World War 3.

Johanness

TNPer
Not all these sources may actually be accurate.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...Service-report-russia-mobilising-war-ww3-nato - Canadian Intelligence report Russia mobilizing for war

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/347133-deadly-irony-us-calls-russia/ - US ironically calls Russia aggressive

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/h...prepare-west-possible-conflict-russia-n593456 - Poland and NATO prepares for possible conflict with Russia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...st-war-game-in-eastern-europe-since-cold-war/ - NATO launches largest joint-military excercise in Poland since the Cold War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCLMWfQ1B30 - Putin says NATO missile shield "a threat to security"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...stem-puts-them-in-russias-cross-a7053361.html - Putin warns to Poland and Romania

http://uk.businessinsider.com/sky-news-debate-david-cameron-denied-scaremongering-over-brexit-2016-6 - I don't need to explain this

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/south...russia-china-targets-neutralized-2383770.html - South China sea Dispute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecQzpQ23lhQ - News about stuff
 
The currency war is more compelling to me than the military buildup in Eastern Europe. But certainly gotta do something with the billions in military spending, right, lol. Anyone following the GPBUSD, EURUSD, USDJPY, USDCNY & DXY?
 
I've heard all this scaremongering about World War 3 my whole life - if it ever happens it won't be the West v Russia, they have too many common interests.
 
I was once a soldier in the United States Regular Army. I was told, by my Drill Sergeant, that sometime in my career or after we would be ordered to turn our weapons on the Citizens of the USA. If that order ever did come down, we were to march and take Washington, D. C., as the Army was a tool of the people to protect them from Dictatorial Governments that may wish to do civilians harm.

I will still fight to defend the citizens of the USA, in whatever capacity needed, from oppressive government rule.

The talks of another Civil War being fought on our streets these days, has me prepping for the worst and hoping for the best. My bug-out bag is ready. Our rendezvous point has already been established. We will hold them off for as long as we can. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevail.
 
In any civil war situation it's doubtful that any major player can really avoid atrocities or collateral damage. Just because the majority of soldiers are fighting for what they see as the right cause does not mean that the people will agree with that being the right cause, and odds are at least one soldier, or squad, or unit is going to end up overstepping things.
 
Vian Technocrats:
I was once a soldier in the United States Regular Army. I was told, by my Drill Sergeant, that sometime in my career or after we would be ordered to turn our weapons on the Citizens of the USA. If that order ever did come down, we were to march and take Washington, D. C., as the Army was a tool of the people to protect them from Dictatorial Governments that may wish to do civilians harm.

I will still fight to defend the citizens of the USA, in whatever capacity needed, from oppressive government rule.

The talks of another Civil War being fought on our streets these days, has me prepping for the worst and hoping for the best. My bug-out bag is ready. Our rendezvous point has already been established. We will hold them off for as long as we can. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevail.
I can verify the contentions that US Military personnel in the past 20 years have been selectively asked or required to agree to using military force against the US Civilian Population if so requested. However, the rank and file of the military would never go for it. There would be a military coup if any such orders were give, or at least a mass refusal for any number of reasons.

Civil war is not likely in the US because that would require an institutional movement (such as states warring against each other for control of the whole country). States seceding from the Union would, if met with force from the US Federal Government, would not be a civil war, but rather a war of secession not unlike the American "Revolution". That is not likely either (although there is some carping by people in California who aren't happy with the recent US Presidential Election results, and which will go nowhere for any number of reasons. It is a non-starter.).

As for WWIII starting, from a strategic point, that is also a non-starter, also given the recent Elections in the US. As for nuclear conflicts, only an idiot would try to nuke the US because the standard in place is that the US will nuke first rather than take a first strike and wait to retaliate. In other words, the standing doctrine is that if we even think there is a possibility that someone will try to nuke US targets, the US will hit them first before any missiles headed towards the US leave the ground.

Most of the US nuclear strike capability is sea under the Trident-Polaris system. Nuke sub captains can actually launch nukes so much as a by-your-leave if certain conditions are met, and if a nuclear strike on the US or its NATO allies is under way or has already occurred, the standing order is that sea-borne nuclear assets get launched regardless of any orders to the contrary by the President.

As for the US Federal Government going rogue and implementing Martial Law, that also is not likely to happen because the Federal Government would lose miserably should Martial Law be enacted to suppress the general population rather than to protect the general population from a foreign actor.

That said, it would be very hard for the 350,000 combat arms personnel stationed in the US to actually fight off about 170 million gun owning US Citizens (along with civilian and military personnel who would simply thumb their nose at a Federal Government declaration of Martial Law to suppress anything resembling a real insurrection). The political implications of the Federal Government using force against its own population would be political suicide assuring an insurrection turn into a real civil war or revolution on a wide-spread scale).

