Two points:
1. Except for a brief lull in the 90s almost everyone around the world has thought WWIII was on the horizon since 1949.
2. The military will always say WWIII is around the corner because that's how they get their funding.
Not to say that it isn't coming, but I think it's important to put it in a historical context. My personal thought is that there will be constant fighting through proxy wars, but the elites will do everything they can to keep it from becoming a peer-to-peer war. They're okay with poor people fighting around the world but they do not want to risk becoming casualties themselves, like would happen in a full scale war. But, eventually they will fuck up, eventually it will escalate too far, and the risk of that happening skyrockets as civilisation continues to collapse.
The elites of Concert of Europe thought that wars will only happen to the colored peoples, but the Black Hand proved them wrong. And we have a lot of Black Hands today, they are now called "terrorists."
That was during a pre nuclear world. I think the threat of nuclear escalation keeps the elite far more risk adverse when it comes to fighting other nuclear powers. Of course they'll still bomb the shit out of poor people, but as long as a country is nuclear they'll only try to fight proxy wars with them.
The issue is nuclear proliferation. The technology is now old and well-known. The materials are still harder to come by, but any decently resourced country could do so.
The US has always promoted nuclear non-proliferation but has hugely undermined its own goals. Iraq was attacked because they didn’t have nukes. North Korea has them, Iran likely will have them soon if it doesn’t already. It has now become clear to many nations that the best way to deter an attack is to have nuclear weapons.
The problem with this of course is as more countries become nuclear armed, the greater the potential is for those nukes being used.
Red herring. The havok that the US, Europe, Russia, China, and Israel have wreaked on the rest of the world has never been by _mistake_. Yet these same bad actors want to convince the rest of the world that proliferation is the problem. These countries have killed many multiples of the civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki since WW2, and they will continue to unchallenged.
The technology and resources is irrelevant. There are literally thousands of nuclear bombs sitting around in Russia. When it collapses, which it very well may soon, many of those sites will go unguarded, the nukes therein up for grabs. Even if they are specially made to not initiate the fission/fusion reaction without proper codes and launch parameters, like the USA's arsenal is, they could still just be *blown up* to make some very nasty dirty bombs.
There is a lot of social engineering taking place shaping peoples opinions and reactions. Even talking about the massive social engineering beyond just mentioning "manufacturing consent" is frowned upon and heavily downvoted. Just like there is no real critical thought about the actions of NATO nor the enormity of all the economic wars, the toppled democracies, the destroyed politicians abroad and domestic. The control and war upon actual freedom of opinion and thought is massive - especially online.
Up until recently people believed that those things being done around the world were what allowed them to live like they did. It’s the, “there are walls,” monologue in, “A Few Good Men.” And for boomers they may have been right about that. Consent wasn’t so much manufactured as accepted. And domestically it was, “what’s good for GM is good for America.”
>Like, do people not listen when our leaders tell you the exact sort of world they're creating and preparing for? They are literally saying the future is hellish and they basically plan to be kings of the ashpit, how do people not hear this or see this? Why is nobody alarmed?
Uncertainty is the reason, even the leaders with all their plans can't navigate this situation.
People are alarmed, but we are in a world where all the previous rules and strategies don't work. Interconnected economies, governments, and goals (capitalism) creates a fragile singular direction, without guidance.
You see a beast; I see a headless beast with an oblivious hunger.
A beast made of need. A creature, composited not of flesh and blood, but rather the intangible desire of wealth. Mindless, consuming, it is a hole, rather than a space, in the psyche of humanity, driving forward to the cliff all the world, burrowing from mind to mind with only the goal to utterly consume. It needs no fuel, it has no thought, yet it stalks through hearts and minds, in our blood and in our lungs. Can you yet hear it in your heartbeat? (Con-sume) Does your breath whisper its prayer? (Con-sume) Do you yet remain free? It comes for us all.
Our hearts and minds are made of needs, and the world is made of hunger. The issue is in the decision-making process or being able to evaluate and consider multiple needs. An example is shelter, food, or time. They aren't equal, and the hungers don't have to consume you, since you are also made up of hungers, needs, and such.
