Start of WW III?

From all accounts, everything around the world is getting more unstable. The Middle East is in turmoil. Look at the list:

* The Israel response of full-scale invasion over the kidnapping of 2 soldiers.
* The deliberate creation of Iraq as a failed state with the now creation of multi-billion dollar military garrisons in the region.
* The rising cost of oil because of China's hyper-growth incursion into the oil market.
* North Korea's firing test missiles.
* Iran enriching Uranium (or so we are told), when the probably already have nukes courtesy of China.
* Russia and China's involvement in supplying Hezbollah militias with arms.
* The collapsing dollar.
* The near bankruptcy of the Federal Government.
* And too many other things to list.

In either case, whether caused, instigated or pushed by forces outside of anyone’s control, calling it and making it "WW III" (as Newt Gingrich is now trying to get them to do) would give the beleaguered Republican Party (with barely a 30% approval rating) just the thing they it needs to cement their power, declare martial law and finalize total domination over all domestic activities, including criminalizing all dissent (re-instatement of things like the Sedition Act, etc.)

Whatever the case, it's pretty obvious to most people I talk too that this is the most unstable the world's been since right before WW II.

What do you think?

http://www.nytimes.c...artner=homepage

Delivery of arms as a simple economic transaction?
Do we know the intentions and factual circumstances of the Hezbollah arms deliveries?

" The Israel response of full-scale invasion over the kidnapping of 2 soldiers."

You call the actions carried out a full-scale invasion?
Bah. Obviously you underestimate Israel's prowess...


In addition,
The invasion was not carried out over the abduction of 2 soldiers!
The call for invasion came on account of hezbollah's gradual strengthening over the years... the terrorist organization has become frighteningly powerful and influential. Israel's actions were stupidly delayed - and now we pay the price - they are tougher and more difficult to defeat.

Just the one drop that flooded the basket

The last straw.

Paul Hughes! I didn't know you posted here. If you're dipping around in the waters, why not stay for a while? Create a bookmark on your browser (hopefully Firefox) that links to active posts, so it's right in your face. Not a horrible idea, right? We may disagree because you believe in all this spiritual stuff, but we can still have a decent discussion, yes?

WWIII? The Western world would destroy all the Islam countries plus North Korea, if we needed to. These people are uncivilized and have low technology. Not like Germany, which was on the verge of getting nukes in 1945.

The Israel response of full-scale invasion over the kidnapping of 2 soldiers.

Also, they're firing shitloads of rockets into Israel. This might have something to do with it.

The deliberate creation of Iraq as a failed state with the now creation of multi-billion dollar military garrisons in the region.

Dig deal! Most of Africa is a failed state, too. Failed states are everywhere. It's not like this particular failed state has that much power than any other.

The rising cost of oil because of China's hyper-growth incursion into the oil market.

It's rising pretty slowly... and gently encouraging us to build solar cells which actually convert 50% of incoming energy into electricity rather than just 10%. Also, Bush is touring in favor of nuclear power plants. This is excellent! We need tons of nuclear plants and solar cells so we can stop using fossil fuels.

North Korea's firing test missiles.

Oh no!!! Test missiles!!!! It's a freakin' test. We blew up entire islands in the Pacific with nukes, big deal. If North Korea dares to touch Japan or South Korea, they'll be blown off the map. We get all our RPGs from those countries, we're not about to let them be attacked by some communist psycho. I say we unify Korea and let the South Korean government take over the North.

Iran enriching Uranium (or so we are told), when the probably already have nukes courtesy of China.

This is among the actual problems in the world today. They do not have nukes from China. China is not that stupid. If there is a big war in the next twenty years, it will be US+UK+Israel versus Iran, and we will win. It could be extremely expensive, but there will be less than 20,000 allied soldiers dead, and that's not bad for taking out one of the most powerful radical Islamist governments in the world. They nuke a city, and half a million people could die. :(

Russia and China's involvement in supplying Hezbollah militias with arms.

They sell arms to people. Again - big deal. It doesn't mean they love Hezbollah. Hezbollah is being crushed by Israel currently. Maybe they will stop killing Israeli children after they are eliminated in the next week.

The collapsing dollar.

The dollar seems to have dropped in value by an order of magnitude in the 70s. But amazingly, the 70s were an okay period, and we continued to thrive thereafter.

The near bankruptcy of the Federal Government.

Hardly bankrupt - in fact in the Federal Government has tons of money. It's just borrowed. And the borrowers are never going to call in their tabs. Even if they did, we'd be able to pay it. We'd be a little poor for a while, but we would be able to pay it off.

And too many other things to list.

What else?

The sky is not falling today. There are only two things we really have to fear - nanofactories and AI. Everything else is peanuts.

Excellent post Michael!

