Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

When talking about world economic collapse triggering a world wide dark age, one has to ask if there might not be other scenarios.

Scenarios that might avoid, or delay for decades, or even 100s of years such a world wide dark age, and instead have such a dark age affecting individual regions, countries, or continents unevenly.

For example it appears that President Obama, may have, with his pen and his phone, and the tacit approval of the U.S. Congress, done the equivalent of pulling the Roman legions out of the barbarian lands on the peripheral of the Romain empire.

Unlike the Romain empire, Obama has not yet destroyed those withdrawn legions, but instead withdrawn them across the Ocean back to the United States.

Also, unlike the Romain Empire, the U.S. has two Oceans protecting it from European barbarians and Asian barbarians.

Obama may yet destroy those Legions he has withdrawn, but if he does not, or can not, where does that leave the world ?

Let us explore one scenario:

1. Assume Obama has permanently abandoned the defense of Europe and the Europeans are on their own against the barbarians:

There is already some evidence this is true. Obama has not only withdrawn all combat troops with tanks from Europe, but, he has pulled out the stored heavy equipment ( such as hundreds of heavy tanks, in underground bunkers, ready to go), and closed U.S. bases with "pre-positioned tank" storage facilities and empty barracks ready for the arrival of U.S. soldiers and airmen traveling light. Obama has also slashed headquarters units and support troops in Europe that would allow large numbers of U.S. combat forces and U.S. support forces to return to Europe rapidly, and have the equipment, spare parts, supplies, management, and U.S. leadership already in place so the combat troops can be immediately sent into battle within hours of arriving by commercial airline.

It is not yet clear exactly what is going to be left in Europe after the crash, 2.5 year, shut down of bases and removal of U.S. military support personnel and heavy equipment, that will be largely completed over the next 6 months, but the contingency plans for sending troops back may be helpful in understanding what "right sizing" of remaining U.S. support forces in Europe means to Obama.

Obama is also "right sizing" the forces based in the U.S. to support the United States "legal" treaty obligations to defend Europe.

The right size, under the Pentagon plan Obama was willing to approve, is one combined arms brigade, 4,700 men and 87 tanks, helpfully known as a "Tank Brigade Combat Team". This brigade will be stationed in the U.S. and return to Europe on an, "AS NEEDED", basis, with their tanks being shipped from the U.S. to Europe as well. Apparently, having a single Brigade, in the United States, dedicated to defending Europe, "IF NEEDED", will meet the legal requirements for the U.S. to come to the aide of European Nato countries if attacked.

Compare those 4,700 troops, and perhaps an equal number of troops to support them, to the 200,000 U.S. Forces stationed in Europe during the cold war, with annually tested plans to reinforce those 200,000 with an additional 200,000 from the U.S. in a period of a few weeks. All dependent on having the heavy equipment for the second 200,000, those coming from the U.S., pre-positioned in Europe and the command, management, technical and infrastructure for a much larger total force of perhaps 500,000 U.S. military members in place permanently in Europe.

Germany has 400 top of the line, 3rd generation tanks available to German active duty and reserve forces, but Germany lacks the troops to man them. Russia has 1,600, of the same top of the line class tanks, available immediately to Russian active duty and reserve troops, and Russia has another 10,000 3rd Generation tanks in storage in Europe. It is reasonable to question if Obama would even risk sending a mere 87 tanks to Europe if a war broke out.

So if the Barbarians under the war Chief Putin call up the one million Russian active reservists, spend a few months fine tuning Reservist training on those 1,600 top of the line tanks, and then turn them lose on the Northern Plains of Europe with orders to push through Poland, as peacefully as possible, and destroy Germany's military; Will the Poles fight to the last man defending Germans ( who are the only people Poles may hate worse than Russians)? ; or will the Poles put up token resistance and then step aside and allow Russian forces to drive down Polish freeways into Germany?

Once the the Russian's vastly superior army has fought it's way into the German industrial heartland, Germany will still have choices. Abandon their people to the Russians' tender mercies and continue fighting from allied countries with what ever portion of the German army and the German air force they can escape with; Fight to the last man inside Germany and allow the total destruction of Germany in the process; or do the "wise" thing and accept an offer of German neutrality in return for total German disarmament, and an agreement to supply Russian's with what ever industrial output the Russians need for their war effort under contract, with the Russians having priority for all German industrial output.

Neutrality by Germany, the second largest military power in Europe after the U.S. pulled out ( the largest being Russia of course ), is the best possible outcome for the Russians, but if the U.S. fails to come to the rescue of Europe after a major Russian attack on NATO, then NATO is dead, and even if the first attack by the Barbarians is repelled Central Europe is in danger of being overrun by new coalitions of Barbarians, some former members of the EU and/or former members of NATO.

