Generational Dynamics World View News

[FullMoon]

our public isn't likely to have much enthusiasm for the war. Yes

It doesn't help that we're war weary. Also the young aren't especially patriotic compared to times past if reports are correct. I remember when the young volunteered to go to Iraq although circumstances were very different then and will be when they're actually needed. It won't be an easy fight and they probably don't have the desire to die for people that they're not especially fond of. Sadly.

[tim]

https://www.the-sun.com/news/15624853/n ... ndparents/

WAR GENERATION We must prepare for scale of war our grandparents endured, Nato chief chillingly warns…as he reveals Putin’s next target

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/202 ... er-taiwan/

China would destroy US military in fight over Taiwan, top secret document warns

Beijing’s hypersonic missiles ‘could sink US aircraft carriers within minutes’

China would defeat the US military in a war over Taiwan, according to a top-secret US government assessment.

US reliance on costly, sophisticated weapons leaves it exposed to China’s ability to mass-produce cheaper systems in overwhelming numbers, the highly classified “Overmatch Brief” warns.

A national security official under Joe Biden who reviewed the document is said to have turned pale on realising Beijing had “redundancy after redundancy” for “every trick we had up our sleeve”, The New York Times reported.

Losing Taiwan, the US’s key bulwark against Chinese power in the western Pacific, would deliver a severe strategic and symbolic blow to Washington.

The country’s most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford – recently sent to the Caribbean for Donald Trump’s crackdown on drug traffickers – is often destroyed in the wargames outlined in the brief.

[Navigator]

Ukraine people learned too late the reason for the destruction of their country. Now they don't want to die for the purpose that isn't their own.
America first was a hollow slogan obviously and hopefully not too many of people must also die for the benefit of those who profit from their sacrifice. WAR IS A RACKET. That's a good book that apparently never took hold. The greatest book also had fundamental lessons that most don't embody or embrace.

The reason for the attack on Ukraine is that Putin wants to have their land, resources and people. No different from any other land grab war started by a dictator or absolute monarch. Ukrainians are dying to defend their country, which was invaded by a hostile foreign army.

Smedley Butler's book WAR IS A RACKET was based on his experience in the small wars in Philippines, China, Mexico, the Caribbean and Latin America. Plus what he saw of WW1 casualties.

The small wars he was involved in were indeed a racket, securing or protecting property for the likes of Dole, Chiquita, or US Sugar companies. In fairness, we have seen somewhat similar wars in the last 50 years. IMHO, these include Vietnam, occupation of Iraq / Afghanistan (note I did not include the invasions of either, as both were necessary. The decade long occupation/pacification attempts were not).

It is sad that Butler, as with most of the people that lived through it, did not understand WW1. WW1 was indeed a war of aggression/land grab, started by an absolute monarch. (You can pick Franz Joseph or Wilhelm II, or even Nicholas II).

WW3 will be similar, started as a land grab (most likely Taiwan, but could be one of the Baltic Countries) by a dictator, Xi or Putin. Such wars, however brutal, do have to be fought. If not, you end up with dictators enslaving the conquered. The results will be much like WW1, with everyone utterly depleted after years of fighting.

[Navigator]

Despite hopes to the contrary, Putin is not going to stop so long as there's a single breath in his body. So long as he's in power, he's going to keep pushing. Russia's burned through its Soviet stockpiles, often reduced to launching attacks with motorcycles and civilian vehicles. There are few operational tanks on the front, and their industry isn't going to be able to replace these losses for a decade. Desertion's a major problem for both armies, but Russia has the population to spare.

Still, if he can annex Ukraine's territory, he'll be able to replace his losses with new cannon fodder. Russia's already doing this in the parts of Ukraine they do occupy. Europe would need a massive shock to rearm in any significant way and we've washed our hands of the whole thing. For all their words, Europe isn't as pro-Ukraine as they'd have us believe. They're running low on equipment to send and it's politically impossible to increase production at more than a snail's pace.

