11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis after catastrophic fall of Mosul to ISIS
Thailand's military junta uses sexy 'army girls' to change minds
** 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis after catastrophic fall of Mosul to ISIS
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140611
Contents:
Thailand's military junta uses sexy 'army girls' to change minds
Iraq in major crisis after catastrophic fall of Mosul to ISIS
Iraq's president Nouri Al-Maliki declares state of emergency
Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Thailand, Bangkok, Yingluck Shinawatra,
Islamic Emirate in Iraq and Syria/Sham/the Levant, ISIS, ISIL,
Iraq, Mosul, Fallujah, Iran, Nouri al-Maliki,
Tareq al-Hashemi, Anbar province, Syria, Bashar al-Assad
11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul falls
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
Personally, with everything that's been going on, I'm kind of curious as to why World War III hasn't happened yet. I've looked over older entries of the website and many of them were predicting that it would happen considerably sooner than this. An entry 3 years ago stated it was likely that it would happen with 12-18 months, yet it hasn't, even though tensions are continuing to grow.
-
Guest
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
I agree. I can't believe we are still here. I really can't.Trevor wrote:Personally, with everything that's been going on, I'm kind of curious as to why World War III hasn't happened yet. I've looked over older entries of the website and many of them were predicting that it would happen considerably sooner than this. An entry 3 years ago stated it was likely that it would happen with 12-18 months, yet it hasn't, even though tensions are continuing to grow.
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
I feel the same way.Guest wrote:
I agree. I can't believe we are still here. I really can't.
-
NoOneImportant
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
Historically, we are plying uncharted waters, so to speak - you know: "...this time it's different." In conventional conflict, one can invoke a ceases-fire after the start of hostilities with the expectation of just having a limited number of casualties, with the cease-fire time used to consolidate the commitment of squishy allies, and/or to assess the result of the conflict. With nuclear armed antagonists once the first device is detonated there is no taking it back... no oops, if you will, virtually all nuclear strategies rely upon a devastating first strike - or upon an equally as devastating counter strike; that is all devices are launched so that all warheads impact within moments of each other. In so far as I am aware there is no nuclear strategy of a protracted nuclear conflict lasting years, or even months. There is no nuclear strategy of: "... let's drop a few and see if they change their tune." Cease-fires have been common with many conventional conflicts. In all Middle Eastern conflicts since 1948, and really all US engaged conflicts since the end of WW-II there have been cease-fires where both sides used the time to decide what future course the conflict might take.
Nukes are different- obviously. From launch to impact is 10 minutes for sub, 45 minutes for ICBMs, and once started both antagonist become blind - neither can tell what the other will or will not do, and what they do or do not still have, and they only have from 10 to 45 minutes to decide what course or avenue they will pursue. Total retaliatory response is the most obvious response to a nuclear attack, as a use-it-or-lose-it prospect comes with nuclear conflict and the loss of everything is the risk of delay. Once loosed, nukes kill people wholesale from tens of thousands to millions of people, with hundreds of thousands to millions of additional casualties, and once launched there is no taking one back - there is no mediation once you've lost millions, and still perceive yourself to be viable. Nuclear conflict is total conflict from the moment of the first launch; no negotiation, no mediation, no established means of terminating the conflict, or even any established means of surrendering. Everyone becomes blind at the moment of the initiation of the first launch - chaos reigns, conceivably (presuming you have survived) you may not be able to even perceive that you have even "won," at least the initial exchange. While MAD was the strategy in effect at the end of the Cold War, in reality, MAD evolved, it was never "invented." Post Korean War, at some point as nuclear devices accumulated, overkill became the operative philosophy. Overkill was to assure that there would always be enough devices to assure an overwhelming second response to assure that no one "won" any first strike. Thus the term MAD was born, but it was born to describe what physically, and practically had already come into existence.
In past conventional conflicts there is a gradual hardening that takes place over time as the dead and wounded mount. While you might believe that anyone who resorts to hostilities would have come to grips with the killing, that just isn't the case - most conflicts start with the mentality: "...lets go teach those guys a lesson, we'll teach them to mess with us; we can be back by lunch." The gradually increasing nature of hostility is exhibited by an increase in the number of casualties, and is reflected in the nature of troop strength build-up in various conflicts over the last 100 years. Lincoln, after the shelling of Ft Sumner, made what seemed at the time to be the "outlandish" request for 75,000 volunteers to serve for 90 days; for certainly, at that moment in time, no one believed that anything more than 90 days would be required to put down the rebellion. In the final analysis the American Civil war took four years, and required millions of men, and cost 628,000 lives to end the conflict. In Vietnam the call went from a small number of advisors in the early 60s to over half a million men at the height of the conflict in the late 60s - had American public opinion been committed to the war, conceivably, American troop strength might eventually have exceeded 1 million men. Once nuclear conflict is loosed and anyone experiences such horrendous casualty figures, it would seem that there would be no going back, no cease-fire, it is combat to the death. That is sobering, and while before any conflict begins those intending to initiate conflict might be "sure" that they can win, in a conventional conflict there is wiggle room, room for miscalculation, room for a cease-fire - there is no wiggle room once a nuke goes off, it has immediately become an all or nothing conflict with virtually no time to think, consult, or decide.
