- The Ukraine is trying to drag us into a war with Russia in the hopes that we (the U.S. and NATO) will return the Crimea to Ukraine and break Russia up into smaller states that will not be able to threaten it. Any direct conflict between the United States and Russia has the potential to go nuclear.
- China is rapidly developing the capabilities to invade Taiwan and may already have reached that goal. While it is obvious that China has not engaged in building military assault craft, it has followed a program of requiring that civilian ships--including large ferries--be able to serve dual civilian/military roles. China may, therefore, have the necessary tonnage to transport troops to Taiwan. Conversely, Taiwan has neglected its infantry and, therefore, could fall victim to anticipated Chinese airborne troops expected to land inland to capture key military and port facilities. An invasion of Taiwan could easily involve several of our allies in the region, including Japan and Australia, and could escalate to a nuclear attack or EMP attack from China. It is also possible that China could so heavily damage the American naval forces that the U.S. would never militarily recover (sort of hard to borrow money to build a navy when you have already borrowed all available funds, and more, to "build back better").
- China and India have been butting heads over borders and water access and it is not impossible that a border clash between the two countries could turn into a broader regional war with Pakistan, India, and China resorting to nuclear weapons.
- Iran is racing ahead with its nuclear weapons program and depending on who you believe, could be only a matter of months away from testing a bomb.
... I find myself more and more being asked by younger people to teach them things that I would have thought their parents or grandparents would have taught them. This is what comes of being old; you have expectations based on your own experience which most of the time has no relation to the younger people we interact with.
Things like: basic cooking, making a fire from scratch, sharpening a knife, changing oil in a car, changing a tire, purifying water, improvising shelter, staying warm when you don’t have warm clothes, taking a crap in the woods, making a comfortable camp, etc. etc.
Mind you this is not “survivalism” or “prepping” or whatever the hell its called these days. These are basic life skills for a human. And have been for many many thousands of years.
One subject that came up recently was: “What could we do if there actually was a nuclear war between the US, China, Russia, North Korea, whoever?” That was from an intelligent young person who reads between the lines in the competing narratives in the media today.
Funny enough, it was comments similar to those that motivated Bruce D. Clayton to write the now classic survivalist book Life After Doomsday. In response, Marcus has included links to Clayton's book as well as Cresson Kearney’s Nuclear War Survival Skills.
Marcus has also included checklists/lists of questions to help you evaluate your state of mind about preparedness, fundamental emergency preparedness, physical fitness baseline, and a one week preparedness survey.
Finally, Marcus has put together a checklist of what he considers minimal preparedness supplies, and a suggested list of "baby steps" to get you started into preparedness.
I'm less afraid of all out nuclear war, than just plain multi-regional conflicts also know as World War. If China moves on Taiwan it would likely set off a domino effect. If the resources of the US and it's allies would be tied up in a conventional conflict in the South China Sea, it might embolden the DPRK to conduct a blitzkrieg into South Korea...and might allow the Iranians to attack Israel...and also allow Putin the "free time" for a proper invasion of Ukraine. The US military is spread too thin and could not engage in multiple conflicts in different areas of the world. Me, personally, I am less worried about nuclear war among China, Russia and the United States. Whatever one thinks of China and Russia, I don't believe they are foolish enough to start a nuclear exchange in which everyone loses. These three nations have had nuclear arsenals for many, many decades and have exercised restraint. The greatest power of nuclear weapons is the choice not to use them.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with you that the risk of a conventional war outweighs the odds of a nuclear war. Since China and other Southeast Asian nations are so critical to the economy, any conventional war with China would be economically destructive to the United States, at least over the short-term.
DeleteBut that doesn't mean that the threat of a nuclear war is less than it was in the 1980s. While it is irrational for a nuclear armed nation to try and start a nuclear war under the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), China's hypersonic weapons program is intended to give China a first strike capability that would prevent a response. Yes, they still have a ways to go in producing nuclear warheads, but they also don't need as many as the Soviets did during the height of the Cold War because the number of U.S. missiles has also declined.
Also, as David Goldman has pointed out, if a nation (or tyrant) is pushed into a corner, it may choose to act irrationally. Goldman envisioned a future where Iran, crippled by a demographic implosion, lashes out at its enemies before they could unite to attack Iran. This applies even more to the situation with China: it's population is already shrinking, and if Evergreen's financial problems are any indicator, China could be facing a a crippling financial collapse.
We have no interests in Ukraine. None. Let them sort it out.
ReplyDelete