Generational Dynamics World View News

[Navigator]

** 02-Feb-2024 World View: China's attack

[*] Simultaneously, China's military
will launch dozens of ballistic and
hypersonic missiles, with nuclear and
EMS warheads, targeting American cities
and military bases.[/list]

So, the word of the day today is
"multi-tiered," the word that the
administration is using to describe the
planned military response to Iran.

So, my expectation is that when the
Chinese Communists decide to strike, it
will be a multi-tiered attack.

In response to Tim's post. From a little over a year ago, though if John were still with us I believe he would have posted a summarized version of those previous thoughts.

I don't believe we have to worry about nuclear Armageddon at this point. Neither Putin nor Xi is insane, which is what you would need to be to start this. We have enough nuclear deterrent to prevent this from happening.

Everything else in the post/quote from John is going to happen.

Nukes may be used, but ONLY against ships at sea or bases with low civilian population (like Guam and Okinawa).

No one in their right mind wants to conquer a nuclear wasteland while having your own backyard turned into one.

Everything else in the post/quote from John is going to happen.

[Iceman]

...especially when the guy on the horse was shot dead on his own land.

spottybrowncow...spot on! When that scene occurred, it instantly reminded me of another "movie" scene some 14 years earlier when "Billy" (Dennis Hopper, Easy Rider) got blasted away by a couple of "redneck's" (gee, haven't used/said that word/name in a spell) in a truck. Very REAL and sobering-looking. I saw quote on that 1969 scene, and it said: "The shooting becomes a symbolic moment, underscoring the clash between the ideals of freedom and the harsh realities of a changing America." That said, the 1983 scene sorta mirrors that quote but with a: harsh realities of a changing WORLD.

Anyhoo, couldn't find the flick ANYWHERE but on the YouTube. Watched it all from the computer while eating dinner. I'll check into the book you said. Just finished reading Animal House and 1984. Well, time for a haircut (and no, the redneck didn't convince me of one).

Regards,
Iceman

[FullMoon]

I don't believe we have to worry about nuclear Armageddon at this point. Neither Putin nor Xi is insane, which is what you would need to be to start this. We have enough nuclear deterrent to prevent this from happening.

I think the nuclear winter hypothesis and fear that was generated at the height of the Cold War was because of the overwhelming quantity of weapons available for deployment. I've seen believable analysis that those 2 adversaries are more advanced in survival preparations for a nuclear war because they believe it's more. Probably means they're more willing to use them than we believe ourselves willing to do so. Very few people these days know anything about the aftermath let alone have the ability to survive the few weeks afterwards until the radiation subsides sufficiently to emerge.
The points outlined by John would by themselves constitute an "Armegeddon" event. Just as nobody is prepared for nuclear war, very few are able to survive more than a few days without all the necessities of life provided for them by the structures that will be damaged/destroyed. There's not much need for nuclear escalation at first unless the original attacks fail and the real perpetrators are discovered. I'm assuming that they'll use their Muslim jihadist allies to do the dirty word. Chinese probably will be flying drones and planting time-delayed bombs on critical infrastructure. I'm assuming this hasn't happened already because we've got some kind of likewise deterrent? But if you know the CCP, they're willing to sacrifice what could be a sizable chunk of their population with the assumption that they'll actually come out ahead in the aftermath. Meaning that their tolerance level for loss and destruction/suffering is greater than ours. Zero Covid might have been a test of this theory.

[tim]

** 02-Feb-2024 World View: China's attack

[*] Simultaneously, China's military
will launch dozens of ballistic and
hypersonic missiles, with nuclear and
EMS warheads, targeting American cities
and military bases.[/list]

So, the word of the day today is
"multi-tiered," the word that the
administration is using to describe the
planned military response to Iran.

So, my expectation is that when the
Chinese Communists decide to strike, it
will be a multi-tiered attack.

In response to Tim's post. From a little over a year ago, though if John were still with us I believe he would have posted a summarized version of those previous thoughts.

I don't believe we have to worry about nuclear Armageddon at this point. Neither Putin nor Xi is insane, which is what you would need to be to start this. We have enough nuclear deterrent to prevent this from happening.

