New Intermediary Role of Russia

Set against the American presidential debates of 2008, the word economic crisis or “crunch” heralds an uncertain future. Following the Madrid train attack in 2004, I vanquished my “end of the world” fears. From before the start of the Iraq war until this moment, I had feared a military escalation into a nuclear conflict. It was based on the concept following the dotcom crash of 2000 that we were in new post-cold war territory. There were five nuclear powers (USA, Russia, China, France & Israel) with the independent capability of launching a nuclear first strike. The UK is not included because it’s submarine deterrent is based on a dual-key system and therefore cannot be used independently of the Americans. My basic concern was the economic cycle of the global downturn following the dotcom crash  might lead to war and nuclear conflict.

I supported the war against Iraq on the basis that that in terms of avoiding nuclear conflict that this was the safest war to pursue. I had by this time both completed the bulk of my work on my two books. One about the need for a new digital framework to guide government policies following the dotcom crash. The other on nuclear powered space flight (a revision of the Orion project) but with the specific objective of reaching the stars and colonizing new planets presumed to orbit some of them. I do not have easy access to a publisher (and more importantly an editor) to put this work into the public domain. However my belief in these two development paths (e.g. ones that only I can uniquely contemplate as my overall theories are not yet publicly available because of my failure to publish) underwrite my reaction to world events.

I never believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and I stated this many times in discussions with friends and family before the Iraq war. I was thus part of the small minority who still argued in favor of the war despite believing the existence of these weapons was made up. There were several good reasons to believe it was being made up which I don’t have time to explore here. My point is rather why I supported the war in any case. It was on the basis that following the serious loss of confidence in the future of “the new economy” precipitated by the dotcom crash that some type of economy boosting military conflict was inevitable. Earlier conflicts in Bosnia and other areas following the cold war were not “economy boosters” but pursued for ethical or moral reasons. Sitting on top of my two unpublished books on development theories, the word “inevitable” is also intend to include an additional reasoning not available to others. Namely that only my theories can provide the alternatives to that need but unfortunately I do not have the power to publish them effectively.

As a result of the “credit crunch” I am returning partially back to my fears of the “end of the world” scenario held before the attack in Spain. That is because I am translating it as the start of the “crisis of capitalism” that Marxists would call the First World War, leading to the Russian Revolution of 1917. In supporting the “inevitable” Iraq war launched in 2003, I was aware that this was the safest “economy booster” to be pursed. The world lacking the publication of my two theories on those alternatives, investment in star jumping via a new nuclear theory and a replacement of monetarist theory with my embryonic general theory of “diginomics”. Only the later would provide the confidence for investors to pump money into the hi-tech stock-markets following the enormity of the dotcom crash following the bubble. My fear was that in the meantime the pursuit of the Iraq war as an economy booster (it was not a reaction to 9/11 since the magnitude of the military and moral challenge faced in the earlier Afghanistan invasion was answer enough) that a catastrophic escalation into a nuclear conflict between the major powers might be unleashed. However the measured and pain-ridden response to the Madrid attack relieved me of this worry. Such an escalation was not going to happen because of Iraq.

As house prices kept on rising and the Iraq war became locked into a stalemate, it became more obvious that the element of economy boosting in the global economy was faltering. There was still no appearance independently of the theories that I know (from my perspective they are written and awaiting publication) are required to provide a new global economic theory to replace monetarism. I brand the required theories “diginomics” although more technically speaking they are neo-keynesianism in respect to monetarism which is also known as neo-classical. New pastures were required for the war to spread as providers of a conquest “solution” to investor confidence and provide global economic direction. There were three obvious moments. Two of them generated obvious boosts on the stock-markets: the holding of British sailors by the Iranians and the first nuclear test done by North Korea. The other moment was the Israeli attack into Lebanon when it was very unclear how far their territorial objectives extended.

None of these avenues to enlarge the scope of military solution to the global economic crisis following the dotcom bubble of the year 2000 were followed. That has been prudent because the use of war as an economy booster has obvious downsides. Limiting the discussion to economic analysis, the financial costs are enormous and are based on borrowing against a favorable outcome. When it became obvious that the current “basket of conflicts” that could be validated by the 9/11 attack was empty, the inevitable financial crisis unfolded. The 3 other directions for an “economy boosting” military campaign are: North Korea, Russia and Latin America. None of these can be thrown into the current “basket of conflict” although the politics of Hugo Chavez (leader of Venezuela) have been aimed at uniting the opposition.

