What Of A World War 3?

This report I read got me to thinking and that got me to the research mode that I do enjoy…..

There was something that a British general had to say……

A British general is warning his country and the West about Russia—a threat he calls worse than anything posed by ISIS or al-Qaeda, the BBC reports. “The Russians seek to exploit vulnerability and weakness wherever they detect it,” General Mark Carleton-Smith tells the Telegraph. “Russia today indisputably represents a far greater threat to our national security than Islamic extremist threats such as al-Qaeda and [ISIS].” Carleton-Smith, who led Britain’s fight against ISIS and in June became head of the British army, says military action has weakened Islamic militants. But in the wake of alleged poisoning and cyber-attacks, Russia looms large.

“Russia has embarked on a systematic effort to explore and exploit Western vulnerabilities, particularly in some of the non-traditional areas of cyber, space, undersea warfare,” he says. But he opposes any notion (perhaps like French President Emmanuel Macron’s) that would weaken the military strength of NATO. He says the “center of gravity of European security” should hold fast. “In my experience, we should reinforce success.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov derided Carleton-Smith’s remarks while visiting Lisbon, Radio Free Europe reports. “We cannot influence the British government’s decisions as to whom they trust to head its armed forces,” says Lavrov. “I hope they check the appropriateness of such decisions.”
What are the reports that will help us fight any war against Russia or China?

America’s military superiority has “eroded to a dangerous degree,” leaving the U.S. in a “crisis of national security,” especially if faced with more than one conflict at once, a new congressionally mandated report concluded.

“The U.S. military could suffer unacceptably high casualties and loss of major capital assets in its next conflict,” reads the report, issued Wednesday by the National Defense Strategy Commission. “It might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia. The United States is particularly at risk of being overwhelmed should its military be forced to fight on two or more fronts simultaneously.


In case you were speed reading…..the report said that the US could possibly lose any conflict against China or Russia…..do I need to repeat that?

Russia or China?….does not look good…the predictions can be wrong but most times they are accurate…..time to re-think the “strong man” attitude and embrace a form of diplomacy.
But until we do that embracing…..read on and on…..

Congress commissioned a report from the National Defense Strategy Commission on Pentagon readiness. It is relatively predictable what these reports would boil down to, because they always come down to the same conclusion.

Despite vastly outspending every other country in the world on the military, the report concludes that US military superiority “has eroded to a dangerous degree,” and is facing a “crisis.” The solution they counsel is, as ever, a massive increase in military spending.

The report uses the typical scare-mongering to try to justify an increase in expenditures, claiming that the US “might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia,” and that the US might be “overwhelmed” in the even of two or more war fronts simultaneously.

This echoes, if perhaps in even more dire terms, past reports that also claimed the constant fighting of several wars is eroding readiness, and that the US needs to spend even more money. The problem is, the increased spending has kept being approved, and every time, it leads to a new round of reports warning that they need all the more money.

The US is always spending many-fold more money than anyone else, and fighting more wars than anyone else. Yet despite nations like Russia increasingly limiting their military goals, the reports are forever claiming Russia is seriously a threat to carry out attacks on the US home-front. Such claims are preposterous, but have reliably worked in getting more money.


Time to re-think the tactics of 50 years…..time to embrace diplomacy over the bully on the block attitude.

P.S. Don’t take it out on me…I am just passing along what some are reporting within the defense industry…..


10 thoughts on “What Of A World War 3?

  1. War in Europe with Russia is a possibility. I don’t know what the Russian goals are except to expand. And their thousand year old paranoia as a result of being constantly invaded from both the east and the west.

      1. I agree that we should not get in a war in Europe or in the pacific. I can’t see us winning either one.
        Time to withdraw before thing blow up completely.

  2. I can’t agree with this all that much. For one thing, the Soviet empire collapsed for a few major reasons, one most notable reason was because their economy could no longer support the huge military spending over the years; essentially they went bankrupt. What’s changed now?