Everything else in the post/quote from John is going to happen.

Nukes may be used, but ONLY against ships at sea or bases with low civilian population (like Guam and Okinawa).

No one in their right mind wants to conquer a nuclear wasteland while having your own backyard turned into one.

Everything else in the post/quote from John is going to happen.

Nuclear weapons were used in the last Crisis War. Do you really think that if Japan had the means and capability, they would not have used nuclear weapons on American cities after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit?

You're viewing the coming conflict through your own generational bias, which is normal and what most people do which is why history repeats.

The people who lived during the time civilians were attacked with nuclear weapons saw it happen in their lifetime then during the Cold War built fallout shelters in their backyards and basements. These people were not irrational, they were living their lives and mitigating risk according to what they saw in their own lives, the same thing people are doing now. This generation is gone now and people today roll their eyes when thinking about the family fallout shelter.

When people today think war, they think of Vietnam, Desert Storm, War on Terror, etc. They don't think of fighting a near peer rival that is going to be attacking civilians.

Here is a video of every nuclear explosion since 1945:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFkw0hzW1c

Nuclear winter and the ideas portrayed in movies and entertainment are false and not realistic.

Generational Dynamics and John's legacy is about using the generational cycle to predict world events which so far have been fairly accurate. I remember reading this web page around 20 years ago where around 2025 was the predicted beginning of the next Crisis War.

John also said every nuclear weapon in the world would be used before the war is over.

Its not too late to prepare yourself and your family. The old American Civil Defense information is still out there and can be found for free.

[Navigator]

In response to Tim's post. From a little over a year ago, though if John were still with us I believe he would have posted a summarized version of those previous thoughts.

I don't believe we have to worry about nuclear Armageddon at this point. Neither Putin nor Xi is insane, which is what you would need to be to start this. We have enough nuclear deterrent to prevent this from happening.

Everything else in the post/quote from John is going to happen.

Nukes may be used, but ONLY against ships at sea or bases with low civilian population (like Guam and Okinawa).

No one in their right mind wants to conquer a nuclear wasteland while having your own backyard turned into one.

Everything else in the post/quote from John is going to happen.

Nuclear weapons were used in the last Crisis War. Do you really think that if Japan had the means and capability, they would not have used nuclear weapons on American cities after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit?

You're viewing the coming conflict through your own generational bias, which is normal and what most people do which is why history repeats.

The people who lived during the time civilians were attacked with nuclear weapons saw it happen in their lifetime then during the Cold War built fallout shelters in their backyards and basements. These people were not irrational, they were living their lives and mitigating risk according to what they saw in their own lives, the same thing people are doing now. This generation is gone now and people today roll their eyes when thinking about the family fallout shelter.

When people today think war, they think of Vietnam, Desert Storm, War on Terror, etc. They don't think of fighting a near peer rival that is going to be attacking civilians.

Here is a video of every nuclear explosion since 1945:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGFkw0hzW1c

Nuclear winter and the ideas portrayed in movies and entertainment are false and not realistic.

Generational Dynamics and John's legacy is about using the generational cycle to predict world events which so far have been fairly accurate. I remember reading this web page around 20 years ago where around 2025 was the predicted beginning of the next Crisis War.

John also said every nuclear weapon in the world would be used before the war is over.

Its not too late to prepare yourself and your family. The old American Civil Defense information is still out there and can be found for free.

I understand that we fundamentally disagree about the use of nukes in the upcoming global war.

If both the US and Japan had nukes at the end of the war, it wouldn't have mattered much for Japan, as by that point they had no means of delivering them. But, that aside, if both had nukes, neither would have used them.

The case is shown by Germany's decision not to use nerve gas (which they had and the Allies did not) over fear of mass retaliation. This was the case even in 1940. And, BTW, both Hitler and his crew, and the Japanese running the war, were all psychos (as evidenced by their mass slaughter of civilians). Neither Putin nor Xi are at the Hitler level, more like the Kaiser level.

I do advocate for preparedness, and having stuff that would help in any environment is a good idea. After all, it is much better to have something and not need it, than to need something and not have it.