The alternative “economy boosters” to the attack on Iraq in 2003 would have been North Korea or Venezuela. An attack on North Korea would have been much more risky because of China’s close relationship & consequences  of North American military intervention into South America are difficult to calculate. This is why I supported the Iraq war as being inevitable. It was politically the easiest to pursue (with the least dangers of expanding into nuclear conflict for that very reason) but equally the option with the lowest long term economic benefits. Deliberately attacking Iraq, the country with the most obviously visible western values (alcohol, dress code and non-religious laws), is not the easiest way to militarily bring this part of the world into modernity. I am not debating the “rights” or “wrongs”, because the Nazi party of Germany were clearly modernists in an evil way. However the process of now bringing the whole Middle East into modernity by the starting attack off with an attack on Iraq is the most roundabout and difficult way to do it. Remember that the financial costs of a war are met by borrowings against a favorable outcome.

It is easy to miss the wood for the trees in the Middle East. Modernity itself would not allow the winding-up of Israel. Modernity in the Middle East is therefore about using the trillions of petro-chemical dollars that this region is earning to modernize. It is worth remembering that before the Iranian revolution of 1979, people wore suits and looked in appearance modern. Under the current Iranian government there is an element of Maoism going on. Expelling foreign influences and re-building it’s middleclass from the ground up because they showed a lack of patriotism before. However the obvious question is how can this enormous oil wealth of the region be distributed wisely so that the “Arab brothers” in nearby poorer countries have a choice on economic progress via hard work rather than armed conflict. The Americans may be committed to remain in the Middle East in a similar way to which the British colonized India. It was not a deliberate program of colonization but rather forced economically upon the British government. In choosing the moral path of a second attack on Iraq, rather than throwing caution to the wind and having opted to get rid of the still revolutionary inspired Iran instead, America may have inadvertently committed itself to this inevitability of colonization. Namely to govern via more direct administration the entire area to ensure that the wealth arising does not remain in the hands of the few but is efficiently distributed into social stabilization programs.

Colonization is of course only necessary if you don’t want to pay for things twice over. Americans have up to now been able to afford to do that. That is they accept the administration of the wealth generated from oil resources belongs to the landowners and elected politicians. Since the world economy requires access to those resources, the Americans must pay the enormous financial costs of supporting security and stability with military personnel stationed on the ground. However they must then buy the oil resources they are generally protecting to make efficient extraction possible on the open market. They are therefore paying twice, unlike China which can buy on the open market without paying directly for any of the military operations that make the supplies secure in general. Returning to the first US presidential debate, both McCain and Obama are both obviously committing themselves to remain in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is highly likely that whoever wins, there will be no withdrawal from either country. Instead as suggested, the military presence may instead morph into a proto-colonization effort. McCain’s emphasis on “the surge” is close to that beginnings. There is an element of “Clive of India” in the very mentioning of General Petraeus.

However in that respect it is McCain most likely to bring American soldiers home and end the presence in Iraq. But is he capable of enduring the two terms in office that would make this more of a possibility? I suggest McCain is more likely to do so because he is a product of previous wars before the world became mono-polar. America did not govern the world, but was fighting for liberty against the Soviet Union on a world stage. There is a deep commitment to the idea that America must sacrifice everything to ensure no one is left behind. By very nature he has a hunger for closure and he is much more likely to actively to successfully end the American presence in Iraq. Despite his words, he would be able to face the enormous betrayal of their fledgling Iraqi government that might entail. He has the precedent of the withdrawal from Vietnam to measure that against. Obviously he would seek to avoid that betrayal, but he knows part of the veteran identity is living with that sense of hopelessness or guilt. However an Iraq being absorbed (and consequently purged) by Iran is not as negative as the Vietnam comparison. As said earlier Under the current Iranian government there is an element of Maoism going on. The China of today, bristling industrious and an economic tiger is a product of that process.

However in this respect (over Iraq) I would have to vote for Obama. He would have no fixed plan in Iraq and would just bumble along as the situation required. Even after two terms in office, the withdrawal would be unlikely. He would follow his advisors and build on “the surge” strategy (not a tactic!). He would establish America as a colonizing power, which is the only way to go if the Americans wish to insist on a mono-polar world. They can still militarily insist on this and it remains to be seen if and when the Chinese will build a Star-wars shield (SDI) to contest that. Russia’s recent suggestions that they might take this route is a red herring. Russia could never build a significant shield which could outsmart and beat America, but China could with enough time. That is to say the Russians could build a shield but would still not have a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Namely it would not provide adequate defense to contest America’s own answer and therefore with such limited capability could only be of use as part of another wider political strategy. The reason to support Obama is that he would be the most progressive and least reactionary in Iraq. But McCain is your man if you want a permanent, unconditional withdrawal at any price!

McCain is also your man if you really want to see America oppose the natural progression from world military power to a colonial power in the Middle East. However I suggest this is going to be a very difficult tendency to stop and achieving the unconditional withdrawal from Iraq during his term of office would be only the first step on the journey. Other countries such as Saudi Arabia are clearly going to remain dependent on a willingness to intervene and so the only strategic path to avoiding proto-colonization during the next presidential term (whoever the winner is) would be by sharing the responsibility for military security with China (a non-aligned nation with a large and growing need of oil supply).