While I hope they can win, I do think Ukraine is likely to collapse at some point. You've got a couple hundred thousand dead, perhaps half a million irrecoverable losses, which is unsustainable for a country with collapsing demographics. It looks like a stalemate... until it suddenly doesn't.

I agree with all of the above

Frankly, I don't care what "legitimate points" you might think the likes of Nick Fuentes has. This is someone who admires Hitler, admires Stalin, spews racial hatred to an audience of million, and is an open misogynist. He was nobody 5 years ago, but now he's become one of the leading figures of the conservative movement. I'm not a believer that the arc of history always bends in one direction. White supremacists have learned that the more they mainstream, the more effective their message is.

I agree that Nick Fuentes is literally a Nazi. There should be no room for him in any kind of mainstream political party in the USA. Racial Hatred, in any direction, is fundamentally and wholly wrong.
I also think that Candice Owens is a nut job (probably saying the outrageous things she does as click bait to make money) and that MGT is also a looney tune that I can't believe anyone would vote for unless they only had a diehard liberal as the alternative.

Until 2020, I would have considered the left the greatest threat, but since January 6, the right's taken that spot. When it comes to immigration, they don't care whether it's legal or not; they oppose it, period, especially from "third world shitholes" (I.E. non-white countries)

I hope that people are not opposing immigration because of race. That is completely wrong, and IMHO, unfounded. I would welcome anyone who wants to come here, work hard, and make a better life for themselves and their immediate family. (see my previous posts)

I want anyone deported who decides they can live here on the taxpayer dime, who commits crime, or who is unwilling to assimilate into American society (btw, we actually do have freedom of religion, so any denomination is capable of assimilation).

And, as a corollary, yes, learning English is part of the assimilation process. If you want to forever be an underclass in the US, you don't learn English. We have done a MAJOR disservice to people coming to the US (especially their children) by attempting to accommodate foreign languages, especially in the schools.

[Navigator]

This doesn't necessarily have to play out the way the two previous world wars did. It'd depend on the circumstances. If China launches a Pearl-Harbor style attack, then yes, we'd be out for blood with China falling into nationalistic fervor.

If things break out in the South China Sea over miscalculation, rather than a mass assault that galvinzes both sides, our public isn't likely to have much enthusiasm for the war. Yes, we'd mobilize and build up to some degree, but we're spending far more on a social safety net than was the case in 1940 and certainly 1914. Unless the conflict is seen as a matter of survival, people won't tolerate it being dismantled, and to fight a total war, this would be a necessity. Europe's found mobilization impossible for this reason and if we fight China for unclear reasons... people might sign up to fight regardless because they have no other way to support themselves, but this is a poor long-term motivation. This is also a dynamic that could lead to civil war.

If Japan had started their attacks in the Pacific by just going after the Dutch East Indies and Malaya/Singapore, there would indeed have been little enthusiasm in the US for WW2. You could maybe add the Philippines to the list, and I am not sure if it would have made a big difference, though Americans would have died as a result. But then we grabbed the Philippines from the Spanish less than 50 years earlier.

The thing is that in the vast majority of cases, wars are started using military logic, not a more sensible reading of the big picture. So the Japanese felt that they needed to secure the Philippines to secure their supply lines to the oil they needed from Java/Brunei/Borneo, and that they couldn't secure the Philippines if the USN was intact to make a counter-stroke.

I believe the Chinese will also fall prey to just focusing on military logic as they plan to attack/invade Taiwan. They most probably will feel that they need to eliminate as many military assets as possible that could come to Taiwan's aid. This would include the USN and probably the Japanese Navy as well. On top of that, they will activate their sleeper cells in the US to conduct infrastructure attacks on the US homeland, in order to cause us to have to focus on the home front. They will attack the electrical grid, important bridges, and probably the water supplies for major cities.

But, agreeing with your point, if they were to just go after Taiwan, and Taiwan only, any kind of war enthusiasm on our part would be pretty small.

We will shortly see which option they do with.