Global war is coming, but it will most likely be similar to WW1 than to WW2. We won't have to wait 20 years after the forthcoming remake of WW1 to see the remake of WW2, maybe just 3-5 years. THEN I believe you will have Hitler type people who WILL use nukes.

[tim]

Well he had nerve gas and did not use it.

I've already went over this.

The Iran-Iraq War saw the use of chemical attacks against civilians.

In his book, “Of Spies and Stratagems,” Stanley P. Lovell, the head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services during the war, says historians would be wise to dismiss the notion that nerve gas munitions were not used in World War II for humanitarian reasons.

At the war trials at Nuremberg, Nazi leader Hermann Göring was asked why the Germans did not use “Gas Blau” to stop the Normandy invasion. Lovell paraphrases Göring’s explanation that it was because they could not create suitable gas masks for horses, which were critical for transporting supplies.

From “Of Spies and Stratagems,” by Stanley Lovell:

Q. We know you had Gas Blau [a name used for nerve gas] which would have stopped the Normandy invasion. Why didn’t you use it?

A. Die Pferde (the horses).

Q. What have horses to do with it?

A. Everything. A horse lies down in the shafts or between the thills as soon as his breathing is restricted. We never have had a gas mask a horse would tolerate.

Q. What has that to do with Normandy?

A. We did not have enough gasoline to adequately supply the German Air Force and the Panzer Divisions, so we used horse transport in all operations. You must have known that the first thing we did in Poland, France, everywhere, was to seize the horses. All our material was horse-drawn. Had we used gas you would have retaliated and you would have instantly immobilized us.

Q. Was it that serious, Marshal?

A. I tell you, you would have won the war years ago if you had used gas – not on our soldiers, but on our transportation system. Your intelligence men are asses!

Iraq chemical attacks against Iran refers to chemical attacks used by the Iraqi armed forces against Iranian combatants and non-combatants. The Iraqi armed forces employed chemical weapons against combatants and non-combatants in border cities and villages and more than 30 attacks against Iranian civilians were reported. There were chemical attacks against some medical centers and hospitals by the Iraqi army.[1] According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[2][3] According to the Geneva Protocol, chemical attacks were banned, but in practice, to prevent an Iranian victory, the United States supported the Iraqi army in their use of chemical weapons

[tim]

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... 080817.htm

Nuclear war
A question from a web site reader:

"In the predicted clash of civilizations war, the participants will be nuclear. If this is to be a genocidal crisis world war, won't there be a global exchange of thermonuclear weapons? The outcome would not be promising. If there is not to be a nuclear war, what would stop it?"
Another reader wrote,

"But let's face it, if US/EU/Japan/Russia/India/Israel all gang up on China plus Bangladesh and Pakistan, they will nuke them into the stone age in 5 minutes."
Unfortunately, nothing will stop it. I would expect every nuclear weapon in the world to be used on someone before it's all over.

I remember reading the novel On the Beach, by Nevil Shute, in the 1960s. According to the Spark notes synopsis, Albania starts an Arab-Israeli War (which is a pretty good trick, since the Albanians are neither Arab nor Jewish), which led to a Russia-NATO war, which led to a Russo-Chinese war. The story is told from the point of view of people in Australia who are waiting for the huge nuclear cloud from the Northern Hemisphere war to reach them. It'll be there within a year. They're the last people on earth, and it will kill them all. It's a "very 60s" message.

A few years ago I did some research and found that even the largest nuclear weapons have kill radiuses of about 5-10 miles -- and that includes the spread of radiation in the period after the explosion. So if there are 10,000 nuclear weapons in the world, then take a map of the world and put 10,000 very tiny little pinpoint dots on it in various places, and you'll see what effect the nuclear weapons will have.

So, nobody is going to be nuked back to the stone age in five minutes. If you put together all the deaths that will be caused by all the nuclear weapons in the world, it will probably be in the tens of millions. In 2004, based on historical demographic trends and the surging worldwide hunger problem, I estimated the about 2 billion people will be killed in the Clash of Civilizations world war. That figure still sounds about right, and it means that the overwhelming majority of the deaths will occur "the old-fashioned way," through conventional warfare.

