LOSING WORLD WAR III
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
According to Ralph Epperson, author of The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History we make a deal with our conscience to accept different views of history.
PHOTO CREDIT: RON PATTON
We either believe in the catastrophic or accidental view of history or we choose the other view which is the conspiratorial view of history. The deal is that we have to decide how things truly are in the world and make decisions on what resonates with our conscience.
The average American sees sudden, unexpected chaos, death and destruction in the world and most would immediately believe that it is just random or that there is an organized conspiracy that is busily plotting against the United States.
This is the case even though the United States is far removed from any and all of the chaos. There are many people in the United States that believe that when death comes knocking on the door of foreign countries, it is our duty to try and find a way to discourage it from spreading and usually the solution is to spread our own method of death.
We have seen many victories with the smaller wars we have fought because the enemies we pursue a relatively weaker than we are.
The sick and twisted problem with the United States of America today is our puffed up and egotistical political views that are so myopic that we cannot see that our warlord U.S. Foreign policy is horrendous and no one can even approach it with any degree of objectivity.
With every war we appear to win, we are kidding ourselves here in the United States that we would be strong enough as a people to withstand a nuclear conflict.
As many of the major powers are now planning for the possibility of such a conflict, we are acting as though the entire world cares about how we feel politically when in reality the entire world is growing tired of watching the decline of our country.
The planners know that a country that is politically divided is a country with no loyalty and so the hearts and minds of the people can be won over by a philosophical proposal of world order.
Those who wish to be stubborn and decide not to participate will be left to fight for their own survival.
The TV series “The Man in the High Castle” imagines a world in which Nazis won World War II. But we don’t need an alternative-history show to imagine the United States losing the next World War should it break out this year.
As the US, Russia, and China test each other’s patience and strategic focus, speculation about the chances of a world war has hit a new high. But many of the people seriously engaged in this weighty discussion often get it wrong.
When it comes to estimating military capability, the Western media is principally concerned with the weapons capabilities of weaker states like North Korea and it rarely pays much attention to where we fall short, of course, it is not prudent to speak of the United States losing any war but when war games are played and strategies are played out, we may not be as victorious as we would like to think.
Given the transparency of our system of government, planning for World War III would be predicated upon the war planners doing everything their power to accommodate our capabilities, plans, and wishes.
Compound that with the free flow of information we have with the internet and any plans you articulate today will be obsolete tomorrow.
This means that we are facing a major problem.
In order to win major wars of the future, we will have to fight a vastly inferior foe using conventional and possibly nuclear weapons and if we fight a superpower, we will have to use methods that rely on advanced technology along with all of the other armaments that we use in most wars.
The RAND Corporation recently ran warfare simulations and analytic games that create aspects of warfare at the tactical, operational, or strategic level. They are used to examine war fighting concepts, train and educate commanders and analysts, explore scenarios, and assess how force planning and posture choices affect campaign outcomes.
This global policy think tank developed and can execute various types of war games, including scenario exercises, tabletop map exercises, “Day After…” games, and computer-supported exercises.
RAND analyst David Ochmanek said in a recent report that in simulated World War III scenarios, the U.S. continues to lose against Russia and China. He does not mince words when he says that “when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its ass handed to it.”
RAND’s war games show how US Armed Forces, colored blue on war game maps, experience the most substantial losses in one scenario after another and still can’t thwart Russia or China which predictably is red from accomplishing their objectives: which is annihilating Western forces.
In the next military conflict, which some believe may come as soon as the mid-2020s, all five battlefield domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, will be heavily contested, suggesting the U.S. could have a difficult time in achieving superiority as it has in prior conflicts.
The simulated war games showed, the “red” aggressor force often destroys U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters on the runway, sends several Naval fleets to the depths, destroys US military bases, and through electronic warfare, takes control of critical military communication systems. In short, a gruesome, if simulated, annihilation of some of the most modern of US forces.
So, as Russia and China develop fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic missiles, equipment that that relies on sophisticated base infrastructures like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time and things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.
Rand also war-gamed cyber and electronic attacks in the simulations, and in that simulation, Russia and China tend to cripple US communication networks.
China has said that their strategy is system destruction warfare where they attack the American battle network on all levels relentlessly at least this is what intelligence has revealed about what the Chinese have in store if we go to war with them.
The fundamental problem U.S. military planner’s face is that in any future great-power conflict, Russia and China will be fighting close to home, and America will not.
Many of our ideas about future military campaigns are grounded in the assumption that wars will remain protracted affairs. But that isn’t the way Moscow and Beijing are likely to pursue military gains in their areas. Their best hope of succeeding is to move fast, and then present Washington with a fait accompli before it can react.