The thin that has to be worried about is large groups of anarchist types who go violent and the government doing or saying nothing about it. Such anarchists would be wiped out or simply fizzle out whether or not there was a armed response from the Federal Government. Anarchists are not organised, hence "anarchist" by definition. Rioters tend to follow the tactic of destroying their own supporters' property and disrupting their own supporters' lives which is very ironic.

And that said, the real reason to prepare to bug-out is the collapse of civil order, which is very possible, but not likely to be promulgated by the US Federal Government. For instance, if the Internet goes down for an extended period of time, everyone, including the Federal Government and the planet in general, is screwed, royally. That needs no further explanation.

Now for the Militia issue - In the US, civilian militias, armed or otherwise, is protected constitutionally by the US Constitution, State Constitutions, Federal Laws and State Laws in every state. Legitimate militias are not political and have no political goal. Their goal is to preserve civil order in the face of anything that threatens civil order (and that includes any governmental actions which violate the Constitution).

In North Carolina and South Carolina, we have legally recognised Civilian Militia units who are available for use upon the request of local and state authorities. Said militia units are all volunteer, self supporting and if requested by the militia unit, the state will train them on military equipment if they so desire.

I'm a member of a local Militia Unit whose purpose is "C3" (Command, Control and Communication). We are there in the event if emergencies in which normal communications (this includes situations in which road traffic is impaired by bridges that get washed out or failure of other communications occurs). We are mounted on horseback (yes, horses!) and are armed with modern weapons. For the most part, under normal situations (abnormal situations have thankfully never occurred), we engage in SRR (Search, Rescue and Reconnaissance) operations if requested to do so (we go looking for lost kiddies in the wilderness or check out suspected crack labs in the mountains, etc.). We operate to affect civil authority and general safety. We are not right or left wing kooks. We also are bound to protect and uphold the US Constitution as is the regular military. We have Democrats and Republicans in the unit and we keep it absolutely apolitical because civil defence is not a political issue unless a governmental issue makes it political (such as the declaration of martial law in a totally unwarrented fashion).

As for the whack-job militias that go political, they have no place in the real world and they need to go and get a job.
 
I can verify the contentions that US Military personnel in the past 20 years have been selectively asked or required to agree to using military force against the US Civilian Population if so requested. However, the rank and file of the military would never go for it. There would be a military coup if any such orders were give, or at least a mass refusal for any number of reasons.

Hmm I have heard there was already an attempted Military Coup back in 2013 during the government shutdown debacle, plus many senior officers have been dismissed in the last several years.

Civil war is not likely in the US because that would require an institutional movement (such as states warring against each other for control of the whole country). States seceding from the Union would, if met with force from the US Federal Government, would not be a civil war, but rather a war of secession not unlike the American "Revolution". That is not likely either (although there is some carping by people in California who aren't happy with the recent US Presidential Election results, and which will go nowhere for any number of reasons. It is a non-starter.).
It isn't just California though, Texas, Vermont, parts of Minnesota-Michigan-Wisconsin, "Cascadia", New Mexico, Utah(which basically operates as it's own country anyways) Dixie(residents there still don't like the Yankees-I have a grandmother that still has confederate money waiting for the renaissance of the South), Alaska, Hawaii. etc. You must also remember that it's in the interest of several Media organizations to downplay the chances of successful secessions(the joys of corporatism), though radical media will play UP their chances(a similar situation with how most of the media proclaiming a no-contest Hillary win and fringe groups proclaiming Trump will win in a landslide). About 1 in 4 is a Secessionist, and there are other minorities with an even smaller population that have had their demands met. This number is up from the last time I looked at the numbers several years ago when it was still 1 in 5. Also the American Revolution is considered a Civil War by some historians. I will agree that Trump(for all his faults) has actually prevented Civil war..With Hillary it would've been guaranteed I think. Secession would actually benefit the states that secede somewhat as they no longer have to put up with the federal government regulations and enemy coalitions(and they can get better trade deals for themselves, no longer have to fork money to prop up failing cities like East St. Louis etc.). Plus whoever remains in the Union would get a Majority in Congress(Texas secedes-Democrats Cheer. California secedes-GOP cheers). This issue with the Congressional majority incentivizes other states to follow the secession Bandwagon(the first Civil War actually was about this to some extent-The Abolitionist Progressive Yankees in the North had a majority in congress thanks to California and the balance of Slave vs Free state was broken by 1850's which led to a civil war in Kansas and eventually spread to the rest of the country). In addition, if you ask a southerner, the 'American Civil War' was the 'War between the States', and not a true civil war.

As for WWIII starting, from a strategic point, that is also a non-starter, also given the recent Elections in the US. As for nuclear conflicts, only an idiot would try to nuke the US because the standard in place is that the US will nuke first rather than take a first strike and wait to retaliate. In other words, the standing doctrine is that if we even think there is a possibility that someone will try to nuke US targets, the US will hit them first before any missiles headed towards the US leave the ground.

