Henry,
An ex mil-intel type sent me this e-mail about his (maybe others?)
vision of the future. How close to his position and opinion are you or
any other contributors of this thread?
(Nice thing about being a USAF PJ...even the spooks liked our outfit!)
Your point of the choice of weaponry is well taken. We are confronted with rapidly growing populations that are gaining plenty of conventional arms, and nuclear arms to boot. Furthermore, they are studying "asymetrical" warfare - that is, the development of forces radically different than an enemies to exploit fundamental differences in the nature of the combatant states.
So-called "guerilla" warfare, such as your own adventure in Viet Nam, is one approach to asymetrical warfare.
The Iranians have built an asymetrical force designed to harass, annoy, and create limited areas of havoc for the US Navy in the Gulf littoral. They back it up with a nation-in-arms which give them numbers that simply must be reckoned with, and selective technologies that are designed to cause the most problems for us. Asymetrical warfare is not a "one size fits all" type of doctrine, ala the old Soviet manual, or even the Maoist "fish in the sea of the people"; it is a carefully thought-out strategy that requires constant study of one's enemy (s) and the commitment to build and test a force to achieve particular results against that enemy, not a balanced general-purpose force like the one the US is trying to maintain. When done correctly, asymetrical warfare can even the odds for an otherwise outmatched enemy - giving that enemy the chance to achieve his objectives, and deny you yours.
The Chinese are working to build an asymetrical force that will be able to confront the US in the geographic sphere that they (intend to) openly claim - the Western Pacific, including the Japanese islands and Korea. The Japanese have built a medium-sized but very capable force
designed to immediately react to a conventional invader, and then
augment a gigantic general purpose force (the US). The South Koreans and North Koreans have both built very large general purpose forces.
If the US general purpose forces can be thwarted by asymetrical warfare, then the less-capable general purpose forces of China can be used to extract their objectives from their neighbors.
I believe that we need to leapfrog the Islamic and Sinic civilizations
and develop an asymetric warfare capability of our own, designed
specifically to counter them. And it is interesting to observe that
right now there is so much interest in prosecuting "war criminals" and
"genocide".
This is no accident. History is determined by racial survival, which is a cornerstone of species evolution. Vast numbers of races have been
destroyed or subsumed; the history of all people is of contenders
defeated, and either taken out of the gene pool or lost in the sea of
conquerors. This is the way life works, and those of us who understand
and love life accept it.
We are also at the cusp of an ecological catastrophe. We have become our own asteroid. The only other organism to so threaten its own survival was the stromatolith, which gave us our oxygen-rich atmosphere. This coral-looking piece of living rock put the dinosaurs to shame for the length of its reign on this planet; but it eventually poisoned itself. With oxygen. It died out, from its own pollution. And others took its place.
The reason the (Third World-dominated) UN is going on about "genocide"
and "war crimes" is because they wish to declaw the West before it
realizes what is happening. Tender-hearted as we are, we will deny
ourselves the most important weapons and strategies needed for our own
survival.
The essential means of our defense require huge populations to be
swiftly destroyed, without harming the environment. If we do not do
this, then we will first be consumed by the hordes of other
civilizations, and then the Earth itself will be consumed.
However, I do not want to see that happen to us. We humans have a little more choice in the matter than the stromatolith, and there is a complex living system that we are inherently responsible for.
Simply put, there are far too many people. And there is such a thing as relative cultural impact of different populations, which we can relate to the "R" and "k" factors in environmental ecology. The human race must be reduced in size.
This will only be done by a swift, violent increase in the death rate.
It will be done through a war between civilizations.
The killer, predator civilization - the victor - will be the one that
emerges from the struggle. We are not talking about killing young men on the battlefield. Young men are expendable, which is why we use them. You can kill 80 % of them in a population and for some mysterious reason, the young women still all manage to get pregnant.
We must reduce the number of women and children.
"Women and Children First!" is a motto that applies both to our own
group, for we save them first, and to the enemy/competitor group as
well. But with the enemy, we eliminate them.
I have no problem with this. It explains many things, including the
atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and a whole lot of other things as
well. Only in the West - in OUR civilization - is the individual and the personal evolution of the individual of any great significance to the culture. This is our great strength, and also our weakness when we
confront other groups that use our tenderness against us.
I just read a newspaper article about a feminist group attempting to
have the US intervene on behalf of Afghan women, in order to "liberate" them from the misogynist excesses of the Taleban. What solipsism! One of the arguments was that the US had helped bring peace to Ireland (!) and could do so for the women of Afghanistan. As if we would even want to.
What a strange impulse we Americans (especially Americans, of Western
Civlization) have to interfere with other civilizations who are either
doing the best they know how to adapt to their environment, or are
hurting themselves and in so doing indirectly benefiting us. If they are doing themselves good, leave them alone. If not, enjoy the spectacle and prepare to take advantage of them.
It's exactly how all of them look at us.
Western Civilization must prepare to completely side-step the conflict
of challenger civilizations, specifically both the Sinic and Islamic
civilizations, by reducing their populations to inconsequential numbers.
When this has been done - and the methods you mentioned are the very
ones I have been quietly promoting for years - the vast areas of the
globe formally overrun by swarms of humanity will have to be turned into conservationist preserves. No industry, no agriculture. Only small groups of indigious and aboriginal will be permitted to dwell there. Their population will be kept under strict control through the sternest methods. We will nurse the earth back to health, over the centuries.
I suspect Africa and Latin America will require similar treatment,
although they are not challenger civlizations yet.
I would like to see a population of about 1 billion, perhaps less, on
the globe. Of that the majority would be European, Japanese, American - high-tech, highly urbanized, with huge depopulated wilderness areas for exploration, recreation, and spiritual fulfillment. The rest would be the selected survivors of the reduced civilizations. Population control is a given and getting a license for a baby is going to be hard work.
This isn't genocide. We don't want to lose any of the many types of
humanity. But do we really need over 1.3 billion representatives of the Han?
My question would be: "How high in the military intelligence establishment was this guy anyway?" And then, "How would you ever know for sure your guess was correct?"
Jerard P |