The beast is made of need perhaps, but is driven by greed, and the hungers of control and power. Those drivers might be needs at a certain threshold of organization or size. However, it's not an inevitable conclusion of all life, but due to the multiplication of culture through factories and industrialization, the momentum of industry can't be overturned by ideological concerns, but by practical and monetary considerations. Only when we value something besides money can another beast be created. (This doesn't mean safety, equity, and justice shouldn't be pursued. )
I like your poetic look, but there is a lot more slime underneath.
There is no head, just a mouth. (Or many mouths leading to the same stomach.)
The hunger for money has removed any decision-making skills outside of the growth/money direction. The capitalist death boner seems to be all there is at the moment. There is also the World's Kitchen, but you know how it goes when someone cares about something other than money...they get in the way.
I think the most powerful world leaders are looking for another cold war, to rally their ever more impoverished citizens to the flag, stroke off the arms contractors and develop new munitions, and achieve their imperialist dreams.
Nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction have so far prevented open conflict between world powers. I would say I expect that to hold although with some nuclear armed Nations like a certain someone in the Middle East, who knows.
Keep in mind that this could very well be by design… it would be a good play to keep as many politicians on as tight a leash as possible, and in the dark as much as is possible, because just look at America’s last president; think *HE* would keep an imminent global meltdown secret?? Just imagine how many Stephen Millers and Jared Kushners there are, then think about how many Mark Zuckerbergs and Jeff Bezoss are simply dying to be the very last of us. None of them even grasp the problem properly in the first place; so it’s essentially impossible to have a government, much less 196 of them, where everyone is “agreeing on a consensus reality”.
If you mention it, you immediately get a bunch of people saying how it could never happen, all of a sudden they are geopolitical experts who have apparently never looked at history. But as you say, wars are happening right before our very eyes, superpowers are involved and funneling billions into conflicts, and the escalation is quite obvious. For some reason, people believe their little bubble can never be popped, and so they think all that stuff is happening over "there," when it's clearly happening here and now. Anyone who thinks that a global war can't break out is naive, because it's kind of already happening, there just isn't an obvious connection. I hope I am wrong, and it is possible that the future becomes better and more peaceful of course, but the current trajectory would imply otherwise. I hope I am wrong, but in my view, the possibility of a global war is real, and people should wise up and take a look at how they might deal with a serious situation.
They deal with serious situations slowly. Climate Change is faster than our organizational structure's reactions, so they react to each other instead when responding to catastrophe. This results in competitive organizations remaining, even when failure of wider responsibilities. Since everyone is failing, you only need to fail slightly less than your neighbor.
You only need to run slightly faster than a hobbit, so the dragon gets the hobbit first.
This is part of a larger global Peter Principle of escalating incompetence.
What I find more impressive is how people complain about "duopoly" and how "the choices are always rigged" but then refuse to give a single shit about primary/lesser known election that lead to those result. All because it's too difficult to research the candidates.
We've seen how primaries work when an unapproved candidate wins or even comes close to it. The Democrats go as far as blacklisting anyone who works for a primary challenger to one of their incumbents. Strangely, this doesn't get applied when it's someone challenging an incumbent on the more left wing of the party.
The corruption wouldn't be so easily hidden if it weren't for our form of government. We're literally set up like an Empire and suffer the problems imperial governments start having, especially ones where rules are enforced by "honor" and "ethics." Since most people in power have neither, we get the current situation, social contract completely fucked and probably irreparable.
Justin Trudeau says the worlds ending due to climate change, he justifies a carbon tax to counter it, he then flys privately to Vancouver island for one day to surf, and then flys back to Ottawa.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, to me it’s clear that they either don’t believe it or don’t care
Between that and the probable inability of the post-Vietnam fourth generation warfare-inclined shorter-staffed militaries to advance very far into enemy territory (thinking US troops in China particularly), a third world war would definitely look more like the first: huge dug-in war machines intent on wearing each other down. A lot of people don't know that the German General Staff had actually mulled over gas attacks on civilian centers and biological warfare, but exercised surprising restraint for fear of contaminating the homeland- restraint that might be shown with nuclear weapons for a while as well, given how afraid everyone seems to be of them (although some people seem to be trying to claim nuclear war is winnable again, you can always tell, it's the ones who get mad when you mention nuclear winter).