Most of the US nuclear strike capability is sea under the Trident-Polaris system. Nuke sub captains can actually launch nukes so much as a by-your-leave if certain conditions are met, and if a nuclear strike on the US or its NATO allies is under way or has already occurred, the standing order is that sea-borne nuclear assets get launched regardless of any orders to the contrary by the President.
All good points(why most countries have adopted the proxy War, and unrestricted war model of Qiao Liang), though I might add that recent Russian Nuclear Strategy is nuke 4 cities(likely New England) and demand concessions(keeping the damage limited). The US could ostensibly let that happen if it quashed rebels in the bombed states(we're assuming the US is THAT paranoid about rebels) and gives them a reason to paint the Russians as "perfidious evil". Other than that caveat, yeah the US would send 148 bombs to Moscow as that nuclear target list I posted shows, they might also bomb China because they might get involved.

As for the US Federal Government going rogue and implementing Martial Law, that also is not likely to happen because the Federal Government would lose miserably should Martial Law be enacted to suppress the general population rather than to protect the general population from a foreign actor.
Unlikely as long as the government is staffed with people who think so...I think Hillary would've done it if any of them(of course the militarization of Police effectively already achieves this). There are of course other laws too that can cause the secession dominoes to fall, say if the Federal government imposes a new tax on the states or National Gun Control legislation causes New Mexico to secede.

it would be very hard for the 350,000 combat arms personnel stationed in the US to actually fight off about 170 million gun owning US Citizens (along with civilian and military personnel who would simply thumb their nose at a Federal Government declaration of Martial Law to suppress anything resembling a real insurrection). The political implications of the Federal Government using force against its own population would be political suicide assuring an insurrection turn into a real civil war or revolution on a wide-spread scale).
Actually this wouldn't be that hard, Tactical Nuclear bombs are designed to clear away alot of the enemy forces. plus starvation is a good motivator for breaking peasants resistance..Peasant aren't disciplined and so their morale cracks quicker, and not all those civilians would be against the professionals anyhow. Some people like Martial Law and jackboots, plus cutting down on surplus population frees up jobs and cuts down on unemployment, they might even get some plunder if they support genocidal government and survive. Interestingly in may civil war scenarios, things can be quite peaceful..China is still legally in a civil war(the Taiwan situation), but so far no shots are being fired.

The thing that has to be worried about is large groups of anarchist types who go violent and the government doing or saying nothing about it. Such anarchists would be wiped out or simply fizzle out whether or not there was a armed response from the Federal Government. Anarchists are not organised, hence "anarchist" by definition. Rioters tend to follow the tactic of destroying their own supporters' property and disrupting their own supporters' lives which is very ironic.

And that said, the real reason to prepare to bug-out is the collapse of civil order, which is very possible, but not likely to be promulgated by the US Federal Government. For instance, if the Internet goes down for an extended period of time, everyone, including the Federal Government and the planet in general, is screwed, royally. That needs no further explanation.
No disagreement here. There are a ton of both right-wing and left-wing anarchists in this country at the moment, it's the right wing variety that are more enthusiastic of late.

As for the Militia being apolitical? that's incorrect-Preserving civil order is still a political goal in the simplest definitions of the terms. Maintaining civil order is the very essence of politics(a typically conservative goal at that). Where issues arise is how one (and who) interprets what is meant by "civil order", as an exampe of differing opinions on which civil order is preferred: there are some who want to bring back the Civil Order of Slavery, though Newsweek would argue Slavery is still legal as a form of punishment for a convicted crime. The constitution itself really has no value anymore..it means whatever anyone wants it to be these days(pretty much everyone claims they support the constitution and cherry pick parts of it to support their agenda, though I would say the 1787 Constitution is most consistent with 18th century liberal Conservatism, right-wing Libertarianism and British Constitutional Monarchists).

The Militia itself is under the domain of Congress and the States with the President being CIC and it's job is to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections(think the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellions) and repel Invasions; They are also to maintain a semblance of independence of the individual states(this came into play during the Civil War in the 1860s) as provided by the 2nd Amendment. There's a bit of a conflict over what counts as an insurrection and what is necessary to maintain free State(this dispute was at the heart of Civil War 1). It actually is legal to peacefully secede under two conditions: 1:The rest of the Union kicks em out 2:"Right to Revolution reason" which the CSA used in 1860. The Constitution itself mentions nothing on Secession, and this article goes into the reasons for that.
 
On the issue of secession - and as a disclaimer, I have to fully disclose an innate bias on the belief that a state has the right to secede from the Union, provided that the federal government has sufficiently violated it's contractual obligations to the States and that the States precede the federal government in terms that the federal government is a product of the States and not the other way around.