New Intermediary Role of Russia continued

To continue with energy policy and the reaction to my debate, McCain is your obvious man for nuclear power. In that respect he is the first choice for solving the long-term economic problems of the United States and Europe. British and American environmentalists have very close ties. The mid 1990s road-protests that successful played a part in undermining (literally!) the Conservative government of John Major created a strong network of transatlantic ecological ties that continue today. McCain would be faced by a very strong negative feedback loop coming from the UK that would severely hamper his chances of building a significant new capacity. The argument in favor of nuclear power in the two previously great industrial powers of Europe (England and Germany) is not even close to being won. There exists a shortcut to doing so, but the pressure of maintaining nuclear secrecy makes this not an easy option. It is more likely that dependence of oil and gas from Russia will force the UK into beginning some future implementation. However the problem remains that without the commitment to start building in earnest that speculators will push oil prices higher and higher.

Oil reserves are finite reserves and hence prices are also a large part an estimation of future demand. Literally the lights will have to go out in the UK or large social unrest (riots) occur as a response to fuel poverty, before nuclear power is pursued with any vigor as the energy policy of choice (as in France). If mild winters continue in the UK & Europe, this forced choice may be many years away. In this respect voting on McCain or Obama on the basis of their energy policy is not as relevant as it might seem. Voting against David Cameron (UK Conservative opposition party leader) in the next UK General Election on the basis of his “pie in the sky” renewable energy policies is unwarranted. It really is just a publicity trick to attract the millions of voters who don’t understand physics (nuclear or electric wattage) and so are worth appealing to. Unless the subject is pro-active energy policies in the form of building nuclear power stations, future energy policies will be decided by necessity. In this respect nuclear power for McCain is not a good card to play.

It is the necessity of securing energy supply that drove us into the Gulf war with Iraq when there was an opportunity in hindsight to deal with the biggest problematic legacy of the cold war: Iran.  A previously staunch ally of NATO, Iraq over-stepped the mark and threatened Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Iran was simply about the economics (value) of oil. It is worth remembering that the month before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (June 1990) is the date now used to refer to the worst drop in UK house prices as a comparative point used in the current credit crunch analysis. Clearly the Iraqis felt they were suffering a credit crunch of their own in 1990 and decided to steal a little pie. The argument they threatened to attack Saudi Arabia is easy to maintain but I doubt it. The normal motive behind theft is to get away with it, especially when there are pressing economic reasons to do so. It became easy to pin on Iraq the lessons of Hitler. One piece and then another. This is the domino theory that governed American strategic thinking during the Cold War against Communism. Let one fall and the next will very soon afterwards. The domino theory was applied in the Middle East to a lesser extent. The brand of Arab nationalism ruling in Iraq was used as a proxy to wage war against Iran and weaken the Islamic revolution that had recently occurred there.

The lesson of the appeasement of Hitler is not however attack any country that successfully invades another country because if you don’t they will rapidly invade more. It is a bit more complex than that and the use of hindsight can be used for whatever purposes desired by a skilful writer. The efforts to appease Hitler were not wrong, just ultimately not going to work. Should Iraq have been appeased? My answer to that is hindsight is a weak tool when it comes to some analysis because of the personalities behind events. George Bush Senior was not a popular replacement for the charismatic Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately this military challenge provided him an opportunity to show-off his military credentials from the past as the robust leader the world needed. In the short term it worked. The world economy gained a sense of direction again (Iraq was the new problem and not the Soviet Union). Equally however America made Iraq the problem. If personalities had been different and some fore-knowledge of where we are today, another military direction could have been taken. In that respect the Gulf War was simply reactionary without a wider strategic goal. The problem with reactionary policy is that events control you and not you it.

Obama is thus likely to be the most reactionary in terms of energy policy. “Pie in the sky” renewable energy policies will attract millions of votes but condemn his energy policy to a reactionary basis. The danger here is not a reactionary response to an event in the Middle East but to an event in Russia. However the issue here becomes a bit more cloudy between the candidates because by nature the danger of a reactionary response to events from Russia are by nature about a limited nuclear conflict. Russia is a country that because of the command structure is capable of authorizing a limited nuclear strike to defend its borders. America and the “new Europe” vastly outnumber it in both air and anti-missile technology. Both sides can rely on the fact that MAD (mutually assured destruction) is not going to be the product of such a limited nuclear conflict. America because it now has a vast superiority in strength and the fast growing capability to knock-out Russia’s own legacy systems before they can do extensive damage. Russia because it knows that the populations of liberal Western Europe no longer believe in the “red menace” (Communist threat) and so its leaders would not survive the popular reaction were it to pursue the overkill strategy of wiping out Moscow etc. To a certain extent the chessboard is being set so that Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be played out again. That is limited nuclear conflict (for the first time with two sides in possession of weapons) with the objective of seeing how far each side is prepared to go.