This would have very interesting effects on the United States, some counter intuitive. The rich elites of Eastern, Central and Western Europe would move their global corporations, their assets and their families to the United States. By effectively declaring neutrality the United States would be able to trade with all parts of Europe including Barbarian controlled areas and the "civilized" areas of Europe.

U.S. combat troops will no longer be stationed permanently in Europe, ( not sure if the very few support troops left will be rotated in and out, or assigned for long permanent tours ) and instead will be rotated in, and out, for tours of less than the minimum time required to qualify to bring their families with them to Europe, at U.S. Military expense ( Less than two years in Europe, but most likely between 6 months and one year temporary rotations. ) This will save the U.S. military the cost of paying for the families of U.S. servicemen to move to Europe and back, but it will have other effects as well.

By avoiding U.S. troops and their families being killed during a war in Europe, the nationalist tendencies in the U.S., could be managed by the Obama administration, and used to keep the U.S. out of the fighting in Europe.

Bringing Aircraft and Tanks home to the U.S. from Europe leaves the United States Military the unchallenged Super Power in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. has over 8,000 3rd Generation Main Battle Tanks and over 6,000 of those are being used or maintained in storage and upgraded to the latest top of the line models with depleted Uranium enhanced armor and urban warfare kits. The U.S. still has the strongest Navy in the World and if used to keep other eastern hemisphere powers from interfering in the Western Hemisphere, could make the United States the safe place to live for the rich and powerful elites from around the world.

In the short term ( decades, or perhaps even 100s of years ) abandoning Europe, Africa and the Middle East might keep the U.S. out of a Dark Age during a World Financial Collapse.

Very interesting scenario, Reality Check. I do think, however, during a Crisis Era, that if Russia actually got that hog-wild in gobbling up big chunks of Europe, that there would be inexorable forces causing Russia to eventually clash with both China and the United States. In other words, the Russian Bear would still be hungry after gobbling up big chunks of Europe. As such, there would be almost inevitable war from Russia and/or China with the United States, I feel — and I think that due to the Chinese threat, that Russia would eventually align itself with the United States. Let’s hope that such a war doesn’t turn as nuclear or biological or chemical as it could possibly turn. Thanks again for sharing. —Regards, Marc

Marc wrote:Very interesting scenario, Reality Check. I do think, however, during a Crisis Era, that if Russia actually got that hog-wild in gobbling up big chunks of Europe, that there would be inexorable forces causing Russia to eventually clash with both China and the United States. In other words, the Russian Bear would still be hungry after gobbling up big chunks of Europe. As such, there would be almost inevitable war from Russia and/or China with the United States, I feel — and I think that due to the Chinese threat, that Russia would eventually align itself with the United States. Let’s hope that such a war doesn’t turn as nuclear or biological or chemical as it could possibly turn. Thanks again for sharing. —Regards, Marc

You have a little more faith in Russia's capability to Dominate all of Western Europe, than I do. Russia's military capabilities have not grown back to the any where near the same level as the former Soviet Union. instead, Nato's capabilities, with the exception of United States, have decreased at a much faster rate than Russia's military capabilities did.

Under this scenario all that is truly destroyed is the Nato alliance ( and perhaps the EU ), at which time Russia and every other European and Asian country bordering Russia would be busy forming new alliances and breaking old ones. Under this scenario, without the U.S., all the major European countries, including Russia, would be busy trying to form and hold together alliances to guarantee their survival and expand their buffer zones and areas of influence. France and UK are nuclear powers in their own right

While I believe this scenario very likely to bring on a world wide collapse of the current banking system, I do not believe that Russia, would be able to do much more than again become dominant over most of the countries of the former Soviet Union before major military push backs from Western European and the Muslim countries would start.

Holding on to the former Soviet Republics that are majority Muslim as allies will become a bigger problem for a more powerful Russia bogged down in wars in all parts of Europe.

Occupying and controlling Spain, France, Italy, and Great Britain does not seem feasible for Russia with it's much reduced capabilities compared to the USSR.

Turkey would be an even bigger problem for Russia.

Even continuing to dominate a disarmed Germany would become problematic for Russia.

The purpose of this scenario was to explore the consequences if Obama really did withdraw the U.S. and the entire U.S. Military from, all, or major parts of, the world. Given a world wide banking system collapse, the consequences might be counter-intuitive.

To respectfully clarify, I really don’t think that Russia would have too much ability to dominate Western Europe if it were brazen enough to try that. Such attacks upon it would almost surely trigger a NATO response, no matter how many US tanks and other military equipment have been removed from that area. I think we both agree that Russia trying that would be an exercise in futility for Russia. This would likely still be true, I feel, if Russia really tried to expand its armed services and allied equipment, à la Germany before World War II.