I can't wait till one of those bunker-penetrating shell finds its way to Nasralla's hideout. This way he may indulge on his 72 virgins quicker ;-)

Imagine the kinetic-energy accumulated by a bomb weighing 2,500 kgs, dropped from 10,000 meters(??).... aerodynamically manufactured, gaining max-velocity of free fall possible (I'd reckon). My calculations show that it can easily penetrate through 30 meters of soft soil, then piercing even Structural steel ASTM-A36 (Ulti. strength 650 MPa, hardness: 650 - 700 HB), 50cms thick.
Be that as it may, a crack is what it takes to create a vast implosion...
The terrorists inside may even perish from the force of replusion; the sudden increase in pressure is bound to crush the bitches.

The bombs supplied to us by the US have a delay-mechanism, aimed at reaching the bunker - then detonating inside. Assuming the volume of the room inside remains constant in the equation, I'd reckon 50 grams of TNT will do the trick ;-)

-Daniel

Interesting Michael. Now did you arrive at your position on Singularity based on this position of "stable progress", or did you arrive at your position of "stable progress" based on your position on Singularity?

Technology is a wonderful thing and certainly it gives us the advantage in geo-strategic matters, but short of an all out nuclear holocaust, there are limits to US military might. Consider, for instance, an occupation of Iran. With a territory of well over a half million square miles, diverse cultures, and diverse topology; an invasion attempt would almost certainly be disasterous.

Short of full scale invasions we are left with tactical strikes, economic leveraging, and proxy wars. None of which address (they usually actually go against) what should be our main area of concern - internal regulation. Policing action by nations with domestic animosity to US interests is only going come with the carrot, not the stick.

What else....

-The drop your chart shows for the US dollar was the result of the Nixon Administration ending the Gold standard in 71 (the small dip before it was from the fear, ie economic anticipation, that the gold standard would be ended). Ergo, the large drop in US currency value in the 1970s is not comparable to what we see taking place today. With all currencies being on floating exchange rates, dips in value are indicative of comparative stength of economic blocks. The current dip in the US dollar is almost entirely the result of the euro coming on to the world scene. With that said, I am not an alarmist with US economic policy. The US isn't going bankrupt any time soon, but the decline of the US dollar and its eventually lose of hegemony as a default/reserve currency for all of the world banks WILL result in less of a buffer for domestic spending than we are use to here in the comfy ol USofA.

-North Korea is a proxy state of the Chinese (with many complications). Talk of Korean unification is naive.

ehh, I've run out of time...

Geo-politics is a delicate business, and unfortunately the current administration is handling things like a retarded 5 year old. Someone really just needs to go up to the GWB administration and tell them to "stop doing this shit".

MA

This is among the actual problems in the world today. They do not have nukes from China. China is not that stupid. If there is a big war in the next twenty years, it will be US+UK+Israel versus Iran, and we will win. It could be extremely expensive, but there will be less than 20,000 allied soldiers dead, and that's not bad for taking out one of the most powerful radical Islamist governments in the world. They nuke a city, and half a million people could die. :(

I think you added this...

20,000? Now you're just being silly.

What do I think? We are not on the verge of WWIII. No where near. When we are talking about world wars we are talking about something that involves most countries of the world engaged in fighting with big heavy hitters squared off against each other. The only war we have to worry about is civilized people versus the Islamo-facists, and our vast technological superiority (ever increasing) makes the current war (war on Terror) more like a police action than WWIII. The radical homicidal faction of muslims can never hope to meet the U.S., China, Europe, Russia...on the battle field. They are reduced to killing innocent civilians.

Interesting Michael. Now did you arrive at your position on Singularity based on this position of "stable progress", or did you arrive at your position of "stable progress" based on your position on Singularity?

Stable progress? I never said there was stable progress. Although there does seem to be. My position on the Singularity was arrived at because I realize the fundamental difference between a mind improving itself and cultural progress operating on a species with static cognitive architecture. People here don't understand that when a smarter-than-human being arrives, it won't be as simple as reading an article about Einstein. It will be extremely difficult, and we will all die if it doesn't care about us specifically.

North Korea is a proxy state of the Chinese (with many complications). Talk of Korean unification is naive.

Then unify with China. Is that naive?

20,000? Now you're just being silly.

We would murder Iran. A single nuke, and it would all be over. Minus nuclear technology (for which I advocate non-use), we would still be able to molest them into the ground. If Iran pulled anything silly, then Russia, China, Japan, the UK, and India would all rush to help slap them. Soldiers would not die in large numbers. Nowadays we primarily use jets, rockets, and helicopters to eliminate targets.

Iran's GDP is only 5x that of Iraq, and we've "only" lost 2.5K in Iraq. Let me say it again: no more than 20,000 allied soldiers would die in a total Iran invasion. Those fascists will not get away with making nuclear weapons. (If that is really their objective.)