One additional observation: men who seek money quickly find, once they have acquired all the money that they can spend in a lifetime, that it is power that they really seek and not money. Those who come to possess great power are generally in search of those who are prepared to fall on their sword for the "cause," something that they would just as soon not do themselves - thus we have avoided nuclear war, as there is no assurance of who will, and who will not perish in a nuclear conflict. The Iranians are truly the most frightening for they believe that the World Caliphate will come out of chaos.
But then again, what do I know?
Nukes are different- obviously. From launch to impact is 10 minutes for sub, 45 minutes for ICBMs, and once started both antagonist become blind - neither can tell what the other will or will not do, and what they do or do not still have, and they only have from 10 to 45 minutes to decide what course or avenue they will pursue. Total retaliatory response is the most obvious response to a nuclear attack, as a use-it-or-lose-it prospect comes with nuclear conflict and the loss of everything is the risk of delay. Once loosed, nukes kill people wholesale from tens of thousands to millions of people, with hundreds of thousands to millions of additional casualties, and once launched there is no taking one back - there is no mediation once you've lost millions, and still perceive yourself to be viable. Nuclear conflict is total conflict from the moment of the first launch; no negotiation, no mediation, no established means of terminating the conflict, or even any established means of surrendering. Everyone becomes blind at the moment of the initiation of the first launch - chaos reigns, conceivably (presuming you have survived) you may not be able to even perceive that you have even "won," at least the initial exchange. While MAD was the strategy in effect at the end of the Cold War, in reality, MAD evolved, it was never "invented." Post Korean War, at some point as nuclear devices accumulated, overkill became the operative philosophy. Overkill was to assure that there would always be enough devices to assure an overwhelming second response to assure that no one "won" any first strike. Thus the term MAD was born, but it was born to describe what physically, and practically had already come into existence.
In past conventional conflicts there is a gradual hardening that takes place over time as the dead and wounded mount. While you might believe that anyone who resorts to hostilities would have come to grips with the killing, that just isn't the case - most conflicts start with the mentality: "...lets go teach those guys a lesson, we'll teach them to mess with us; we can be back by lunch." The gradually increasing nature of hostility is exhibited by an increase in the number of casualties, and is reflected in the nature of troop strength build-up in various conflicts over the last 100 years. Lincoln, after the shelling of Ft Sumner, made what seemed at the time to be the "outlandish" request for 75,000 volunteers to serve for 90 days; for certainly, at that moment in time, no one believed that anything more than 90 days would be required to put down the rebellion. In the final analysis the American Civil war took four years, and required millions of men, and cost 628,000 lives to end the conflict. In Vietnam the call went from a small number of advisors in the early 60s to over half a million men at the height of the conflict in the late 60s - had American public opinion been committed to the war, conceivably, American troop strength might eventually have exceeded 1 million men. Once nuclear conflict is loosed and anyone experiences such horrendous casualty figures, it would seem that there would be no going back, no cease-fire, it is combat to the death. That is sobering, and while before any conflict begins those intending to initiate conflict might be "sure" that they can win, in a conventional conflict there is wiggle room, room for miscalculation, room for a cease-fire - there is no wiggle room once a nuke goes off, it has immediately become an all or nothing conflict with virtually no time to think, consult, or decide.
One additional observation: men who seek money quickly find, once they have acquired all the money that they can spend in a lifetime, that it is power that they really seek and not money. Those who come to possess great power are generally in search of those who are prepared to fall on their sword for the "cause," something that they would just as soon not do themselves - thus we have avoided nuclear war, as there is no assurance of who will, and who will not perish in a nuclear conflict. The Iranians are truly the most frightening for they believe that the World Caliphate will come out of chaos.
But then again, what do I know?
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
The Singularity will save us all.
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
The computers I bought recently were about 1.8 Ghz and the ones I bought about 10 years ago were also. They are still increasing the number of transistors on a chip, so it is possible that Moore's Law is still working some. And GPUs are amazing. However, I am less sure the Singularity is coming soon than I used to be.psCargile wrote:The Singularity will save us all.
http://www.r-bloggers.com/cpu-and-gpu-trends-over-time/
Last edited by vincecate on Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Guest
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
I'm convinced a combination of disease (from Latin America and Africa) and drought induced food shortages are now a bigger threat than nuclear war. Antibiotics seem to be reaching the end of their usefulness. After that-we'll all be dying from paper cuts.
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
If you think WW3 is about to start, why not get a telecommuting job and head for a remote location? If there is a nuclear war and huge population loss, would you not still want to be alive?John wrote:I feel the same way.Guest wrote:
I agree. I can't believe we are still here. I really can't.
Re: 11-Jun-14 World View -- Iraq in major crisis / Mosul fal
No.vincecate wrote:If you think WW3 is about to start, why not get a telecommuting job and head for a remote location? If there is a nuclear war and huge population loss, would you not still want to be alive?John wrote:I feel the same way.Guest wrote:
I agree. I can't believe we are still here. I really can't.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 7 guests