Nuclear War

[Cool Breeze]

Even this isn't likely to bring an immediate end to the year. I've seen many estimates during the Cold War where 2/3rds to even 4/5ths of total warheads would be destroyed on the ground, in port, or just missiles that fail on route. It also takes multiple warheads to destroy an air base, naval port, and in decades past, missile silos.

That's why I said the principle of maximum ruin that John keeps talking about is not likely at all. His prediction is more likely to be maximally ruined. I keep wondering why he believes religiously that the worst possible outcome must happen.

[John]

** 25-Feb-2022 World View: Germany in World War I

> I am actually published in multiple areas regarding WW1, having
> researched it extensively. I have written a book and have
> published detailed military simulations and a host of articles on
> the subject.

> WW1 was an "all in" war for Germany. The Kaiser had the complete
> support of the population up until about Jun of 1918, when people
> realized that they no longer had any hope of winning the war.

> The country went through complete mobilization, complete
> conversion to a war economy, and even years of starvation in their
> total support of the Kaiser's misguided war efforts.

> Only at the very end did the navy mutiny (when ordered to commit
> suicide), while the army conducted a fighting retreat until the
> armistice could be negotiated.

I admit to being confused by your description, since it somewhat
contradicts what I've seen in the past. Perhaps the difference is
that you're focusing on the military, while I'm focusing on the mood.
One could say that America's armed forces were "all in" for the
Vietnam War, especially while Lyndon Johnson was president, but there
was also an anti-war sentiment which isn't present in crisis wars.

There was a definite anti-war sentiment in Germany, as described in
Remarque's 1928 novel, Im Westen Nichts Neues (All Quiet on the
Western Front).

http://www.thebellacademy.com/uploads/2 ... l_text.pdf

The anti-war sentiment was bookended by two remarkable events: At the
beginning of the war, the was the famous "Christmas Truce".

• Christmas truce drawing from the London News of January
  9, 1915. The drawing's caption reads, in part, "British and
  German soldiers arm-in-arm and exchanging headgear: a Christmas truce
  between opposing trenches. Drawn by A. C. Michael.

On December 24, 1914, the German and British soldiers laid down their
arms, crossed into the "No Man's Land" separating their trenches.
They sang Christmas carols, played games, and shared jokes and beer
with one another. Hundreds and perhaps thousands of men on the
Western Front experienced the informal truce. The war had begun only
months earlier, and there was probably more curiosity than hatred
between British and German troops. Once the soldiers began receiving
Christmas presents from home, the mood in many areas became more
festive than warlike.

** 25-Dec-17 World View -- Remembering the 1914 World War I Christmas Truce
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e171225


The other bookend was Germany's unexpected capitulation, well before
it was necessary, including the Navy's refusal to obey the Kaiser.

The following is what I wrote in my original Generational Dynamics
book:

**** Why wasn't World War I a Crisis War for Germany?

Germany's amazing capitulation in World War I is only one of the many
indications that World War I wasn't a crisis war for Germany, as it
wasn't for America.

This is one of the most common questions I hear: Aren't you calling
World War II a crisis war, but not World War I, just to make
Generational Dynamics work?

But in fact when you drill down into the actual history of what
happened in America and Germany in WW I, you find that there was so
little motivation on all sides to fight that war, it's a wonder that
The Great War was fought at all.

First, however, the question of whether World War I was a crisis war
is a meaningless question. By the Principle of Localization, it only
makes sense to ask that question for a particular local region or
nation.

There is no question that World War I was a crisis war for Eastern
Europe (while World War II was a crisis war for Western Europe).

• World War I was a crisis war for the Balkans, leading to the
  creation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918.
• World War I was a crisis war for Turkey, leading to the
  destruction of the Ottoman Empire.
• World War I was a crisis war for Russia, with an internal
  revolution in the form of a Bolshevik (Communist) Revolution and a
  large violent civil war.

It's worth pointing out, in passing, that all of these wars were
revisited 80 years later, in the 1990s, with the collapse of the
Soviet Union, wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, the civil war in Turkey, and
other regional wars.

World War I did not result in any such dramatic changes in Western
Europe. There was a scapegoating change of government in Germany,
but nothing like the massive structural changes in Russia or Turkey.

In chapter 2, we discussed why World War I was not a crisis war for
America. America remained neutral for many years, despite repeated
German terrorist attacks on Americans, there was a powerful pacifist
(antiwar) movement that included high government officials, and it
resulted in no important transformations in America.

But in fact, World War I was not even a crisis war for
Germany.