The solution to the “credit crunch” for me remains those policies I finished writing about well before the attack on Iraq in 2003. The longer term solution (in my opinion) remains star jumps. I am keener on using nuclear power to reach the stars (radiation in outer space is naturally there) than for the use of nuclear power. I also believe star jumps can work in a matter of days rather than decades. Since I advocate accelerative relativity (which counter-acts the theory of relativity in absolute zero gravity environments) I am at odds with both American Christianity and more importantly the twisting of faith that Einstein (a mere mortal, not a religion) has to be right, no matter what. I argue in the book on space flight that “we fly or fry”. That in the longer term (I don’t know how long!) we will scramble to the stars or destroy our world completely at some time in the future.

Since the obstacle to the first tests in space of the Orion Project nuclear explosions (1957-65) would require under-writing the potential costs of satellite damage because of Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) the preferred option of it coming from the peace dividend (ending of the Cold War) was unlikely. My early writings thus focus on the concept of competitive SDI shields (America v. China) where as a consequence of war limited to a clash of shields, commercial satellites are destroyed. The great danger is that it would not be limited to a clash of shields in space but lead to a lethal exchange of missiles if victory in space were not clear cut.

The issue for me in looking at presidential candidates is therefore looking to understand how their personalities may effect the historical development paths that I write theory on. The most important factor I am considering is the new emergence of Russia as a threat. When first writing on competitive SDI shields, there was no hint of this as the price of oil had yet to rise with invasion of Iraq not yet on the table. I could base the path prediction only on the emerging economic strength of China and their chip technologies to foresee such a shield. My position over the last few years is that it will take a year or so after the Olympic games for the Chinese to command investment into this potential shield building. Hugo Chavez was obviously rebuffed in his efforts to create an anti-American alliance before the Olympics (I argue the Chinese remember the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980 and the harm it did). However that concern has now passed and the Chinese will be under mounting pressure to declare some type of SDI program. As the world economy falters and the demand for consumer goods is less, this provides another reason for the government of China to consider switching some of the commercial manufacturing base to military projects in space.

Russia’s new military strength is however the arrival of a new and unexpected factor. There have always been two concerns in the analysis of military development paths to achieving star jump.

1. A serious nuclear conflict occurs before competitive SDI shields are developed, hence leaving the world greatly destroyed but ringed by satellites in space with even more function and importance.

2. A conflict between competitive SDI shields that cannot be followed up the required Orion testing of nuclear explosions in space with the additional and essential concept of achieving physical containment of the explosions. That would be because the new revisions to the original Orion project were not understood or because the clash of shields had left a world so damaged that the space port facilities to launch such a testing program could not be rebuilt.

In the context of the presidential debate, the concern is limited to the immediate future. Before listening to the debate I had been discussing a new development path theory as regards the new hostility between Russia and NATO. As far back as 1997 (at the Treaty of Rome celebrations in London) I spoke with several delegates against the anti-missile plan as being dangerous and provocative. In my opinion the development path towards an SDI shield should be in competition with China. I think the Russians should use all their new found oil wealth to continue reconstructing their social and economic fabric. I blame the European Parliament and the failure to recognize the vote by the electorates across Western Europe against the expansion of 2004 as “no, meaning no”. Hence now we have a new cyber-defense center in Estonia and invisible faced MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) claiming huge expenses to tour and support this frontline against Russia.

The situation is fast moving and evolving with work of Hugo Chavez to spin things along. However the only goal (assuming the peaceful route to Orion nuclear testing is impossibly optimistic) I am concerned by is the ability of world leaders to manage the development of competitive SDI shields. In the context of my first concern in the analysis of military development paths necessary to achieving star jump, the pressure required for China to build such a shield is already shaping via the route of a limited nuclear conflict between Russia and Europe. Nothing of what any candidate says about Russia can be relevant or useful to my analysis of desirable outcomes since it is reactionary by nature and unrelated to measuring the development path options at this moment.

This process is already under way. However any actual nuclear conflict element is still avoidable since it is only the intermediary stage before China gets involved. The choice between election personalities does not effect the globe’s ability to achieve this transition stage without actual conflict. Their chosen policies once implemented obviously will have great effect, but as stated in my paragraph these outcomes are impossible to probability measure at this moment. But what their personalities will do is effect “how limited is limited?” should the limited nuclear conflict occur. Until we have advanced and competitive SDI shields over our heads, the process of removing obstacles (satellites) to the conquest of space cannot be won. Only the American president will be able to control and dictate the scale and range of nuclear escalation in a limited nuclear conflict with Russia if it occurs.