Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

I think you are making a fundamental mistake at what the third world war would be about. As far as china is concerned WW3, would be about the clash between Asian powers for dominance, but with the potential of the US getting involved. However it is the Asian conflict that is the fundamental lighter for war, the war is NOT primarily about America. It would be an Asian war with the potential of the US being dragged in as well. Regarding American involvement that is possible but most of our casualties in the war would be young men, as Asian wars are manpower intensive in terms of mobilizing troops.

John wrote:

CH86 on Wednesday wrote: Navigators post would only be applicable if Russia was the enemy
and the war was fought primarily on Land. If China is the enemy,
the points mentioned earlier would not be applicable, because a
war with China would be fought primarily
at Sea and in the Skies, not on Land.

CH86 on Thursday wrote: You are massively overestimating China's capabilities and what a
third world war would look like. A third world war in terms of war
front and home front would look similar to WW2,
it would be of war of soldiers vs
soldiers.

John, I am not sure what you mean here by bolding these sections, as you did not state anything here? Other readers would be similarly perplexed due to the lack of wording in response here.

CH86 wrote:

John wrote:

CH86 on Wednesday wrote: Navigators post would only be applicable if Russia was the enemy
and the war was fought primarily on Land. If China is the enemy,
the points mentioned earlier would not be applicable, because a
war with China would be fought primarily
at Sea and in the Skies, not on Land.

CH86 on Thursday wrote: You are massively overestimating China's capabilities and what a
third world war would look like. A third world war in terms of war
front and home front would look similar to WW2,
it would be of war of soldiers vs
soldiers.

John, I am not sure what you mean here by bolding these sections, as you did not state anything here? Other readers would be similarly perplexed due to the lack of wording in response here.

My understanding is that he is highlighting those passages because them seem to contradict each other. If the war is primarily fought in the air and sea than it wouldn't be soldier vs soldier (which implies land warfare).

FinanceNerd wrote:

CH86 wrote:

John wrote:

John, I am not sure what you mean here by bolding these sections, as you did not state anything here? Other readers would be similarly perplexed due to the lack of wording in response here.

My understanding is that he is highlighting those passages because them seem to contradict each other. If the war is primarily fought in the air and sea than it wouldn't be soldier vs soldier (which implies land warfare).

What I mean't is that the war would primarily be military vs military. i.e that the sides would strive to inflicted losses on each other but concentrate on targeting enemy soldiers. That casualties would primarily be of combatants.

John wrote:** 6-Feb-2019 How do you prepare for disaster, but you don't know when it's coming?

It's gotten to the point where a lot of people know that there's
going to be a major financial crash because of the unstoppable
US government debt.

However, there was an exchange on tv (paraphrasing):

Q: Do you think that the market will keep going up?

A: A financial crash is inevitable because of US debt.

Q: So what are you saying -- that just because there will be
a financial crash in five or ten years, people should stop buying
stocks?

A: You should be a stock picker, and invest in value stocks
with a low price/earnings ratio.

What's funny about this is because here's a person who actually
doesn't believe that the stock market will go up forever, but still
manages to find a way to provide massive information.

Analysts on tv only refer to price/earnings ratios based on "forward
earnings," which are made-up numbers by a company's PR department.
The only consistent and comparable p/e ratios are based on "trailing
earnings."


** 28-Aug-15 World View -- Explanation of Price/Earnings ratio and Stock Valuations
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e150828



However, the rest of this mini-conversation illustrates another problem.
We know that a financial crash is coming, and we know that a war
is coming with China. But we don't know whether it will be
tomorrow, next week, next year, or after that.

I always use a couple of metaphors in this situation.

One is the pressure cooker that will explode at some time, but
you don't know when.

The other is "the straw that breaks the camel's back" -- you know
that the camel's back has to break if you keep piling on straw,
but you can't predict which one



So what do you do? The person from Seoul who visited this forum
recently was wondering how he knows when to flee. If he leaves right
away, then Seoul might be a peace for a year. But if he waits until
the North actually attacks, then all the planes will be booked up.

So in terms of advising people what to do, what should people do in
these situations?