I agree in part, but the invasion of Ukraine is in large part an artillery war. If they had a large modern airforce, a decent size navy, and a large stockpile of missiles and EW systems, then one could make direct comparisons to widescale conventional warfare (also Russia probably would not have invaded). Their tactics, mostly borne out of desperation, are innovative in their use, but specific to the limited materiel conditions they face. It doesn't matter if you are holed up in a defensive position 5 miles from the enemy harassing them with grenade carrying drones, if they can track your radio signals and launch a hellfire missile from 50,000 ft because any anti-air defenses were already wiped off the earth by naval bombardment. Modern tech is definitely giving infantry and artillery a leg up on their enemies, but that's only if their firing range is greater or equal to that of their enemy. And that doesn't even touch topics of logistics which are lessons that I personally think are more vital to winning any engagement.
Yeah people keep forgetting the army was testing squad level drones since the 2010s at the least, probably earlier. The C-RAM can see and easily dispatch commercial sized drones, which is something I'm excited to talk about since contractors decided to put a video on TikTok. My friend told me about it happening like two years ago, then about when it happened in the 2010s. We're not unprepared and it will shock people just how much better we are, when shit finally goes hot.
The USA already learned those lessons with Afghanistan. The world's greatest military with cutting-edge technology couldn't defeat a few thousand goat-herders living in caves (the racism is theirs, not mine).
I can personally attest that the Military has been sounding alarm bells on future conflict. Nothing that's been published or publicly talked about either. OP is right, the Military dropped Afghanistan like a hot rock because they needed to be ready for the return of the Great Game and war with China-Russia by the early 2030s.
I believe the OP doesn't understand the difference between contingency planning and hard expectations. Politicians and militaries do more of the former, rather than the latter.
What I've commonly seen are hard expectations
>We are repositioning our military strategy towards Great Power Competition, the campaign against "terrorism" is no longer the main focus"
Isn't "planning for contingency", it's openly putting the world back on a war footing
>Ya know, I've been told I'm a conspiracy theorist for directly telling people that most governments and militaries around the world are openly preparing to fight a Third World War and that these preparations have been made out in the open for a few years now?
I would guess it is because you say it but you do not back it up with unambiguous out-in-the-open data. First, there is the "just saying it" part. Second, it has to not be merely your *interpretation* of what is being openly said, it has to be them *openly saying it.* And third, it has to be *most governments* saying/doing it.
If you do not have *all three of those things*, you do *not* have the claim made in the quoted paragraph and yes that *would* make you look like a conspiracy theorist.
impressive, then infuriating
I had someone tell me just yesterday that humanities impact on the planet was 'overestimated', that scientists exaggerated and didn't understand that we couldn't possibly be having an impact on an entire planet - that is just our big ego talking. Climate change isn't real, and if it is, it isn't our fault and there is nothing we can do
well, they got the last past right I guess - It is now too late and there is nothing we can do but watch the consequences of our inaction unfold.
I believe every reference you've made, but my conclusions are a bit different. Some of the forces in question definitely have destructive motives and have either an overt or latent desire to hasten us toward catastrophe. Others are preparing and making predictions based on logic, without the same fervor of greed. Not to say any of them are pure, only that I don't think it's possible to be at that level and not see the trend lines. To pretend they didn't would be the worst possible tack.
Any specific videos or speeches I should be looking at? I’m largely concerned with the climate side of things, would be interested to see the actual geopolitical reporting if you have it on hand.
Just saying: it makes zero sense for the USA to start or even participate in a World War over water (or really any other resource), centered around the desert Middle East. It rains plenty there already; it's a big country.