    Second.. what’s going on in Russia today as far as military goals and dreams of conquest is pretty much in the mind of old school Putin. Their economy is behind even the Chinese. Of course there’s some underlying public pride with the thought of saving international face in becoming a world military superpower again… so we just maintain NATO strength to assure some sort of theater parity to their opposing forces.. and continue to use diplomacy where needed for local conflicts.

    Thirdly, even with the current feeling that Putin wants the power and prestige of the old Soviet Union back again… he could very well also be catering to the military.. and the military minds over there… to quell any desire to overthrow his ex-commie ass.

    Fourthly… there is a LOT of Western investment and franchises inside the Russian economy influencing their daily lives. There are oligarchs galore over there not wanting to have their billion dollar bubbles burst by some idiot war… even Putin. And a lot of those people are invested in the Western countries as well. I am sure.. no.. I am positive.. money talks over there as it does all over the world. Why threaten a good thing for themselves.

    Fifthly… even with one military hand tied behind our backs, we are still the most militarily powerful country in the world.. and we can deliver anywhere in the world at any time. I am sure our military leaders have particular “preferences” in the postures they wish to maintain, and they are doing their jobs to inform Congress when certain strategic levels have fallen from a previous state. But we are FAR from hurting militarily. We got techie weapons galore, I am always seeing reports of the latest and greatest Navy ship going to sea, our Air Force has no equal on the planet.. and we are now selling 100 state-of-the-art stealth F-35’s fighters.. some with VTOL capability, to the Japanese.. who are converting a few of their ships to their first carrier fleet since WW2 (so much for being “just” a defense force). Our boots on the ground troops are far more superior in equipment than any army can put into the field. This business about our military “being stretched thin” with world deployments? Primarily that is because of manpower allocation limitations financed through Congress. We got the tools.. we just need more soldiers… IF, in fact we need more soldiers.

    These are just a few reasons I don’t see any sort of Russian threat of world domination.

    I had to read the Sweden article a couple times to try and truly understand their fear. They don’t even share a border with Russia like Finland does. What strategic reason would Russia want anything to do with Sweden? Are they afraid of being nuked? If any country is fearing being nuked by any another country it’s not for conquest.. it’s for annihilation. Why would I want to conquer a place I just spewed with 100 years of radioactivity? Now, if a country is getting hacked by Russia.. well, that’s an entirely different “battlefield”. Hire/train a bunch of computer geeks to counter the threat.

    I just don’t see all the fears as everyone else does. I’m old.. seen history pass by.. and this current scare is nothing like the past.

    1. F-35 is a flying brick…..good points logically thought out….Sweden is a paranoid wreck they are considered neutral and will survive…..China is the one that everyone forgets about…chuq

      1. You make a good point regarding China.. different world over there for sure. BUT.. China has no historical (20th century history) record of large scale desire for military conquest (smaller border regions like Nepal, yes), even under the old rigid Communism. We tend to miss that and assume their saber-rattling is a greater issue than it is. They build an aircraft carrier and all of a sudden they are a world military power. They have like a billion and a half people over there to try and keep happy, over a vast geographic of huge cultural varieties and extreme economic differences and priorities. There is NO way you can presume to think that slapping a free-market democracy into the mix overnight.. even long term.. is going to be smooth. They have come a long way, no question. Like Russia, their economy depends on America and pretty much vice-versa. I see no problem at all that their government is trying to assert a measure of military presence for the same reason we do.. protect our interests beyond our borders. A “ton” of cash is flowing into their economy and they can afford some measure military buildup for the common defense. Also like Russia, they also have a large and very rich upper class base with U.S. investments.. so no one is rushing to take over the world here. Now, China’s grab for a piece of sandbar in the Spratlys to me suggests more a diplomatic opportunity than a military threat, if handled properly. But that’s long term. There’s a grab for the oil reserves there… and it’s going to be a “wild west” mentality in that region for a while given all the claims. In the back of my mind I am thinking a visual U.S. presence in the region might help, besides just a carrier force. A ready idea might be connecting with our new “friends” in Hanoi… to allow us back and resurrect a base there closer to the action in the region. On the other hand, Vietnam has a vested claim in the region so maybe best to secure a presence in a local neutral nation to avoid showing bias.
        Anyway.. I digress.. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.