First, the individual States existed prior to the existence of The United States of America and the States, in Congress, created the Federal Union, and therefore acceded to the Union. This is evident by the fact that the "United States" was established under the Articles of Confederation which was replaced by the current US Constitution. This meant that each state had to technically secede from the Articles of Confederation and ratify the US Constitution to join the newly constituted United States of America under the present Constitution.

This view is supported by the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution which involve Reserved Rights and Delegated Authority. The US Federal Government exists by virtue of these two amendment: The Federal Government has authority which is delegate to it by the several states. This means that individual states have granted the Federal Government to act in their behalf in certain given domains. This is delegated authority, which also means, with sufficient violations on the part of the US Federal Government, individual States have the constitutional authority to withdraw the authority to act on their behalf by the Federal Government provided the Federal Government violates the contractual obligation between the States (or individual States) listed in the US Constitution.

Hence, the US Federal Government gets it authority from the states and the US Constitution clearly limits the powers of the Federal Government. A lot of people do not like this argument and will always drag in the issue of Slavery which is actually irrelevant to the issue of secession in technical terms.

There are some who will claim White v. Texas declared Secession to be unconstitutional, but that is a specious and factitious argument since the specifics case and the opinion handed down only pertained to the payment of debts public and debts to foreign governments incurred by Texas while it was 'out of the Union". The case is correct in that sense but, if a secession was 'illegal', then why were the former 13 Confederate States required to be 'readmitted' to the Union if they were never out of the Union in the first place? And why was no one ever prosecuted for treason for being a Confederate? (Mainly because the US Supreme Court warned federal prosecutors that they would likely lose such a case before the Court and the result of the War would be that the US Supreme Court would have had no choice but to uphold a State's right to secede from the Union and thus negate the result of the war itself.

As for the terms or definitions of War, there are four types of wars:

1.) War of aggression: A war in which you invade or attack another country to gain an end goal.

2.) Revolution: Where one attempts to wholesale overthrow an existing government and replace it wholesale with another government. (viz.: The French Revolution and The Bolshevik Revolution.)

3.) War of Secession: Where one part of a country wishes to separate itself from the rest of the country.

This is the accepted definitions by Jomine and von Clausewitz.

The "American Revolution" was not a "Revolution" by any stretch of the imagination in technical terms. The American Colonists viewed themselves as "Englishmen" who, by natural right, were part of the British Empire and therefore entitled to the same rights of representation that other "Englishmen/Subjects/Citizens" of the United Kingdom were by natural right entitled to.

The American Colonials were not overthrowing the Crown. They were seeking independence from the Crown because of their views involving their denial of their rights as Subjects, Citizens and Englishmen. That was their motivation (and economic motivation it was in practical terms). In fact, there was a total abdication of government by the Crown and in its stead was Military Occupation. There was no real civil government and any attempt at civil authority by consent of the governed (as granted in the Magna Carta) did not exist.

Hence, the American "Revolution" was in fact "The War for American Independence". Hence, a war of secession.

Let's fast forward this some 250 years or so and look at the "Brexit" vote:

The European Economic Community was originally intended to be constructed in a manner not dissimilar to the way the United States was constructed under the Articles of Confederation or the current US Constitution: A "Union" of independent and sovereign "States" with the understanding that each State had a sovereign right to be unique in its culture and institutions, but that such a "Union" be nothing more than a free-trade zone with a common defence plan in place.

It went beyond that, but not as far as the US did in terms of subjugating the individual constituent States. The UK decided to go out. No civil war erupted and hence, like Norway seceding from Sweden, secession does not mean war.

The problem lies in the definition of a "State". In the 1700's, the term "State" mean "Nation State" such as Germany, England, France, et al. The failure to recognise this is the essential failure of the US in the US "Civil War" and the reason the UK went packing from the EEC. If you cannot control your borders and your independent cultural development, you are nothing more than a minion of some foreign entity and nothing more than a colony, at best, to be exploited by some foreign entity.

You do not simply erase centuries of Nationalism in Europe any more than you erase the conflict between Cavaliers and Puritans in the American Colonies in the 1700's (The Cavaliers being the Agricultural Southerners and the Puritans being the Industrial North). US History is just an extension of UK History and the UK is lucky the conflict came to a head in the Colonies and not the UK.

But I digress - A "Civil War" is two competing factions attempting to gain control of one State/Nation/Country. The Confederacy only wanted control over the area occupied by the States wishing to secede from the US Federal Union. If the South had won, the United States would have still existed, albeit a few States fewer.

Remember, it's all history and we are prisoners of our own history and doomed to repeat that history because it it is culturally programmed into us to behave that way. And any attempt to 'reprogramme' people via "Political Correctness" or other enforced means only reinforces the natural programming that is in our DNA.
 
I remember World War 3. That was when President Obama came on the TV and said, "Thank you very much. You're on your own. Good night." :lol:
 
Back
Top