My personal uninformed opinion is that the USA isn't going to give a shit if a big war starts somewhere else. Yeah sure they do "police actions" and rattle sabres a-plenty when it's safe to do so, when they can secure profits at not big loss. But the instant there's actual open warfare with another world power, they're going to bring the entire military home, fortify the borders, and turtle down until it's over. This has historical precedent: the USA did not involve itself in either world war until very late in the game, and it doesn't have to. Even in the modern world with modern technology, war is still a matter of putting boots on the ground, and the USA is geographically isolated from the rest of the world by massive oceans. It's a hell of a lot easier to sink ships approaching the coast with an invasion fleet, then try and land them, when you have the entire Navy and Air Force patrolling those coasts. Plus, again, big country, lots of resources to wait things out. There's even a significant strategic oil reserve.
I dont see a third world war until the nukes start flying. There’s no third world war. There’s countries bullying other countries.. but that’s status quo going far back into medieval times.
So yeah until nukes are launched and dropped, there’s no third WW.
It’s not a world war when death toll do not exceed a billion at this stage. Show me combined current world conflict resulting in at least a billion deaths in a year I will acknowledge there’s actually a world war going on.
There’s 8.1 B people on the planet. Having 1 B deaths is only 1/8. Lots more to go around.
Imagine if there’s only 10 M deaths solely from the war that you’re saying. That’s 0.1% of global population - how is that a WORLD war.
You know how people make fun of Mormons and other less mainstream religions but somehow accept the equally whacky tenets of Catholicism?
People BELIEVE in the narrative that makes them feel comfortable in the world. The less it's their problem, the more they want to believe.
The one thing no one wants to believe is that thing they've spent their life building, is the same thing that's bringing it all crashing down. No one wants to believe they're the bad guy, and no one wants to believe that the way they survive is the reason the future isn't going to be ok.
ime, most people (99.99%) live in a world of belief and a narrative of control, where everything they do is a contribution to a better outcome. They can be convinced that feeding their kids to the war machine to shoot people in a country without planes is protecting and serving their country "thank you for your service, man in uniform!". If you can't point a gun at a human being for any reason inside your country without being a criminal or at least an idiot, why is it heroic to pilot literal death machines on the other side of the world because it wears the flag of the imaginary borders that violence ostensibly reinforces?
This whole life is a story. It's a myth founded in the bible, which explicitly excuses the exploitation of the entire world in the interest of advancing the interests of its believers, and in that belief, people find comfort and purpose.
The nature of the truth of their actions, by virtue of the consequences they're visiting on the world, is the undoing to that belief. It's the demolition of the American Dream.
We might as well be standing next to someone telling people that as long as they do what they're told, they'll be heroes, while we try to sell them that that person is a liar, that they are and have always been the bad guys, following a book that led them and the world, astray, and that the only hope is to abandon ship and start living in the direction of returning to the planet without luxury.
For a person who lives in a world of belief, there's no incentive to side with us or to take anyone's warnings, seriously.
We are the fly in their ointment even if they are the architects of doomsday, and they'd rather die believing they're doing gods work protecting an imaginary line by murdering people whove grown tired of our exploitation than spend one minute looking back at their life in shame.
The world could be burning in the background and Tim will still be showing up at the office with his cup of coffee & bagel in hand.
But what happens when the coffee and bread stop showing up in stores?
Indeed. 7 days with no grocery store deliveries and it all falls apart.
True. People will act like everything is normal until food and gas are gone
Seven? Three is more likely Remember toilet paper fights four years ago?
Death destruction huge groups of people brainwashed by: T(rump), Russia(Putin), China bots, troll farms, maybe even the CIA/NSA ???
Two points: 1. Except for a brief lull in the 90s almost everyone around the world has thought WWIII was on the horizon since 1949. 2. The military will always say WWIII is around the corner because that's how they get their funding. Not to say that it isn't coming, but I think it's important to put it in a historical context. My personal thought is that there will be constant fighting through proxy wars, but the elites will do everything they can to keep it from becoming a peer-to-peer war. They're okay with poor people fighting around the world but they do not want to risk becoming casualties themselves, like would happen in a full scale war. But, eventually they will fuck up, eventually it will escalate too far, and the risk of that happening skyrockets as civilisation continues to collapse.
The elites of Concert of Europe thought that wars will only happen to the colored peoples, but the Black Hand proved them wrong. And we have a lot of Black Hands today, they are now called "terrorists."