Once the attackers have seized their initial objectives, it would be hard to dislodge them without contemplating the risky step of resorting to nuclear weapons.
The Defense Department’s new military strategy acknowledges this by noting the implications of the renewed rivalry with China and Russia. The possibility of a major war with great powers, like World Wars One and Two, is “growing.”
Military strategists have acknowledged that the United States still has one foot in the past and just a toe in the future and that in order to be on a safe footing we will have to focus on improvements.
The Pentagon talks the talk of military innovation to deal with this new mix of threats but doggedly pursues costly weapons programs anchored in dangerous past compromises. Not only are the weapon systems unlikely to deliver well in today’s conflicts, but they also could become vulnerabilities exploited by America’s adversaries during wartime.
The risks of these old ways of thinking were highlighted recently when a test pilot’s report was leaked to the War Is Boring, website. The report revealed that an F-16 fighter with 40-year-old technology had bested the Pentagon’s planned new warplane, an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, in simulated combat.
The F-35 being tested, according to the report, couldn’t hold its own in close-in dogfighting. The Pentagon and manufacturer didn’t challenge the story’s merits but rather argued the test was unfair because the plane wouldn’t need to fight up close.
What is fascinating is that the same argument was made almost 50 years ago about the F-4 Phantom, a twin-engine fighter designed for air superiority and reconnaissance. It was first sent into battle without an internal cannon because of the Pentagon’s optimistic assumption that the new generation of air-to-air missiles made close-range air duels a thing of the past.
The result was that outdated North Vietnamese MiGs were able to shoot down these Phantoms in dogfights, which the Pentagon had planned not to have. So the Phantoms had to be equipped with the very guns once considered unneeded. The Navy then had to create the Top Gun program to teach what had become a lost art of aerial dogfighting.
No technology or spin can change the certainty that there will be uncertainty in war. A jet’s components may not work as planned under the high-tempo, extreme battle conditions of a major-power conflict. Or American pilots might have only a fraction of their usual electronic wizardry, due to jamming and hacking by enemy forces. Sensitive stealthy aircraft will get roughed up flying through debris and operating from austere or damaged airfields.
This problem is not just caused by the idealized vision of warfare that Washington too often associates with new technology. It is also due to the very idea that new technologies can solve all problems for all people.
When it comes to the possibility of World War III, the mainstream media has been inconsistent in their ability to get us factual information with regard to war campaigns and saber rattling in the midst of crisis.
With ostensibly everything now up in the air, the U.S. power apparatus has created a new reality where doubt has been so instilled in our minds that it will threaten to obstruct and thwart the dissemination of accurate, factual information.
This purposeful manipulation of perception keeps the rest of us confused and bitterly arguing over what’s actually going on.
It is obvious that our government is being run by a “cult of intelligence” that is using the same operative tactics of psychological warfare that were used during the Cold War. The Cult of intelligence, however, is being used to investigate the President for alleged collusion and its services could be focused elsewhere.
If we are on the brink of world war, not only are the interests of the political class involved but also those of the economic financial elite as well. You can believe that a wealthy party like George Soros and others would see to it that even as wars are fought in other countries – the philosophical and cultural wars would be ramped up to give the illusion of chaos politically.
With this effort, the United States could face the same fate as Venezuela.
The crisis in Venezuela demonstrates that both of our major political parties need to beware of gridlock and failure to solve the people’s problems. That is what spawns evermore radical choices by dissatisfied voters. People everywhere want results, not resistance.
It also demonstrates how the United States most definitely does not want a socialist government at this time in history. Venezuela is an example of how strong politicians can use socialism to their advantage.
What is unfortunate is that according to a new Harris Poll. The word “socialism” does not carry the same stigma it did in the past, now that it has been resurrected by celebrity politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Young people’s political views often change as they grow older, however now Generation Z has a more positive view of the word “socialism” than previous generations, and along with millennials, are more likely to embrace socialistic policies and principles than past generations.
Generation Z and millennials are projected to make up 37% of the electorate in 2020, and what they’re looking for in a presidential candidate is shifting.
The top three voting issues for Gen Z, according to the Harris poll, are mass shootings, racial equality, and immigration policy and treatment of immigrants.
Millennials’ top issues are access to health care, global warming/climate change, and mass shootings.
Generation X’s top issues are: access to health care, terrorism/national security and the national debt — the same top issues for boomers and older.
So it is more than likely that in the future, there will be nebulous borders, universal healthcare, and more surveillance of the panopticon smart cities. Carbon taxes to combat the effects of Climate Change and gun confiscation.
It looks like Einstein wasn’t joking when he said he didn’t know how World War III would play out but he was certain that World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.