What do I think? We are not on the verge of WWIII. No where near. When we are talking about world wars we are talking about something that involves most countries of the world engaged in fighting with big heavy hitters squared off against each other. The only war we have to worry about is civilized people versus the Islamo-facists, and our vast technological superiority (ever increasing) makes the current war (war on Terror) more like a police action than WWIII. The radical homicidal faction of muslims can never hope to meet the U.S., China, Europe, Russia...on the battle field. They are reduced to killing innocent civilians.

Justin, you have it right.

I do emphatically agree with one of the original poster's points:

The nature of the "enemy" (the anonymous international terrorist) has accelerated the inevitable decline of democracy to totalitarianism.

This is bad for us for two reasons:

1. Government has far fewer incentives to pursue personal longevity than do private individuals. Removing money from the hands of individuals means removing money from longevity research and investment (in the long term).

2. Decreasing civil liberties through regulations and government mandates will make radical longevity solutions (like cryonics) more and more difficult to obtain legally.

... Of course, there's the whole discussion of totalitarianism killing economic growth, too...

We get all our RPGs from those countries

Role Playing Games?

Some tactical and geo-strategic lingo...

RPG: rocket propelled grenade

which work against APCs, but not usually MBTs. [lol]

MIRV: multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle
MRV: multiple reentry vehicle
ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile
SLBM: submarine launched ballistic missile
MAD: mutually assured destruction
SAMs: surface to air missiles
SALT: strategic arms limitation talks
AWACS: Airborne Warning and Control System

Role Playing Games?

Yes, I meant MMORPGs actually. I was joking around. In reality, we advocate South Korea and Japan because of economic connections in diverse areas, especially electronics. But the youth of America is sure obsessed with Japanese culture right now.

My favorite RPG is FFVI. If you care about this, start an independent thread to talk about it.

Hi Michael!

I haven't been avoiding the place, only too busy. First with launching Future Hi, then with my graduate work. My average time on the net these days is about a an hour.

I'm not as concerned about how the growing conflict might play itself out on the world stage (for now), but the ever declining quality of life in America generally. I have no doubt that those in charge would like nothing more than to have a totalitarian government, and we are definitely on our way towards one. As Stephen points out this is bad for you and me, and many of the technological advances we cheerlead as transhumanists, not to mention the increasingly oppressive regime we find ourselves in. If you want to discuss the specifics of the loss of freedom in this country and all the lies we've been told about the phony "war on terror", then I'l be happy to share my point of view.

I definitely agree with you about nuclear reactors. We need to get as many of those online as soon as possible.

Paul

If there is a big war in the next twenty years, it will be US+UK+Israel versus Iran, and we will win. It could be extremely expensive, but there will be less than 20,000 allied soldiers dead, and that's not bad for taking out one of the most powerful radical Islamist governments in the world. They nuke a city, and half a million people could die. :(

US always wins... But wins what? FoxNews-type "freedom"? The right to subjugate its own citizens and treat the constitution like an anachronism? We win with peace, not with war. There is nothing remotely victorious about sending young, uneducated men from middle America to die for ideologies and agendas about which they do not have the faintest notion. I would love to see conscription returned to the US - the type that one cannot buy themselves out of and that forces men from all demographics to serve.

Militant Islam does not just reside in Iran and nuclear (and biowarfare) technology is always for sale to those with enormous purses by those for whom the dollar is the bottom line (most). It also may be that the UK will not be as eager to be drawn into non-UN sanctioned conflicts in the future whilst Arab neighbours become less tolerant of the US/Israel relationship. There are many intelligent, temperate people of influence who are very unhappy at the way violence is allowed to shape the world via misinformation. It is unlikely that the Bush Jr doctrine will be permitted to survive this administration nor that the rest of world will follow the US so blindly in the future despite under the table trade strong-arm tactics and the like.

On a side note, if one considers the events of 911, one must admit from a military perspective, never in the history of conflict has there been such an example of asymmetrical warfare. If I had read it in a novel I would have considered it ingenious yet too absurd to ever happen in reality. To this day I am astonished at the consequences that a handful of fanatics armed with only with box cutters could have for civilization.. One can only hope that the administration that was at least indirectly responsible and has been riding on the wave of fear like a surfer from hell was an event of similarly low probability..

MA

Yes, I meant MMORPGs actually. I was joking around

Oh, okay...had me scratching my head there...

North Korea's missiles were basically "past their useby date" e.g. they were getting rusty and it was easier to fire them off than it was to dismantle them. They had no idea it would generate the response it did and now they are in defensive mode as a dictatorship cannot show any sign of weakness.

This is what this all looks like to me...