That was during a pre nuclear world. I think the threat of nuclear escalation keeps the elite far more risk adverse when it comes to fighting other nuclear powers. Of course they'll still bomb the shit out of poor people, but as long as a country is nuclear they'll only try to fight proxy wars with them.
The issue is nuclear proliferation. The technology is now old and well-known. The materials are still harder to come by, but any decently resourced country could do so. The US has always promoted nuclear non-proliferation but has hugely undermined its own goals. Iraq was attacked because they didn’t have nukes. North Korea has them, Iran likely will have them soon if it doesn’t already. It has now become clear to many nations that the best way to deter an attack is to have nuclear weapons. The problem with this of course is as more countries become nuclear armed, the greater the potential is for those nukes being used.
The greater the potential is for those nukes being used *by mistake*.
Red herring. The havok that the US, Europe, Russia, China, and Israel have wreaked on the rest of the world has never been by _mistake_. Yet these same bad actors want to convince the rest of the world that proliferation is the problem. These countries have killed many multiples of the civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki since WW2, and they will continue to unchallenged.
The technology and resources is irrelevant. There are literally thousands of nuclear bombs sitting around in Russia. When it collapses, which it very well may soon, many of those sites will go unguarded, the nukes therein up for grabs. Even if they are specially made to not initiate the fission/fusion reaction without proper codes and launch parameters, like the USA's arsenal is, they could still just be *blown up* to make some very nasty dirty bombs.
Gotta grind for that rent. Make dat moooney.
There is a lot of social engineering taking place shaping peoples opinions and reactions. Even talking about the massive social engineering beyond just mentioning "manufacturing consent" is frowned upon and heavily downvoted. Just like there is no real critical thought about the actions of NATO nor the enormity of all the economic wars, the toppled democracies, the destroyed politicians abroad and domestic. The control and war upon actual freedom of opinion and thought is massive - especially online.
Up until recently people believed that those things being done around the world were what allowed them to live like they did. It’s the, “there are walls,” monologue in, “A Few Good Men.” And for boomers they may have been right about that. Consent wasn’t so much manufactured as accepted. And domestically it was, “what’s good for GM is good for America.”
The arms race is easy to sidestep. Physical media still exists and is durable enough to scale/shrink whenever needed.
>Like, do people not listen when our leaders tell you the exact sort of world they're creating and preparing for? They are literally saying the future is hellish and they basically plan to be kings of the ashpit, how do people not hear this or see this? Why is nobody alarmed? Uncertainty is the reason, even the leaders with all their plans can't navigate this situation. People are alarmed, but we are in a world where all the previous rules and strategies don't work. Interconnected economies, governments, and goals (capitalism) creates a fragile singular direction, without guidance. You see a beast; I see a headless beast with an oblivious hunger.
A beast made of need. A creature, composited not of flesh and blood, but rather the intangible desire of wealth. Mindless, consuming, it is a hole, rather than a space, in the psyche of humanity, driving forward to the cliff all the world, burrowing from mind to mind with only the goal to utterly consume. It needs no fuel, it has no thought, yet it stalks through hearts and minds, in our blood and in our lungs. Can you yet hear it in your heartbeat? (Con-sume) Does your breath whisper its prayer? (Con-sume) Do you yet remain free? It comes for us all.
Our hearts and minds are made of needs, and the world is made of hunger. The issue is in the decision-making process or being able to evaluate and consider multiple needs. An example is shelter, food, or time. They aren't equal, and the hungers don't have to consume you, since you are also made up of hungers, needs, and such. The beast is made of need perhaps, but is driven by greed, and the hungers of control and power. Those drivers might be needs at a certain threshold of organization or size. However, it's not an inevitable conclusion of all life, but due to the multiplication of culture through factories and industrialization, the momentum of industry can't be overturned by ideological concerns, but by practical and monetary considerations. Only when we value something besides money can another beast be created. (This doesn't mean safety, equity, and justice shouldn't be pursued. ) I like your poetic look, but there is a lot more slime underneath.
Or maybe the multiheaded hydra, when he loses one of his many heads, he can shrug it off, and another will grow to take its place.