I think each person has to ask themselves a few questions before they decide how they want to prepare. First, do I think the US will survive World War 3 in some recognizable form (I.E. still have a Constitutional Government, Stock Market, Companies, Banks, etc)?

If the answer is NO then follow the advice of the gentleman in regards to getting rural land, farming it, stockpiling supplies, etc.

If the answer is Yes (as I believe) then planning for the upcoming crisis takes an approach similar to how people weathered WW 1 and WW 2. The market will inevitably crash, but it looks like the strong market will continue most of this year since the US economy is quite healthy in most cases (barring external forces of course. I.E. War with China, Terrorist attack, EU collapse). Late Q4 2019 and into 2020 looks to me and quite a few financial analysts that I work with (very different people than the "talking heads" on TV) to be the time when we "may" see a recession. Generally, the longer the Bull market (this is the longest in US history) the steeper the market pull back, pair that with increased world tensions, Global Financial instability like a China debt bubble collapse, and the market would definitely see some brutal lows (6-8k DOW). I figure that China kicks off a war when their economy slows to the point that domestic unrest becomes uncontainable (of course they could always stumble into a war).

So what to do for a financial crisis?

If you are retired or close to retirement look to conservative financial instruments to protect your money and lock in higher interest rates while the rates are still high (Fed usually drops interest rates during recessions and market crashes), when the interest rates drop refinance any debt you may have to free up cash, build an emergency cash savings of 12 months, keep some cash on hand in case of infrastructure disruption and support the war effort against China.

If you are young and still working. Keep working, contribute to your 401(k), get ETFs or Mutual Funds that are domestic and run by well funded investment companies (their cash reserves will keep them afloat), buy stocks in companies that will survive (or thrive) in a war like Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, Ford, AT&T, etc. Even in the worst market crashes companies still stay in business. Invest a little bit each month even as the market drops so you continue to Dollar-Cost-Average into each fund, stock, or ETF. When the market rebounds you will see the biggest gains. "When there is blood on the streets, buy Real Estate" Baron Rothschild.

For war, hope to survive, have Wills and Estate Plans in place. If you're in a major city or the coast pray that you don't get nuked.

I also firmly believe that we have a few more goodies in our Military arsenal than people give us credit for. The example I'll use is the THAAD which is a fairly effective anti-missile system. The US had that system in production for almost 5 years before we deployed them in Korea and Europe. They had already been in place in Alaska and other US locations before the rest of the world "knew" about them. We have already been working on a better system since the THAAD finished. We won't get every nuke lobbed at the US, but I think we'll do a lot better then people seem to think. Which means that while WW3 will be horrific and some cities will be destroyed most of the US infrastructure and cities will survive in reasonable fashion.

CH86 wrote:

FinanceNerd wrote:

CH86 wrote:
John, I am not sure what you mean here by bolding these sections, as you did not state anything here? Other readers would be similarly perplexed due to the lack of wording in response here.

My understanding is that he is highlighting those passages because them seem to contradict each other. If the war is primarily fought in the air and sea than it wouldn't be soldier vs soldier (which implies land warfare).

What I mean't is that the war would primarily be military vs military. i.e that the sides would strive to inflicted losses on each other but concentrate on targeting enemy soldiers. That casualties would primarily be of combatants.

I generally agree. Though I do feel as John has stated that nukes will be involved and I think they will hit some of our cities like LA.

FinanceNerd wrote:

CH86 wrote:

FinanceNerd wrote:
My understanding is that he is highlighting those passages because them seem to contradict each other. If the war is primarily fought in the air and sea than it wouldn't be soldier vs soldier (which implies land warfare).

What I mean't is that the war would primarily be military vs military. i.e that the sides would strive to inflicted losses on each other but concentrate on targeting enemy soldiers. That casualties would primarily be of combatants.

I generally agree. Though I do feel as John has stated that nukes will be involved and I think they will hit some of our cities like LA.