In some ways I think Michael is right, on the other hand that's still a few years ahead and isn't going to happen if you all get irradiated. In my opinion this stalemate will hang around for long enough to develop the new technologies, then we'll see where we head from there.

Note: The USA would be able to destroy any nation in sheer military power, if they didn't have to worry about the innocent population of the places.

We win with peace, not with war.

To be more specific, we win with capitalism. We win by bringing free markets to other countries (see: Japan).

In a free marketplace of ideas, Sharia Law would quickly dwindle to a few fringe fanatics. In a free marketplace of commerce, you wouldn't have masses of the poor to draw on for terrorist training camps. Suicide bombings suddenly become a lot more costly to the participants because their life is more valuable to them.

I think our government could have done FAR better by offering cheap capital for investment in the middle east. (If they feel like they must misallocate tax dollars from their proper owners.) Even better... drop a Walmart on ever corner in the middle eastern cities! That would do far more to converting the Muslim world than bombing the hell out of them.

The only thing that WILL EVER cause peace in the middle east is the only that EVER causes peace between countries: trade. Once you depend on your neighbor for goods and services, it's far more difficult to shut you borders down as you engage in violent activities. It makes terrorist activities far more costly.

US always wins... But wins what? FoxNews-type "freedom"? The right to subjugate its own citizens and treat the constitution like an anachronism? We win with peace, not with war.

Thanks Prometheus for chiming in. I was beginning to think that during my absence, FoxNews had claimed the Imminst boards as freshly converted neo-con's.

What the neo-con's lack is genuine intelligent vision. From what I've been able to gather, here is what the Neo-con's really believe:

There is global warming.  Since the primacy of our economic base is oil and military prowess, we must do everything in our power to monolopize both.  Since oil is running out, we must also put into place a system to maximize control over the populace and minimize their ability to resist.  This includes first isolating then destroying the economic and political base of most countries.  If we can turn the world into one large system of "failed states", the nation-state as we understand it will come to an end, and the vacuum created will pave a smooth way towards a "new world order" which we can control through shear military might. Democracy will be a thing of the past, and military-corporatism will have total control over what's left of the world population. This way we will be able to depopulate the planet (as part of maximizing our own use of limited resources) with surgical precision and timing to ensure a smooth continuation of our power base.

This lacks vision for several reasons. Firstly, although they will remain on "top", top of what? An ecological and economic wasteland on the backs of human misery for those poor wretches who are still alive? A system that places little or no value on human life or freedom. A new dark age in which historical hyper-growth scenarious of transhuman technologies will be lost? It's hard to say, but no matter how you slice it, the current course set out by those currently in charge doesn't look pretty for anyone (even them).

My good friend Tom, who has written extensively for our site Future Hi, has put together a set of brilliant proposals for "those in charge at the top" that if presented to them would offer a very compelling alternative vision that benifits not only them but us. In this proposal, it allows the three big energy players - oil, coal and nuclear, to all play together to maximize their profits, while generating hyper-growth of energy and wealth. What makes Tom's proposal so doable is that it allows those who desire double-digit returns on investments to continue doing so forever, thereby generating even more buy-in from the wealth-building economic community. Tom's hypergrowth economic, energy and technology proposals will allow those at the top and the rest of us too to ride this wave of hyper-growth up and outward, first off the planet, then rapid expansion outward from there. It's a total win-win for everyone, and for those environmentalists out there, it reduces almost complete the environmental impact of same.

If you are interested, I will see if I can get Tom to post his proposals here at Imminst.org

Eternal,

Where did you get the cool graphic on the Kardashev?

Great post prometheus.

How esculating technology shapes our government, or tension from lack of shaping, is a very interesting topic. Unfortunately, our political leaders are so out of touch with the tech wave, they make terrible decisions, or lack of decisions, in this reguard. Some are not so dimwitted about the subject, but act just as badly to promote personal agendas.

Sorry, forgot to link it, originally found it on the wikipedia article

Wikipedia: Kardashev Scale

and it originally comes from here:

Kardashev article

Eternal,

I noticed that the site you grabbed the image from is from "The Coming Dark Ages", which goes on to say the current conflict in the middle east is the beginning of the end of civilization and a new dark age. Interesting, except it makes no mention of accelerating technology in any guise.

Stephen, what happens when a large part of this free market economy is based on war? When the weapons-maker companies depend on war to make a profit and have influence on the administration in place? Is peace possible in this situation?

Corporations don't care too much about who buy their weapons as long as someone buy them. The best deal is when you can get both parties buying them. If the US was to cut the military budget, all those corporations are free to move to another country, sell their technology, etc. Someday, China might become the highest bidder...

Thanks Prometheus for chiming in.  I was beginning to think that during my absence,  FoxNews had claimed the Imminst boards as freshly converted neo-con's.

No major risk of that happening if I have anything to do with it [thumb]

What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think?