Do you see a major war involving the US in the next couple of years?

[STG]

I do find human nature to be tragic. History will repeat forever until we destroy ourselves because the average person's perspective is limited to what they have seen and experienced through their own eyes.

The WWII generation was dedicated to civil defense and preparing for nuclear war. They had all lived to see a nuclear bomb hit a city, so they knew it could and would eventually happen again.

Public schools practiced drills, the average family had a bomb shelter in the basement stocked with food and water, and the government stockpiled grain should the national food production become interrupted by war. This was normal back then if you tried to do this today you would be called a "survivalist" and placed onto various government lists.

All of this is gone, because that generation is gone and for some reason people don't think war will happen again.

Apparently sending everyone to a diploma mill will change human nature

You think people and governments were caught were their pants down by the coronavirus? Just wait until the first nuke goes off and everyone is scrambling to find a Geiger counter and potassium iodide!

I recommend getting ahead of the curve and learning about this stuff now, not when fallout is blowing around the world because Pakistan and India started lobbing nukes at each other.

http://www.ki4u.com/

PDF of the book The Effects of Nuclear Weapons which was classified until the 90's I believe. Nuclear war does not mean the end of the world and the facts are in that book.

 

[STG]

Unless something major happens in the USA, as in we get someone about 3 steps to the right of 2016 campaign Trump, then the sides will be what the sides are right now...

USA, what is left of the EU/NATO, Israel, Sunni Muslims (Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, ISIS), and maybe India

V.

China, Shia Muslims (Iran), Russia and Syria.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-with-chinas-help-expands-its-nuclear-program

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...-helping-saudi-arabia-to-build-a-nuclear-bomb

the prospect of a Middle East devastated by a nuclear exchange still should go up several notches because of news in the Wall Street Journal that Saudi Arabia, with Chinese help, has built a plant to process uranium ore. Although the story made the front page, the Journal may have underplayed its significance.

The plant, near the remote town of AlUla, is in the northwest of the kingdom, about midway between the holy city of Medina and Tabuk, the side furthest from Iran. Apparently U.S. officials have known of the plant’s existence for months, perhaps years, and appear to have leaked or briefed their concerns to the Journal’s reporters. The role of the plant is to produce “yellowcake,” a semi-processed form of uranium, itself the crucial ingredient for both nuclear power reactors and atomic bombs.

China is already cozying up to the Sunnis.

 

[It_is_my_time]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-with-chinas-help-expands-its-nuclear-program

https://thehill.com/opinion/interna...-helping-saudi-arabia-to-build-a-nuclear-bomb



China is already cozying up to the Sunnis.

China also worked out a $400 billion economic trade package with Iran, which is a poke in the eye to the USA/Israel.

 

[Lace em up]

As I stated previously, the same argument was made by the inventor of dynamite.

Comparing dynamite to a thermonuclear weapon of today is like comparing a musket to a turret gun of an Apache attack helicopter.

Ok, lets compare.

Dynamite is usually sold in the form of cardboard cylinders about 20 cm (8 in) long and about 3.2 cm (1 1⁄4 in) in diameter, with a weight of about 190 grams (1⁄2 troy pound). A stick of dynamite thus produced contains roughly 1 MJ (megajoule) of energy. Other sizes also exist, rated by either portion (Quarter-Stick or Half-Stick) or by weight.

vs

The W88. A medium sized United States thermonuclear warhead, with an estimated yield of 475 kilotons (kt), and is small enough to fit on MIRVed missiles.

So, 475 kilotons is 475x1000x2000x2+20% sticks of dynamite. 2,280,000,000 sticks of dynamite.

Over two and a quarter billion sticks of dynamite in an 800 lb package that can be delivered with a proverbial "push of a button" anywhere on the planet, in under an hour. Thats not even considering that we probably have hypersonic ballistic missiles and most places are much closer.

 

[STG]

Comparing dynamite to a thermonuclear weapon of today is like comparing a musket to a turret gun of an Apache attack helicopter.

Ok, lets compare.

I am talking about peoples perception not the specific weapon.

With every new weapon or technology it was always believed to be too terrible to use on other humans for warfare.... until it happened.

Human nature hasn't changed. All new technology will be used in warfare.

 

[infowarrior1]

If the USA had to get serious. They would most likely restrict Chinese access to Oil. China is very thirsty for Oil in general.

That would be far more impactful than the most advanced weaponry. And will over time restrict China in its ability to act.

Germans got defeated by this single fact:

 

[It_is_my_time]

If the USA had to get serious. They would most likely restrict Chinese access to Oil. China is very thirsty for Oil in general.

That would be far more impactful than the most advanced weaponry. And will over time restrict China in its ability to act.

The problem is China has already planned for this and worked out trade deals with Russia, not using the US$ and then also a $400 billion trade package with Iran.

China has done a good job out maneuvering the USA in all facets.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Nuclear weapons have already been used in war. If Japan had nuclear weapons would they have used them? I think so.

None of the major powers involved in the war (US, UK, USSR, Germany, Japan) would have hesitated for a second to use nukes if they had them.

 

[infowarrior1]

The problem is China has already planned for this and worked out trade deals with Russia, not using the US$ and then also a $400 billion trade package with Iran.

China has done a good job out maneuvering the USA in all facets.

That's why I said restrict. The US couldn't completely cut off oil. Oil coming all the way from Iran is more expensive than by Sea. And consumes more Oil in transit.

Russia is a given of course.

 

[kazz]

Trumps nationalist stance might damage relationships with allies. USA, UK, India etc would no doudt beat china in a conflict, China does not have the experience, they are like a rookie cop against a veteran. A bit like all the gear and no idea.

 

[Elipe]

Trumps nationalist stance might damage relationships with allies. USA, UK, India etc

Better that we pull that bandaid now than later. No foreign entanglements.

 

[wannable alpha]

If the USA had to get serious. They would most likely restrict Chinese access to Oil. China is very thirsty for Oil in general.

That would be far more impactful than the most advanced weaponry. And will over time restrict China in its ability to act.

Germans got defeated by this single fact:

This YTer has some interesting videos. Ended up watching a bunch of them including this one -


He says the main reason for the war was Hitler believed in shrinking markets theory which was also a concept believed by Marxists. TL/DR of it is that as nations in global south industrialize the developed world will find itself short of vital raw materials and food. Hitler didn't want this to happen to Germany and so tried the autarky model. Isn't this at least slightly true? China's growth in the last 30 years is the best example of the concept of shrinking markets in the sense that America is not the global exporter it once was.