Facing a war

With regard to war: There has been a major paradigm shift during the latter half of the 20th century that drastically lessens any risk of all out war between two major economies. Firstly, we still have the concept of mutually assured destruction that prevented the cold war escalating to WWIII and additionally we have seen the occurrence of globalisation. Despite what the hippies might say, globalisation is one of the largest factors contributing towards world peace: major economies are so intertwined that war in very unlikely, previously there was money to be made in warfare, now the risk to trade is so great that both nations would suffer. The U.S will never go to war with China or Russia without another huge paradigm shift.
Sounds like you have sold it to yourself :cool:

People thought along the same lines in the booming 20's. Little did they know the most distructive military conflict in history was less than a decade away. It only takes one person with a vision being followed and a few deals with the right leaders for us to be tangled in world war III.

The US is already involved in proxy wars against China and Russia.
 
Last edited:
I think one of the very likely "World Wars" to occur in our future will unfortunately be a version of "civil war"...

Almost every Country will be fighting their own internal wars against each other; fuelled at first by a war against Isis, but will expand to become a religious and race war.

Hope I'm wrong.
 
You may be right Bayview.

Two countries going to war with each other over resources is uneconomical. It's cheaper to simply purchase those resource producing assets than it is to fight over them. China could invade Australia for minerals and food production, but it's easier to simply buy the ore and purchase farming land than it is to launch an invasion and then maintain ongoing security.

Wars of ideology don't tend to heed rational thinking or economics, especially when it's cheap to simply throw countless radicals into a meat grinder, whilst the opposition spends billions on trying to protect themselves. Ultimately they're not even really about religion or ideology. This type of conflict is about power for a small group using ideology to control the masses to their own objectives.
 
The Bilderbergs want Russia neutralised and the Saudis destabilised. Work from that what you will.
Agreed. On the bright side, they can only achieve this with our consent, or at least, our inaction.

We do outnumber them millions to 1.

The public needs to take an interest in what is going on, vote for parties that do not bend over for their corporate overlords and not be distracted by the fear pumping.
 
Sounds like you have sold it to yourself :cool:

People thought along the same lines in the booming 20's. Little did they know the most distructive military conflict in history was less than a decade away. It only takes one person with a vision being followed and a few deals with the right leaders for us to be tangled in world war III.

The US is already involved in proxy wars against China and Russia.
Definitely, history has a tendency to repeat itself and nothing lasts forever. But we would need another drastic paradigm shift, I think there would be warning signs. And as for proxy wars, we are actually living through a period with the least amount of international conflict in world history.

It's highly unlikely there will be a major war in my life time, but I wouldn't argue that as a certainty.
 
Definitely, history has a tendency to repeat itself and nothing lasts forever. But we would need another drastic paradigm shift, I think there would be warning signs. And as for proxy wars, we are actually living through a period with the least amount of international conflict in world history.

It's highly unlikely there will be a major war in my life time, but I wouldn't argue that as a certainty.
Very true - it is only due to the widespread publicity and sensationalism that the world feels in more turmoil
 
I once considered buying a cheap 1000 acres within 200km of each capital city with permanent water supply, and selling a 99 year lease for each acre. A small annual maintenance fee would cover rates. With the right marketing the less wealthy catastrophisers among us should jump at it - it would be v. cheap insurance for lots of doomsday scenarios.
How a 1000 acres with water supply can be used? Isit for food production?
Why 200km of a capital city? Is it because it is far enough but still drivable?
 
How a 1000 acres with water supply can be used? Isit for food production?
Why 200km of a capital city? Is it because it is far enough but still drivable?
Here's 300 acres of mostly level bushland for ~$1000/acre in Lithgow region (approx 150km from Sydney).

It's is close enough to get there in a hurry, but far enough away from the remaining 4 million Sydneysiders who may or may not have ebola or are about to be nuked, or expecting mass terrorism.

A 99 yr lease on 1 acre for $20K will give them somewhere to park a car/caravan or pitch a tent with a guarantee of not having to come into contact with anyone until the crisis is over. (It's unlikely anyone would be nuking Lithgow :eek:).

The alternative is buying an equivalent 1 acre block for ~$300K and having to pay rates every year instead of the small annual maintenance charge.

There's an opportunity for someone to make 2000% profit for not a huge amount of effort.
 
Cripes, I am still preparing for the Ebola apocalypse. I haven't got time to prepare for Nuclear Armageddon as well ! (though if anyone can give me an inside line on an XL NBC suit i'd be mightily obliged :p)
 
IMO large scale conflict is very unlikely.

However there are some changing dynamics which make the possibilities there. The unchallenged hegemony of the US over the last three quarters of a century, might finally be changing. I'm talking about China here, not Russia.

China now diverting large amounts of of it's budget to military, now building new islands in the South China Sea to project military presence into SE Asia, claiming land that wasn't theirs before. For the first time since WW2, Japan's constitution being changed with US support, so Japan can now have a bit of a military and can help "it's allies" (the US) in any conflict against aggressors (China).
 
