I postulate that this will be done by means of military intimidation. Whether this "works" or not is a separate issue. Notice that the record for military victory has not been very good since the end of WWII. The US was held to a standoff in Korea, failed in Vietnam and has not been successful in either Iraq or Afghanistan. This has not stopped continuing use of militarism as the primary foreign policy choice. Notice the disdain over Obama's mention of the willingness to talk to leaders of disfavored nations. The standard in the US is Bush's "bring them on" cowboy attitude. McCain is also still talking of "winning" in Iraq.
Jerome thinks that the US could not "win" in a war against Europe, but I don't think this is the plan. The idea is to intimidate states, only the foolish try overt warfare. Unfortunately the foolish take command in the US about once a generation.
I'm not an expert on military hardware, but various bits of information that have emerged over the past several decades lead me to believe that the US is planning (implementing?) space-based weaponry. Several projects which make no sense from a scientific or defensive point of view do make sense when viewed as a cover for space weaponry. This includes the international space station, a permanent station on the moon, and various missile and satellite tracking/destruction projects.
I've mentioned the "rods from God" project before. This uses kinetic energy weapons dropped from space. It is essentially undetectable and there is no way to defend against it. A perfect weapon of intimidation.
I don't want to open up the whole can of worms over the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, but just state that so far it has been only the US that has used them.
Can the US prevail when it uses intimidation? Can it "win" when it is forced to use actual military force? I don't know, I just think that this is the way the planning in the US is leaning. If you are going to grab resources why spend time on conservation or technological improvement? Actions speak louder than words and so far all the actions point towards an expectation of adequate resources. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
The intimidation you describe can only work if it is explicit enough, and with Europe, it would take pretty damn explicit threats or acts of war to be understood as such - and then you'd be in a situation of immediate conflict which the USA cannot win. I don't think there is that intermediate stage that does indeed exist with a whole range of other countries. Maybe I'm wrong. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
The ISS wouldn't exist without Russia. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
True enough! And Bush plans on retiring the Space Shuttle in 2010, when the ISS is complete. Perhaps they will quietly "mothball" them. The Orion replacement is not due till 2015. I saw that an administration official noted that the ESA cargo module could be upgraded to deliver people. What we have always liked about Russian technology was that it was cheap and relatively reliable. We built hot rods like Atlas. They built "the big, dumb booster."
However, it doesn't look like they are planning on using the ISS as a weapons platform without a US controlled means of accessing it. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
And that differs from the world the US has been living in for the past 60 years, how? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
And, rdf, I have diaried the technology, the history, some of the politics and the players in the "Pax Americana" until no one wanted to hear it. And this IS my field. Beginning with:
The Quiet Coup and then
the Empire- Baseworld and Blackstar and the most commented one,
The Empire's Last Big Stick
Why?
Cause it's one of several likely futures for us all, and no one wants to touch it, by and large. Till recently. If you want to add your impressions, or correct mine, --boy, do I welcome that. Maybe a few more will do the same. Then again, --perhaps it will all just fade away. Perhaps Admiral Fallon, Pat Lehey, John Conyers, the recently ex-Secretary of the Air Force Moseley and his civillian counterpart Wynne, Lawrence Wilkerson, and a host of others will win their obvious battle to throttle the nuke nerds. Then you can join my Dingbat Discussion Forum.
Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
My thesis is that the US is planning for a world where it extracts resources from other states to maintain the population's standard of living.
I don't think they give a damn about the population except to the extent that is useful to their ends--continued power and continued self-enrichment. This is, IMHO, of itself their ultimate goal and it is deeply pathological.
Their policies are criminal. Their ideology is a social psycho-pathology. They are, at best, a collection of sociopaths.
I can only hope that they will be outmaneuvered. Jefferson said: "The price of liberty must be paid in blood by each generation." We have been paying the price but losing the liberty. More people need to awaken, especially in the USA.
I agree with GiP about the value of Gerome's work, both to myself and others. It is extremely cogent. I would like to see it turned into a stand-alone pamphlet or small book that I could recommend and quote to my congressional delegation and to media representatives. This, of course, could be referenced to a hyperlink text version. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
| Barco receives new orders from Lockheed Martin for Q-70 console program
Barco has demonstrated innovative support of critical COTS management issues for the military market for many years. The recent orders comprise the delivery of 20.1-inch RFD 251S Rugged Flat Displays and AVS 5100 graphics generators, which will be integrated in a variety of Lockheed Martin AN/UYQ-70 systems installed in submarines and Aegis-equipped surface ships.
This is only one example, there are numerous other. The US military is far more dependent on Europe than generally known.
If only our European politicians could realize this, maybe they wouldn't be so cowardly. The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
Joint projects with Europe (and Russia) are useful only as long as they are useful. Ties between the US/UK and Germany were close before WWI, but they managed to restructure quickly when hostilities started.
I don't think the ISS is designed for military purposes, it is useful as a way to gather experimental information to be used later for a space-based weapons launching platform.
I've been thinking about writing an essay on whether the US requires war or the threat of war to keep the economy going. One can trace this modus operandi back to the Spanish- American war and the Philippine-American war which followed it. Wikipedia has a nice article listing the American "wars" of the 20th Century, it's a long list.
When there aren't real threats the government invents them: anarchists, socialists, communists, etc. The economy has been so restructured since the end of WWII that militarism persists even during peacetime. The minor dip in the DoD budget during Clinton was insignificant compared to the changes after WWI and WWII.
As Madeline Albright said "what's the use of having an army if you don't use it?" Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Or back to Polk and his Mexican-American War. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
But she was using the RW's argument against them to support a relatively low cost, high benefit intervention to stop the slaughter in the Balkans. I can't see her using that argument to support invading, say, Venezuela. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
I've been thinking about writing an essay on whether the US requires war or the threat of war to keep the economy going.