First, there's the issue of advance preparation. In Germany's
previous crisis period, the Wars of German Unification (1860-71), as
well as in World War II (1938-45) in the following crisis period,
Germany prepared for war well in advance, and initiated war because of
real animus towards its enemies. But in World War I, Germany did
little advance preparation, and was pulled into the war because of a
long-standing treaty with Austria.

Germany never really pursued the war against France with the
bloodthirsty zeal it did in 1870 and 1939. The war began in 1914,
and was a stalemate for years. During the Christmas season of 1914,
the German high command shipped thousands of Christmas trees to the
front lines, cutting into its ammunition shipments. This led to
a widely publicized Christmas truce between the British and German
troops, where soldiers and officers on both sides all got together and
sang Christmas carols.

To put this kind of event in perspective, shortly after the attacks
of 9/11/2001, American invaded Afghanistan to destroy the al-Qaeda
forces. Can you imagine American soldiers and al-Qaeda forces
getting together on the battlefield in December 2001, to participate
in some holiday festivities?

It's this very difference in attitude and intensity that
distinguishes mid-cycle wars from crisis wars.

In fact, this lack of intensity characterizes Germany's entire
campaign.

In August 1914, Germany planned a quick, total victory over France,
requiring only six weeks -- too quick for the British troops to be
deployed to stop the advance into France. The plan went
fantastically well for about two weeks -- but then the Germans sent
two corps of soldiers to the eastern front to fight the Russians.
Without those soldiers, Germany's rapid sweep was halted by the French
long enough to give the British troops time to reinforce the French.
Both the German and French sides dug themselves into static trenches.
It was from those positions that the Christmas truce took place. The
stalemate continued with millions of each side's troops killed in
battle, until 1917, when America entered the war.

Much has been written about the defeat of Germany once America
entered the war, but little about the extraordinary circumstances of
that defeat.

When France capitulated to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war of
1870, Germany was deep into French territory. In 1945, Hitler
committed suicide when the Allies were practically in Berlin. In
crisis wars, when the people of a country believe that their very
existence is at stake, capitulation does not come easily.

But when Germany capitulated on November 11, 1918, German troops were
still deep within Belgian and French territory. Writing in 1931,
Winston Churchill said that if Germany had continued to fight, they
would have been capable of inflicting two million more casualties upon
the enemy. Churchill added that the Allies would not have put Germany
to the test: simply by fighting on a little longer, the Allies would
have negotiated a peace with no reparations, on terms far more
favorable to Germany than actually occurred in the peace dictated by
the Allies.

Actually, the seeds of capitulation had been planted three months
earlier, on August 8, when the German high command realized that too
much time had passed, and the absolute military triumph over France
could no longer be achieved. From that time, the Germans lost most of
whatever remaining spirit they had, and completely lost momentum. They
called for cease-fire on October 4, expecting the German army and
people to rise up and demand victory, and planning to launch a new
attack with replenished strength, once the cease-fire had expired.

However, the mood in Germany turned firmly against renewing
hostilities, in both the army and the people. By the end of October,
it was apparent to the high command that it was too late. Writing
after the war, Prince Max von Baden of the high command concluded,
"The masses would likely have risen, but not against the
enemy. Instead, they would have attacked the war itself and the
'military oppressors' and 'monarchic aristocrats,' on whose behalf, in
their opinion, it had been waged."

I've written about these events at length to illustrate the
difference between mid-cycle wars and crisis wars. Try to imagine
Hitler losing momentum in this way in World War II, or imagine
Britain, America or Japan losing momentum and capitulating
unnecessarily in World War II. It's almost impossible to imagine it,
since World War II was a crisis war, while World War I was not.

Indeed, there's only one major war in the lifetime of most readers
where events proceeded in any way similarly to the actions of the
Germans in World War I: the actions of America in Vietnam in the
1970s.

America was forced repeatedly by its own antiwar movement to accept
various Christmas truces during the Vietnam War; the Vietnamese never
honored such truces, since that was a crisis war for them and a
mid-cycle war for us. American soldiers were court-martialed because
of the unnecessary killing of civilians during the Vietnam War, and
yet America purposely killed civilians in World War II by carpet
bombing Dresden, and by nuclear attacks on Japan. Finally, America
withdrew from Vietnam and capitulated, when it clearly had the power
to win that war if it had wanted to.

[Tom Mazanec]

Apropos of this is the Nero Decree. Hitler's final order was basically to raze what was left of Germany to the ground, but it was not carried out.