Nukes would probably get involved at some point but John is making assumptions (as well as unspoken assumptions) that are based on several deeply ingrained delusions of his. One, he says china would use nukes, NOT because he thinks that china is somehow not deterrable, remember he also speaks of war between China and India, and China and Russia but makes several unspoken assumptions that those wars would be conventional, due to china trying to avoid a nuclear exchange due to the fact that they (the Chinese) do understand force and that those countries have nukes of their own. Yet he simultaneously assumes that china would attack the US, and that the Chinese can safely use nukes in a war with the US due to the Chinese considering the war with the US being a war in which a nuclear china is fighting vs a non-nuclear US. THAT is the delusional assumption being made by John, he somehow thinks the US doesn't have a nuclear arsenal and that China would not have to worry about retaliation other maybe a relative pinprick retaliation. But such an analysis is directly contrary to every military intelligence analysis regarding force strengths and capabilities between the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Vietnam and other countries, etc. John basically pretends that the US "superpower" military complex and military footprint does not exist.

CH86 wrote: > I think you are making a fundamental mistake at what the third
> world war would be about. As far as china is concerned WW3, would
> be about the clash between Asian powers for dominance, but with
> the potential of the US getting involved. However it is the Asian
> conflict that is the fundamental lighter for war, the war is NOT
> primarily about America. It would be an Asian war with the
> potential of the US being dragged in as well. Regarding American
> involvement that is possible but most of our casualties in the war
> would be young men, as Asian wars are manpower intensive in terms
> of mobilizing troops.

This is going to be a world war, meaning that it will be fought on
land, on sea, in space, and in cyber. Anything that can be used as a
military weapon by any country will be used.

What I've been focusing on is how the war will get started.

What continues to be astonishing is how for 150 years, China has been
so far inferior to Japan in its governance, its economy and its
military. Japan has been superior to China in almost every way.

I have gone into detail about China's history, and its desire for
revenge for "unfair treaties," a "century of humiliation" and barbaric
acts of Japan.

I've shown that the Chinese are turning into exactly the same kinds of
barbarians as the Japanese in the 1930s, conducting the same kinds of
atrocities in East Turkistan (Xinjiang), and against all Christians,
Buddhists, Muslims, and followers of Buddhist-based Falun Gong.

I've shown that China is actively preparing for war by building
illegal military bases in the South China Sea, by building and
deploying numerous powerful nuclear missile systems with no purpose
other than to attack and destroy American cities, bases, and aircraft
carriers, by using hundreds of thousands of Chinese students and
workers, which they call "magic weapons," to infiltrate colleges and
businesses in numerous countries, under the control of the
military-controlled United Front Work Department (UFWD), by actively
hacking databases in thousands of western businesses and government
agencies, by building databases containing detailed personal
information on tens of millions of Westerners, by using Huawei chips
and phones and routers to install backdoors in order to spy on and
control significant portions of the internet, by using "debt trap
diplomacy" to gain control of infrastructure projects and install
large communities of Chinese families in dozens of countries, by
conducting genocide and ethnic cleansing of Uighurs and Kazakhs in
East Turkistan to gain access to mining and energy projects in Central
Asia and to have a clear path to Gwadar port in Pakistan,
etc. etc. and so forth and so on.

That a long list of criminal activities. And I've researched and
written lengthy well-sourced articles on all of them.

In working on my book on China's history, I've found that since 1870,
China has been bested by Japan over and over, with no one to blame but
China's own stupidity and incompetence. Japan adopted a constitution
while China chose to remain a colony of the Manchus, Japan navigated
international law while China expressed contempt for international
law, China declared war on the West (Boxer rebellion) while Japan
embraced the West (Anglo-Japanese Alliance), Japan aggressively built
its economy while China remained a feudal economy, Japan modernized
its military while China retained ancient military technology, Japan
humiliated and defeated China in the First Sino-Japanese war
(1894-95), Japan forced China to accept the "21 Demands" (1915), Japan
outmaneuvered China at the Versailles peace treat conference and had
to be saved by Woodrow Wilson, Japan invaded and captured Manchuria
(1931), Japan invaded and defeated China with the Second Sino-Japanese
War (1937-45), including the "Rape of Nanking," and had to be saved by
the United States. Since WW II, Japan has become a respected member
of the international community, while China has done one stupid and
self-destructive thing after another, including the Great Leap
Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Japan has been a "developed" country for over a century, while China
is still an "undeveloped" country today. What a pathetic country
China is that it even BRAGS of being undeveloped, so that it can take
advantage of the perks. China wants to be "respected," but they do
one vomit-worthy thing after another.

