than the Axis. Japan helped us even more by sinking most of our obsolete battleships at Perl harbor. The US has had 30 or 40 years of "managers." What is needed now are Leaders. That eliminates Romney & Huntsman.[/quote]
I appreciate the insights there. I do kindly think, however, that just as World War II and its Allies had their Manhattan Project which helped win that war, that a "21st-century Manhattan Project" that wouldn't be bad to start immediately would be to do everything reasonably possible to beef up America's (and its allies') anti-ballistic-missile defenses. This would get into laser-, pulse-, sonic- and lightning-beam technologies which could be crucial for victory, as well as to avoid paying a horrific price for victory. This effort could be a godsend if/when we get into a total-war scenario, which could quite possibly turn seriously nuclear.
Again, thanks for the valuable thoughts. —Best regards, Marc[/quote]
If I was president and I knew that was coming, that would be my number one priority. This war will end up being nuclear, even if it doesn't start out that way. Building up our ballistic defense would be essential.
One big advantage we had during WWII is that we were surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean. We could build and mobilize and there was nothing the Axis could do to stop us. We were the only ones not being bombed every single day for years on end. That's a big advantage that we aren't going to have this time around. The oceans will provide some protection, but it's not going to be the kind of barrier that it was 70 years ago.
Most of the ships we lost in Pearl Harbor were repaired and in spite of the setbacks, we were very, very lucky. If they had managed to hit our oil refineries or caught our aircraft carriers or if they destroyed the dockyards. That would have kept us from launching any real assaults for over a year and we certainly wouldn't have been able to fight at the Coral Sea or Midway; not and win, anyway. We'd have won, certainly, since we were much bigger and stronger than Japan, but it would have been a much harder road for us.
China can match our strength and match our capabilities, so we can't count on any of that this time around. According to my calculations, in real military spending, we outmatch them by 3-1 to 3.5-1. Not nearly as reassuring as you might think, because they'd catch up to us in 5-7 years, especially with our plans to gut everything.
In terms of who I think is best suited for what's coming, I'd have to say Newt Gingrich. Not only is he very knowledgeable about the world, but he is also familiar with Generational Theory, meaning that he has an idea of what we're going to end up facing in future years.