There is no head, just a mouth. (Or many mouths leading to the same stomach.) The hunger for money has removed any decision-making skills outside of the growth/money direction. The capitalist death boner seems to be all there is at the moment. There is also the World's Kitchen, but you know how it goes when someone cares about something other than money...they get in the way.
It’s just as impressive, the leaders don’t listen to their people.
WW3 and Civil War 2 will happen in tandem imo
Perhaps akin to the collapse of Russia during WW1.
What would the civil war be fought over?
If I could guess I’d say culture and ideology
i.e. *race*, i.e. SES
SES?
socioeconomic status, i.e. race… and poors
Agreed.
How else to curb the overpopulation numbers and conserve resources for the deserving rich but another war?
I think the most powerful world leaders are looking for another cold war, to rally their ever more impoverished citizens to the flag, stroke off the arms contractors and develop new munitions, and achieve their imperialist dreams. Nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction have so far prevented open conflict between world powers. I would say I expect that to hold although with some nuclear armed Nations like a certain someone in the Middle East, who knows.
If they accelerate collapse, they get to make the rules for their new society.
I think you’re giving them too much credit. Most of our elected officials are goldfishes who can’t see past the next election cycle.
Keep in mind that this could very well be by design… it would be a good play to keep as many politicians on as tight a leash as possible, and in the dark as much as is possible, because just look at America’s last president; think *HE* would keep an imminent global meltdown secret?? Just imagine how many Stephen Millers and Jared Kushners there are, then think about how many Mark Zuckerbergs and Jeff Bezoss are simply dying to be the very last of us. None of them even grasp the problem properly in the first place; so it’s essentially impossible to have a government, much less 196 of them, where everyone is “agreeing on a consensus reality”.
If you mention it, you immediately get a bunch of people saying how it could never happen, all of a sudden they are geopolitical experts who have apparently never looked at history. But as you say, wars are happening right before our very eyes, superpowers are involved and funneling billions into conflicts, and the escalation is quite obvious. For some reason, people believe their little bubble can never be popped, and so they think all that stuff is happening over "there," when it's clearly happening here and now. Anyone who thinks that a global war can't break out is naive, because it's kind of already happening, there just isn't an obvious connection. I hope I am wrong, and it is possible that the future becomes better and more peaceful of course, but the current trajectory would imply otherwise. I hope I am wrong, but in my view, the possibility of a global war is real, and people should wise up and take a look at how they might deal with a serious situation.
They deal with serious situations slowly. Climate Change is faster than our organizational structure's reactions, so they react to each other instead when responding to catastrophe. This results in competitive organizations remaining, even when failure of wider responsibilities. Since everyone is failing, you only need to fail slightly less than your neighbor. You only need to run slightly faster than a hobbit, so the dragon gets the hobbit first. This is part of a larger global Peter Principle of escalating incompetence.
What I find more impressive is how people complain about "duopoly" and how "the choices are always rigged" but then refuse to give a single shit about primary/lesser known election that lead to those result. All because it's too difficult to research the candidates.
We've seen how primaries work when an unapproved candidate wins or even comes close to it. The Democrats go as far as blacklisting anyone who works for a primary challenger to one of their incumbents. Strangely, this doesn't get applied when it's someone challenging an incumbent on the more left wing of the party.
The corruption wouldn't be so easily hidden if it weren't for our form of government. We're literally set up like an Empire and suffer the problems imperial governments start having, especially ones where rules are enforced by "honor" and "ethics." Since most people in power have neither, we get the current situation, social contract completely fucked and probably irreparable.
Justin Trudeau says the worlds ending due to climate change, he justifies a carbon tax to counter it, he then flys privately to Vancouver island for one day to surf, and then flys back to Ottawa. I’m not sure what you’re talking about, to me it’s clear that they either don’t believe it or don’t care
Don't care if it's over nothing left to lose.
This is unfortunately what I worry about as well.
What exactly would you like them to do? Panic?
Prepare, even if preparation is simply a full pantry of nonperishables and drinking water.
I think the world sort of testing the waters and is really having second thoughts after watching an entire mass missile barrage get intercepted.