And instead of thanking the United States for saving China several
times, especially in WW II, they're developing nuclear missile systems
to achieve the "China Dream" of destroying the United States.

Even worse, China is turning into the same kind of barbaric monster,
with the same kinds of horrific atrocities, as Japan in the 1930s.
It's truly sickening.

That's why I've concluded that China's demand for revenge against
Japan is the crucible of the coming war in Asia.

CH86 wrote: > Nukes would probably get involved at some point but John is making
> assumptions (as well as unspoken assumptions) that are based on
> several deeply ingrained delusions of his. One, he says china
> would use nukes, NOT because he thinks that china is somehow not
> deterrable, remember he also speaks of war between China and
> India, and China and Russia but makes several unspoken assumptions
> that those wars would be conventional, due to china trying to
> avoid a nuclear exchange due to the fact that they (the Chinese)
> do understand force and that those countries have nukes of their
> own. Yet he simultaneously assumes that china would attack the US,
> and that the Chinese can safely use nukes in a war with the US due
> to the Chinese considering the war with the US being a war in
> which a nuclear china is fighting vs a non-nuclear US. THAT is the
> delusional assumption being made by John, he somehow thinks the US
> doesn't have a nuclear arsenal and that China would not have to
> worry about retaliation other maybe a relative pinprick
> retaliation. But such an analysis is directly contrary to every
> military intelligence analysis regarding force strengths and
> capabilities between the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran,
> Vietnam and other countries, etc. John basically pretends that the
> US "superpower" military complex and military footprint does not
> exist.

This is complete gibberish. You should work for the NY Times.

You still haven't answered any of my questions as to why china would refrain from using nukes even in a shooting war with India or Russia. If China has a first strike doctrine, it would apply that doctrine regardless of which enemy it is facing.

Regarding China and war, you also refuse to consider any scenario in which a world war breaks out but the US is neutral in the war.

Regarding American casualties in a war, Most americans who are killed and wounded would be young men killed while fighting and killing and dying en masse in the battlefield.

CH86 wrote: > You still haven't answered any of my questions as to why china
> would refrain from using nukes even in a shooting war with India
> or Russia. If China has a first strike doctrine, it would apply
> that doctrine regardless of which enemy it is facing.

> Regarding China and war, you also refuse to consider any scenario
> in which a world war breaks out but the US is neutral in the war.

> Regarding American casualties in a war, Most americans who are
> killed and wounded would be young men killed while fighting and
> killing and dying en masse in the battlefield.

I can't predict what China is going to do. When to use nuclear
weapons is a public relations issue, a political issue, and a military
strategy issue. I'm simply pointing out that previous major wars have
not begun with massive attacks, but rather with trivial incidents, and
that they've escalated into major wars. I think that's the most
likely scenario today as well. And there are many opportunities for a
trivial incident -- South China Sea, Senkaku Islands, Taiwan Straits,
Kashmir, Central Asia, Middle East, and so forth. My study of history
leads me to believe that China will not start with a massive nuclear
attack out of the blue, but will use nuclear weapons after a trivial
incident has led to escalations.

If some trivial incident occurs and starts to escalate, then the US
and every country will attempt to remain neutral as long as possible.
For example, China is conducting genocide and ethnic cleansing in East
Turkistan (Xinjiang), but the US and everyone else, even in the Arab
world, is pretending not to see and is remaining neutral. An example
is how Switzerland prepared for war with Germany, but tried to stay
neutral as long as possible, and miraculously was able to remain
neutral for the entire WW II. The US tried to remain neutral when
Britain went to war with Nazis, and when Japan invaded China, and only
entered the war when forced by Japan.

If China is in a shooting war with Russia, then the West will try to
remain neutral. If China is in a shooting war with India, then
Britain will not be able to stay neutral for long, but the US will try
to remain neutral if it can.