[tim]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/b ... th-russia/

Biden Shared Intel with China — and China, Naturally, Shared That Intel with Russia

Over three months, senior Biden administration officials held half a dozen urgent meetings with top Chinese officials in which the Americans presented intelligence showing Russia’s troop buildup around Ukraine and beseeched the Chinese to tell Russia not to invade, according to U.S. officials.

Each time, the Chinese officials, including the foreign minister and the ambassador to the United States, rebuffed the Americans, saying they did not think an invasion was in the works. After one diplomatic exchange in December, U.S. officials got intelligence showing Beijing had shared the information with Moscow, telling the Russians that the United States was trying to sow discord — and that China would not try to impede Russian plans and actions, the officials said.

[tim]

https://jrnyquist.blog/2022/02/25/the-w ... t-patriot/

Russia overcame the inertia of collapse and started reviving its power, while the West, being lulled by sweet day-dreams of the liberal ‘end of history,’ castrated its armed forces to the point, when they could be good [only] for leading colonial wars with weak and technically backward enemies. The balance of forces in Europe has thus changed in Russia’s favor.

PRAVDA, 13 NOVEMBER 2014

The headline of the Pravda article cited above reads, “Russia takes complete advantage of castrated armed forces of the West.” We also read in that same Russian article, “The illusion of world supremacy played a cruel joke on Washington.” We must ask a question here: Who fostered the illusion of American world supremacy? What country supposedly quit the business of nuclear competition, the business of communist subversion, the business of the Cold War? Russia supposedly quit. But they did not quit!

Nevertheless, we find Tucker Carlson and Patrick Buchanan saying that we have been unfair to Russia, that we have needlessly provoked Vladimir Putin, tricking the Russians with false promises. No. The Russians tricked us. And they were already laughing at us in November 2014. America wanted to believe that the nightmare threat of Mutual Assured Destruction was a thing of the past. The Americans never wanted a conflict with Russia, or with China. The Americans wanted to live in peace. But we will not be living in peace. The war is coming to us whether we want it or not. And the war has now begun in Ukraine and there will be additional moves.

[Guest]

** 24-Feb-2022 World View: European War



I would think so. The crazed Putin is also thirsting after Poland,
Lithuania and Romania. That would bring in Nato, and that would be a
war.

Further south, the Balkans and Greece almost went to war a couple of
years ago over the name "Macedonia." It wouldn't take much to ignite
a war there.

I'm sure you could list other fault lines.

I am in complete agreement here. All kinds of seething resentments and hatreds will boil over in an increasingly chaotic situation.

Ok, you both are on record. I guess we'll see what happens.

What hollow words from a shameless person. You backtrack every five minutes.

How is the "non-invasion" of Ukraine going?

[Navigator]

** 25-Feb-2022 World View: Germany in World War I

> I am actually published in multiple areas regarding WW1, having
> researched it extensively. I have written a book and have
> published detailed military simulations and a host of articles on
> the subject.

> WW1 was an "all in" war for Germany. The Kaiser had the complete
> support of the population up until about Jun of 1918, when people
> realized that they no longer had any hope of winning the war.

> The country went through complete mobilization, complete
> conversion to a war economy, and even years of starvation in their
> total support of the Kaiser's misguided war efforts.

> Only at the very end did the navy mutiny (when ordered to commit
> suicide), while the army conducted a fighting retreat until the
> armistice could be negotiated.

I admit to being confused by your description, since it somewhat
contradicts what I've seen in the past. Perhaps the difference is
that you're focusing on the military, while I'm focusing on the mood.
One could say that America's armed forces were "all in" for the
Vietnam War, especially while Lyndon Johnson was president, but there
was also an anti-war sentiment which isn't present in crisis wars.

There was a definite anti-war sentiment in Germany, as described in
Remarque's 1928 novel, Im Westen Nichts Neues (All Quiet on the
Western Front).
The anti-war sentiment was bookended by two remarkable events: At the
beginning of the war, the was the famous "Christmas Truce".

First off, let me say I continued to be impressed by the time and effort you spend on the site. I would be too lazy to have posted such a detailed response, so you are putting me to shame there.

I agree that most of the Armies of WW1 did not have a vitriolic hatred of their opponents. This is certainly the insight of the Christmas truce. However, this truce did happen only a short time (about 6 weeks) after the extremely bloody first battle of Ypres (Langemark to the Germans), and only a few months before the Germans used gas for the first time. And these things happened in the same areas that had the Christmas truce.

The point is that these people, while they didn’t necessarily “hate” each other, were fully engaged in doing everything possible to kill or maim each other when ordered to do so.