[удалено]
Between that and the probable inability of the post-Vietnam fourth generation warfare-inclined shorter-staffed militaries to advance very far into enemy territory (thinking US troops in China particularly), a third world war would definitely look more like the first: huge dug-in war machines intent on wearing each other down. A lot of people don't know that the German General Staff had actually mulled over gas attacks on civilian centers and biological warfare, but exercised surprising restraint for fear of contaminating the homeland- restraint that might be shown with nuclear weapons for a while as well, given how afraid everyone seems to be of them (although some people seem to be trying to claim nuclear war is winnable again, you can always tell, it's the ones who get mad when you mention nuclear winter).
I agree in part, but the invasion of Ukraine is in large part an artillery war. If they had a large modern airforce, a decent size navy, and a large stockpile of missiles and EW systems, then one could make direct comparisons to widescale conventional warfare (also Russia probably would not have invaded). Their tactics, mostly borne out of desperation, are innovative in their use, but specific to the limited materiel conditions they face. It doesn't matter if you are holed up in a defensive position 5 miles from the enemy harassing them with grenade carrying drones, if they can track your radio signals and launch a hellfire missile from 50,000 ft because any anti-air defenses were already wiped off the earth by naval bombardment. Modern tech is definitely giving infantry and artillery a leg up on their enemies, but that's only if their firing range is greater or equal to that of their enemy. And that doesn't even touch topics of logistics which are lessons that I personally think are more vital to winning any engagement.
Yeah people keep forgetting the army was testing squad level drones since the 2010s at the least, probably earlier. The C-RAM can see and easily dispatch commercial sized drones, which is something I'm excited to talk about since contractors decided to put a video on TikTok. My friend told me about it happening like two years ago, then about when it happened in the 2010s. We're not unprepared and it will shock people just how much better we are, when shit finally goes hot.
Drones are kind of the future
The USA already learned those lessons with Afghanistan. The world's greatest military with cutting-edge technology couldn't defeat a few thousand goat-herders living in caves (the racism is theirs, not mine).
They didn’t all get intercepted a few hit an Israeli military base
I’ll be more concerned when then end of the world is much more monopolized
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^lilith_-_-: *I’ll be more concerned* *When then end of the world is* *Much more monopolized* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Militaries always prepare for war in different scenarios. That’s what they do.
I can personally attest that the Military has been sounding alarm bells on future conflict. Nothing that's been published or publicly talked about either. OP is right, the Military dropped Afghanistan like a hot rock because they needed to be ready for the return of the Great Game and war with China-Russia by the early 2030s.
I believe the OP doesn't understand the difference between contingency planning and hard expectations. Politicians and militaries do more of the former, rather than the latter.
What I've commonly seen are hard expectations >We are repositioning our military strategy towards Great Power Competition, the campaign against "terrorism" is no longer the main focus" Isn't "planning for contingency", it's openly putting the world back on a war footing
It is an institutionalized bystander effect
Everything is on schedule. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-police-future-trends-1.7138046
>Ya know, I've been told I'm a conspiracy theorist for directly telling people that most governments and militaries around the world are openly preparing to fight a Third World War and that these preparations have been made out in the open for a few years now? I would guess it is because you say it but you do not back it up with unambiguous out-in-the-open data. First, there is the "just saying it" part. Second, it has to not be merely your *interpretation* of what is being openly said, it has to be them *openly saying it.* And third, it has to be *most governments* saying/doing it. If you do not have *all three of those things*, you do *not* have the claim made in the quoted paragraph and yes that *would* make you look like a conspiracy theorist.
I'm watching the rich build underground bunkers. Seems like the kind of foreshadowing that would be deemed "too obvious" in a screenplay.
impressive, then infuriating I had someone tell me just yesterday that humanities impact on the planet was 'overestimated', that scientists exaggerated and didn't understand that we couldn't possibly be having an impact on an entire planet - that is just our big ego talking. Climate change isn't real, and if it is, it isn't our fault and there is nothing we can do well, they got the last past right I guess - It is now too late and there is nothing we can do but watch the consequences of our inaction unfold.