Almost every Country will be fighting their own internal wars against each other; fuelled at first by a war against Isis, but will expand to become a religious and race war.
I wouldn't call Isis a global threat, or any other Islamic extremist groups either. They are blown all out of proportion by politicians, media and others. Only a very small proportion of terrorism outside the middle east and Pakistan is related to these groups. Local nationalist / separatist groups are far worse, I see these groups as much more dangerous than any motivated by religion or race.
 
IMO large scale conflict is very unlikely.

However there are some changing dynamics which make the possibilities there. The unchallenged hegemony of the US over the last three quarters of a century, might finally be changing. I'm talking about China here, not Russia.

China now diverting large amounts of of it's budget to military, now building new islands in the South China Sea to project military presence into SE Asia, claiming land that wasn't theirs before. For the first time since WW2, Japan's constitution being changed with US support, so Japan can now have a bit of a military and can help "it's allies" (the US) in any conflict against aggressors (China).
This will be an ongoing theme. With China rise to power, they will claim more land or islands for resources and fishing rights and power.
The US won't allow that to go on without a fight.
Eventually when China overtakes US there WILL be a war or conflict of some sort, as the US will want to block and slow China's advance as the world's no 1 nation, as the US has been for nearly the last century.
 
I wouldn't call Isis a global threat, or any other Islamic extremist groups either. They are blown all out of proportion by politicians, media and others. Only a very small proportion of terrorism outside the middle east and Pakistan is related to these groups. Local nationalist / separatist groups are far worse, I see these groups as much more dangerous than any motivated by religion or race.
It was mentioned on the radio the other week that the ATTF were looking at - only looking at - over 400 - that's over 400 "possible suspects". That's the ones they know of...here on our home soil in Aus.

Isis are flooding social media with over 100,000 posts per day now, world wide. There are many, many teenagers out there who are impressionable and will listen, unfortunately.

They are a cancer which will destroy the human race if not stopped. They may not do it as fast as an atomic bomb...

All it will take is for one of these mindless sub-humans to grab your wife, or your child/children in a crowded shopping mall somewhere in Aus, sever their head off in front of everyone (and it will happen), and the anti-Muslim, anti-Middle East sentiment will go through the roof...whether it is a right or wrong stance.

From here it will escalate; tit-for-tat incidents, larger skirmishes, hate rallies, protests that get violent, political and authority interventions and massive media comment...

Voila.
 
I am about 1 percent as worried about ISIS as about China. The West worries far too much about that sort of thing.

Think about it - explain ISIS extremists plan to take over China? Oh yeah, wait, the whole country and growing gigantic economy doesn't give a **** about ISIS, would never be converted, and social media is completed controlled over there.

Worrying about terrorism is great for drumming up fear and justifying foreign wars. Proxy wars in small countries, frequently over resources, that they're clearly not going to lose. I used to say during Bush's invasion of Iraq - if the West is so worried about weapons of mass destruction, why don't they touch North Korea?
 
Dad was a commercial bee keeper until he retired 18 months ago. He sold his hives and equipment for a premium. He still has a huge amount of honey in storage which he'll sell off here and there as he need to. It's only going up in value.
 
I am about 1 percent as worried about ISIS as about China. The West worries far too much about that sort of thing.

Think about it - explain ISIS extremists plan to take over China? Oh yeah, wait, the whole country and growing gigantic economy doesn't give a **** about ISIS, would never be converted, and social media is completed controlled over there.

Worrying about terrorism is great for drumming up fear and justifying foreign wars. Proxy wars in small countries, frequently over resources, that they're clearly not going to lose. I used to say during Bush's invasion of Iraq - if the West is so worried about weapons of mass destruction, why don't they touch North Korea?
They can't touch North Korea because Seoul would be destroyed by the hundreds of artillery battlements hidden in the jungles and pointed straight at the city. Many thousands would die and a huge economy would be brought to its knees. If they weren't worried about WMDs why would they have invaded? And don't say for oil.

China is certainly a threat; however, the interdependence of the Chinese economy and those of the west ensure that any major conflict will be avoided. But who knows.
 
Anything is possible, ironically, often people think it will not happen. It is all there waiting to happen, nothing says there culd not be a major mis calculation, or mistake.

Regarding investing, I was going to look at the moorebank/holsworthy area once there is a bust in this cycle, do we have nukes pointing there & what insurance company covers war ???
 
Anything is possible, ironically, often people think it will not happen. It is all there waiting to happen, nothing says there culd not be a major mis calculation, or mistake.

Regarding investing, I was going to look at the moorebank/holsworthy area once there is a bust in this cycle, do we have nukes pointing there & what insurance company covers war ???
Hmm, If you read most contracts carefully, for almost anything, there is a 'force majeure' clause contained in them. This limits the other parties liability for things such as unlikely disasters including nuclear war (and yes I have read some that specifically refer to nuclear war). E.g. We will not be liable to insure you, we are not liable if your goods do not reach your destination, Netflix is not liable if your subscriptions fail due to...

Seriously, lawyers like to cover their bases.
 
Top