It also means that this war will take a very long time,

"I disagree about application of nukes being highly dispersed. They are and will be targeted at wiping out urban areas which are highly concentrated."
I'm certainly no expert on military strategy in a nuclear war, but I would think that, while some nuclear weapons would target urban areas, most would target military personnel and installations.

"How long do we have?"
As you know, predicting dates is impossible, since events will unfold because of chaotic events that can't be predicted.

Keep in mind that these wars usually progress slowly at first, and gather speed as they progress. So there may be an initial ground war between two nations that grows and expands to other nations over a period of months. The first nuclear weapon may not be used for a while -- I would guess the most likely first use would be in Asia, Pakistan vs India or China vs Russia. As the months go by, nuclear weapons will be used increasingly, until everyone is throwing out everything they have. In WW II the explosive climax was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This war will also have an explosive crisis, but I hate to imagine what it will be, and it won't occur for several years.

I guess I can't end this discussion without mentioning that there's a huge wild card that could speed things up: Once the conflict starts, many worldwide public health protocols will break down, and the climate will be right for a bird flu pandemic.

Prelude to war
But when you talk about these world wars, it's a lot more complicated. World War I ended up in a massive civil war in Russia, and also splintered the Ottoman Empire. In World War II, Germany, Italy and Japan formed the major "axis" countries, but other countries joined them. Furthermore, Germany was at war with itself when you consider the Holocaust. China was having a massive civil war (Mao's Communist Revolution), but was also at war with Japan. Furthermore, there were massive wars in the Indian subcontinent and the Mideast, leading to the partitioning of both regions.

The international atmosphere today is much more like the prelude to WW I than to WW II. World War II could almost have been anticipated by someone watching the murderous Adolf Hitler. But there was no figure like Hitler in WW I. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serb high school student, the war in Eastern Europe was triggered. Germany was as shocked by the war as anyone, and had no desire to invade France, but was forced to by a treaty with Austria.

Today, once again, there's no figure like Hitler on the scene, and any war will be a shock to everyone. But, as in the prelude to WW I, nationalistic urges today are rising, and there's a huge network of interlocking treaties.

Near the beginning of this article, I quoted Humphrey Hawksley as saying, "Had Georgia actually been part of the EU, I doubt the conflict with Russia would have got even close to breaking out." That's quite possible, but there's another possibility: If Georgia had been part of the EU or Nato, then Russia might still have invaded, and the interlocking treaties would have led to a much larger war.

Nobody reading this web site should ever think for a moment that the Clash of Civilizations world war will end in a snap, or will spare some country or some group of people, or that it will be "simple" in any conceivable way. This will be 5-10 years of seemingly unending absolutely holy hell for everyone in the world, and I sympathize with those who believe that the luckiest people will be the ones who die early. There's absolutely no way to predict who will win, or which countries will survive. After it's over, the world will no longer be recognizable in any sense comparable to today.

[tim]

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... .world.htm

The above graphic shows that the timelines of many countries of the world have merged into two major timelines, one climaxing in WW I and the other climaxing in WW II. Some countries participated in both world wars, but no country participated in both as a crisis war. Generally speaking, WW I was a crisis war for Eastern European countries, and WW II was a crisis war for West European countries. Today, we're approaching the "clash of civilizations" world war, which will merge these last two major timelines into one.

World War I 1914-1918

Yugoslav War 1991

Roughly 80 years from WWI you have the Yugoslav Wars, which is not coincidental. WWI was a crisis war for Eastern European countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Wars

Often described as one of Europe's deadliest armed conflicts since World War II, the Yugoslav Wars were marked by many war crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, massacres, and mass wartime rape. The Bosnian genocide was the first European wartime event to be formally classified as genocidal in character since the military campaigns of Nazi Germany, and many of the key individuals who perpetrated it were subsequently charged with war crimes;[25] the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established by the UN in The Hague, Netherlands, to prosecute all individuals who had committed war crimes during the conflicts.[26] According to the International Center for Transitional Justice, the Yugoslav Wars resulted in the deaths of 140,000 people,[6] while the Humanitarian Law Center estimates at least 130,000 casualties.[7] Over their decade-long duration, the conflicts resulted in major refugee and humanitarian crises.[27][28][29]