Thanks again for the intriguing response. —Regards, Marc

Reality Check wrote:
In the short term ( decades, or perhaps even 100s of years ) abandoning Europe, Africa and the Middle East might keep the U.S. out of a Dark Age during a World Financial Collapse.

The USA actually not getting involved in something, or causing that something to happen...
This is an interesting thought, considering all the other major wars we have been engaged in, were quite popular amongst adventure seeking young males. At least in the beginning, once it seemed inevitable. The current Iraq situation is the lone outlier, not many were excited about that one I recall, outside the Bush administration, and Vietnam quickly turned south. Casualties not withstanding I don't count Vietnam or Iraq to be major conflicts due to the limited geographic involvement. If Russia jumps ugly with Europe, I can't see the American people sitting on the sidelines. If it were Africa or Asia, sure the American people would resist any involvement, but not those that we share our founding culture with. too close to home.

I wonder if Obama's plan to recall all of our European troops has anything to do with the Asian pivot.As John has been saying we will be sided with Russia against China in the CoC war. So if that were the case would it not make sense to pretend to draw down and instead reposition them in more capable locations?
I don't thin Obama is this intelligent but the folks at the Pentagon are.

I also ask, If Russia were to engage in serious action against Europe, wouldn't that make them particularly vulnerable to an incursion from China? China is getting the hard squeeze with their population and parabolic consumption rates.

The world has the feeling that everyone of the players, large and small, are jockeying for position, movements are purposeful and not to severe to incur the hostile retaliation of others, but more overt and calculated. But I am in agreement that we will probably see the edge of the cliff stay on the horizon for some time. The PTB are doing everything possible to prevent the collapse. Once all the mass and momentum has been exhausted, then we'll fall off rapidly. The stock market will keep going up no matter how bad news and statistics are, until it cannot, then boom. Inevitability=action.

cheers
sy

> The series prompts the question: Is it really possible to have a
> poverty-free Canada?

> For many experts, the answer is a clear yes, and the best way to
> reach that goal is through a guaranteed annual income.

These "many experts" are total morons. The "poverty rate" is
continually being adjusted so that the bottom 10% are always "in
poverty." There's ALWAYS a bottom 10%, and a guaranteed annual income
would be so destructive to the economy and markets that it would make
things much worse. It's a wonder that these "experts" ever got
through fourth grade math (where they cover percentages).

Reality Check wrote:In the short term ( decades, or perhaps even 100s of years ) abandoning Europe, Africa and the Middle East might keep the U.S. out of a Dark Age during a World Financial Collapse.

Abandoning the job of policeman of the world would help the US in the short term, but the short term would be pretty short. I believe the current actions of Russia and the US are confirming that, due to the fact that the US bailed out the financial system, it is close to the edge of bankruptcy and cannot afford a conventional war. Once the rest of the world falls apart, the main question would be to what extent the US is cut off from trade and economic activity from the rest of the world and whether critical materials that the US must have to maintain industrial civilization can still be obtained. I think the answer to that is that enough critical parts and materials will not be able to be obtained that our industrial civilization will fall apart, but let's assume that they can all be obtained or substituted. Assuming the rest of the world collapses but our industrial civilization can still stay pretty much intact, economic activity would be reduced by about half, at first. That would mean our financial system would collapse, as I think you pointed out. The US imports about half of its oil, S&P 500 sales to the rest of the world are about half of sales, and so on. This assumes that the US can isolate itself and remain isolated, that it is not going to be a target of Chinese or Russian aggression after it rolls back. I think for that not to happen the US will need to cut itself off both militarily and economically. If it is construed as helping one side or the other economically, then it will be at war, whether it wants to be or not.

Reality Check wrote:By effectively declaring neutrality the United States would be able to trade with all parts of Europe including Barbarian controlled areas and the "civilized" areas of Europe.

I don't think the US will be able to pull this off and stay out of the war.

The next question then would be if the US can hold together well enough internally and within North America to remain stable if it completely cuts itself off and stays out of the war. Economic activity in some areas of the US would be reduced by more than 50% and I think these areas would be subject to internal problems to the extent that these areas would fall into what would be considered to be a dark age. Mexico will be a teeming mess, and that will spill over the borders, most likely. The main question, though, is whether Washington and New York can remain functional and continue to lead and control the population blocks of North and South America, or whether these populations reject Washington's control due to the devastation of the war and for other reasons. Without giving a long explanation, for now, I don't believe the US federal government will remain in political control of the Americas and not even in political control of all of the US after it abandons its brethren in Europe and the devastation of that decision is seen for what it is.