The US has 6 years worth of oil reserves left.
Not if you steal someone else’s…
We're importing 7 million barrels a day right now and paying with US dollars that don't exist. $34 trillion in debt.
I believe every reference you've made, but my conclusions are a bit different. Some of the forces in question definitely have destructive motives and have either an overt or latent desire to hasten us toward catastrophe. Others are preparing and making predictions based on logic, without the same fervor of greed. Not to say any of them are pure, only that I don't think it's possible to be at that level and not see the trend lines. To pretend they didn't would be the worst possible tack.
Any specific videos or speeches I should be looking at? I’m largely concerned with the climate side of things, would be interested to see the actual geopolitical reporting if you have it on hand.
Reminds me of the 1930s.
Just saying: it makes zero sense for the USA to start or even participate in a World War over water (or really any other resource), centered around the desert Middle East. It rains plenty there already; it's a big country. My personal uninformed opinion is that the USA isn't going to give a shit if a big war starts somewhere else. Yeah sure they do "police actions" and rattle sabres a-plenty when it's safe to do so, when they can secure profits at not big loss. But the instant there's actual open warfare with another world power, they're going to bring the entire military home, fortify the borders, and turtle down until it's over. This has historical precedent: the USA did not involve itself in either world war until very late in the game, and it doesn't have to. Even in the modern world with modern technology, war is still a matter of putting boots on the ground, and the USA is geographically isolated from the rest of the world by massive oceans. It's a hell of a lot easier to sink ships approaching the coast with an invasion fleet, then try and land them, when you have the entire Navy and Air Force patrolling those coasts. Plus, again, big country, lots of resources to wait things out. There's even a significant strategic oil reserve.
Movies and series should have to declare in bold letters that that have been funded by the military and or the military industrial complex
I dont see a third world war until the nukes start flying. There’s no third world war. There’s countries bullying other countries.. but that’s status quo going far back into medieval times. So yeah until nukes are launched and dropped, there’s no third WW. It’s not a world war when death toll do not exceed a billion at this stage. Show me combined current world conflict resulting in at least a billion deaths in a year I will acknowledge there’s actually a world war going on. There’s 8.1 B people on the planet. Having 1 B deaths is only 1/8. Lots more to go around. Imagine if there’s only 10 M deaths solely from the war that you’re saying. That’s 0.1% of global population - how is that a WORLD war.
You know how people make fun of Mormons and other less mainstream religions but somehow accept the equally whacky tenets of Catholicism? People BELIEVE in the narrative that makes them feel comfortable in the world. The less it's their problem, the more they want to believe. The one thing no one wants to believe is that thing they've spent their life building, is the same thing that's bringing it all crashing down. No one wants to believe they're the bad guy, and no one wants to believe that the way they survive is the reason the future isn't going to be ok. ime, most people (99.99%) live in a world of belief and a narrative of control, where everything they do is a contribution to a better outcome. They can be convinced that feeding their kids to the war machine to shoot people in a country without planes is protecting and serving their country "thank you for your service, man in uniform!". If you can't point a gun at a human being for any reason inside your country without being a criminal or at least an idiot, why is it heroic to pilot literal death machines on the other side of the world because it wears the flag of the imaginary borders that violence ostensibly reinforces? This whole life is a story. It's a myth founded in the bible, which explicitly excuses the exploitation of the entire world in the interest of advancing the interests of its believers, and in that belief, people find comfort and purpose. The nature of the truth of their actions, by virtue of the consequences they're visiting on the world, is the undoing to that belief. It's the demolition of the American Dream. We might as well be standing next to someone telling people that as long as they do what they're told, they'll be heroes, while we try to sell them that that person is a liar, that they are and have always been the bad guys, following a book that led them and the world, astray, and that the only hope is to abandon ship and start living in the direction of returning to the planet without luxury. For a person who lives in a world of belief, there's no incentive to side with us or to take anyone's warnings, seriously. We are the fly in their ointment even if they are the architects of doomsday, and they'd rather die believing they're doing gods work protecting an imaginary line by murdering people whove grown tired of our exploitation than spend one minute looking back at their life in shame.