While “All Quiet on the Western Front” accurately portrays the POST-war disillusionment that came with the realization that they had been fighting for all the wrong reasons, and many thought the war “madness”, they still went along with it. Similar disillusionment existed in France and Great Britain, and even the USA.

There were no draft riots, even when Germany had completely depleted its prime manpower and was forced to take 15-16 year olds as well as men in their 50s. The Army never mutinied, though the 8 August collapse showed that they had no stomach for taking massive losses anymore. There were some food riots, but similar to those in Richmond at the end of the US Civil War, in that the population was upset that food was not available, but they still supported the war effort (until mid-1918, when their final offensives had clearly failed and massive American power, which was quickly increasing, was making itself felt).

I guess my point is that a country can go “All In” even if the war is not what you would call a Crisis War.

WW1 was not like Vietnam for Germany (or France or Great Britain), in that Vietnam was waged only with a low number of draftees (compared to complete mobilization) and the economic activity of the USA was never really impacted. In Germany (and the other 2 already mentioned), every able-bodied male was involved. The entire economies of these countries were turned over to war production, and the Germans were subjected to food shortages, then starvation that killed as many civilians as all the bombings and even battles in Germany during WW2.

My opinion, and I think that this is where we probably differ, is that WW3 will, at least in most of Europe, be more like WW1 than WW2 in that the Soldiers won’t “hate” each other the way they did in WW2 (especially the Aryan vs Slav nonsense). But they will still kill each other with wild abandon and lay waste to each other’s cities and so on.

But, like WW1, the European nations involved (Russia) won’t resort to “self destruction” (which is what a thermonuclear exchange would be). At that point, Putin, like the Kaiser, will be taken out by the military (not necessarily the High Command). I am hopeful that similar things would happen with Xi when he starts his own war.

[Johnny bandwidth]

** 24-Feb-2022 World View: Regeneracy

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBR3yCsDHf4

> John, it looks like regeneration is happening.

> General Kellogg is an excellent commentator.

Yes, it is. And yes, he is.

If Putin wanted to create the image of a bullying thug, he has successfully achieved his aim. He is getting absolutely battered in the court of world opinion while the Ukrainian president looks like a real deal hero. Putin has made Russia a pariah state which will take decades to unpick. Sweden and Finland will be pushed into joining NATO as they have no other choice. Oh and the Russian soldiers are looking like a bunch of amateurs.

[Guest]

** 24-Feb-2022 World View: Regeneracy

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBR3yCsDHf4

> John, it looks like regeneration is happening.

> General Kellogg is an excellent commentator.

Yes, it is. And yes, he is.

If Putin wanted to create the image of a bullying thug, he has successfully achieved his aim. He is getting absolutely battered in the court of world opinion while the Ukrainian president looks like a real deal hero. Putin has made Russia a pariah state which will take decades to unpick. Sweden and Finland will be pushed into joining NATO as they have no other choice. Oh and the Russian soldiers are looking like a bunch of amateurs.

The wheels are well and truly coming off the Vlad machine.

[Guest]

https://jrnyquist.blog/2022/02/25/the-w ... t-patriot/

Russia overcame the inertia of collapse and started reviving its power, while the West, being lulled by sweet day-dreams of the liberal ‘end of history,’ castrated its armed forces to the point, when they could be good [only] for leading colonial wars with weak and technically backward enemies. The balance of forces in Europe has thus changed in Russia’s favor.

PRAVDA, 13 NOVEMBER 2014

The headline of the Pravda article cited above reads, “Russia takes complete advantage of castrated armed forces of the West.” We also read in that same Russian article, “The illusion of world supremacy played a cruel joke on Washington.” We must ask a question here: Who fostered the illusion of American world supremacy? What country supposedly quit the business of nuclear competition, the business of communist subversion, the business of the Cold War? Russia supposedly quit. But they did not quit!

Nevertheless, we find Tucker Carlson and Patrick Buchanan saying that we have been unfair to Russia, that we have needlessly provoked Vladimir Putin, tricking the Russians with false promises. No. The Russians tricked us. And they were already laughing at us in November 2014. America wanted to believe that the nightmare threat of Mutual Assured Destruction was a thing of the past. The Americans never wanted a conflict with Russia, or with China. The Americans wanted to live in peace. But we will not be living in peace. The war is coming to us whether we want it or not. And the war has now begun in Ukraine and there will be additional moves.

Let's hope that more people will have the courage to stand up, ensuring that Putin's demise is swift and permanent. The world would be a safer place and it might also sound alarm bells in China and North Korea.