Higgenbotham wrote:

Reality Check wrote:By effectively declaring neutrality the United States would be able to trade with all parts of Europe including Barbarian controlled areas and the "civilized" areas of Europe.

I don't think the US will be able to pull this off and stay out of the war.

Economics is what this war is going to be about. The Soviets want the US corporations out of their territory and any territory they are going to take over. There's a clear dividing line between Soviet controlled areas and US controlled areas. Like if we go down the list of the Dow 30, there is no McDonald's in a Soviet controlled area, no Procter and Gamble products, no Disney. Chevron won't be in the Ukraine to make an oil and gas deal. I saw some Coca-Cola products there but they are hard to find. Real Russians won't drink that crap anyway. The Soviets let Lufthansa fly into Belarus and that's the only Western airline that is allowed in. If the Soviets take over any country, all the US corporations are going to get kicked out.

John wrote:

> The series prompts the question: Is it really possible to have a
> poverty-free Canada?

> For many experts, the answer is a clear yes, and the best way to
> reach that goal is through a guaranteed annual income.

These "many experts" are total morons. The "poverty rate" is
continually being adjusted so that the bottom 10% are always "in
poverty." There's ALWAYS a bottom 10%, and a guaranteed annual income
would be so destructive to the economy and markets that it would make
things much worse. It's a wonder that these "experts" ever got
through fourth grade math (where they cover percentages).

The bottom 10% is further from the top than it's ever been before. It would be impossible to destroy the economy and markets any more than Bernanke has already destroyed them. He gave the top tiers of the economy a guaranteed income in the trillions. The economy is destroyed no matter what so they might as well print some money for the bottom 10% before it collapses. It would be sort of like giving pain killers to a dying person who is going to go soon anyway. It eases the pain a little but doesn't prevent the outcome.

Marc wrote:I really don’t think that Russia would have too much ability to dominate Western Europe if it were brazen enough to try that. Such attacks upon it would almost surely trigger a NATO response, no matter how many US tanks and other military equipment have been removed from that area. I think we both agree that Russia trying that would be an exercise in futility for Russia. This would likely still be true, I feel, if Russia really tried to expand its armed services and allied equipment, à la Germany before World War II.

Thanks again for the intriguing response. —Regards, Marc

Countries like the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovokia and even Poland are a part of the EU and NATO because they actually believed that Western Europe and the United States had the will to defend them.

The United States has more than 75% of NATO's strength - from a military stand point.

Right now the Baltics, Poland and Romania are begging for the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany to forward deploy their substantial military assets in the Eastern European Nato countries as a show of force to Russia.

In response to that, United States Vice President Biden suggested all the NATO countries should talk about that at the next regularly scheduled NATO meeting next September. Talk about a brush off.

What is scheduled to happen between now and September? Deactivation of the vast majority of the remaining U.S. military units scheduled to be withdrawn from Europe "as part of the 4.5 year plan ( that was accelerated to a 2.5 year plan ) to pull the U.S. out of Europe" and the return of the U.S. military equipment, military supplies and military personal from those disbanded U.S. military units from Europe, back to the United States, all by the summer of 2014.

The failure of the U.S. to even respond to an attack by Russia across the Northern European plain into Germany would be the demise of Nato.

Such a mass tank attack by Russia would not be such a bold move. The Russian Army plans, the plans Russia inherited from the Soviet Union, called for that very thing to happen when NATO had credible forces to stand up to a massed armor attack from the east on the northern European plain. The difference is NATO no longer has that credible defensive force pre-deployed on the Northern plains that could hold Russia back for weeks while reinforcements arrived - but Russia still has more than enough armored forces and supporting air-power to carry the plan out.

If, and it is a big if, Poles fought to the last man, to delay Russian forces from entering Germany, Germany might be able to hold western Germany for weeks, but without such a sacrifice by Poland, Germany would be fighting that battle in Germain cities with Russian troops occupying Germain air bases and Russian troops occupying German supply depots. A lose, lose situation for Germany.

Numbers do matter, and Germany and Poland are the only Nato countries located on the Northern German plain that could even slow such a massed armored assault down.

The Nato Atlantic Treaty would not be worth the paper it was written on, if the United Sates declined to get involved. The assumption in this whole scenario is that Obama behaves in exactly the way his actions have been signalling he would.

Nothing in the original scenario suggested Russia's goal was the occupation of Western Europe. The Russian goal was to destroy NATO, regain the lost republics from the former Soviet Union. and change the balance of power in Europe. Barbarians have been attempting to fill military vacuums left by hollow empires for millennia. Some times they fail - sometimes not.