Sunday, July 28, 2024

Kamala Harris Changes Course on Fracking

 

Former Vice President Kamala Harris changed her course on a significant issue that she touted in 2019. 

On Friday, Harris said that she no longer supports a ban on fracking—a stark difference from her stance in 2019, when she told CNN, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” 

Advertisement

“And starting with what we can do on Day One around public lands, right?” Harris said. “And then there has to be legislation, but, yes, and this is something I’ve taken on in California. I have a history of working on this issue and to your point, we have to just acknowledge that the residual impact of fracking is enormous in terms of the health and safety of communities.”

However, she changed her view on the matter after joining the Biden Administration, which supported a ban on fracking. 

Fracking has been a significant issue for presidential candidates, especially in Pennsylvania— a critical swing state and a major gas producer. 

Former President Donald Trump criticized Harris, declaring her to be the “ultra-liberal driving force behind every single Biden catastrophe.” 

“She is a radical left lunatic who will destroy our country if she ever gets the chance to get into office,” Trump said. “She wants no fracking. You’re going to be paying a lot of money. You’re going to be paying so much. You’re going to say, ‘Bring back Trump.’”

Pushing back on Trump’s comments, the vice president’s campaign claimed that the “Biden-Harris Administration passed the largest ever climate change legislation and under their leadership, America now has the highest ever domestic energy production.” 

However, then-Senator Harris endorsed the Green New Deal, including a fracking ban. 

“Trump’s false claims about fracking bans are an obvious attempt to distract from his own plans to enrich oil and gas executives at the expense of the middle class," the Harris campaign said, adding that Trump’s “Administration created 300,000 energy jobs, while Trump lost nearly a million.”

Georgia Swing Voter Had Some Damning Remarks About Kamala Harris' Character

 

I’ll have more on this later, but some swing voters have been saying the same thing about Kamala Harris: Can we trust her? In Georgia and Wisconsin, voters are wondering what else she is hiding and what she will hide should she win the upcoming election. This Georgia voter is concerned that Harris might have been part of a White House cover-up.

"I worry about [Kamala's] character. We had somebody that was the right hand of somebody who was not healthy — who was silent about it! And that concerns me,” said Margarita Eberline on CNN. She’s a Hispanic woman who downplayed Harris’ ascension, adding that this doesn’t mean automatic support from her.

With Joe Biden exiting the 2024 race, voters aren’t stupid even if the White House denies it: the president dropped out due to health issues. Everyone saw it when Biden got demolished by Donald Trump in the June 27 debate, an election-killing event that sparked panic and rebellion among the rank-and-file. 

Hill Democrats, donors, and even media members pressured Biden to drop out after that disastrous debate performance. On July 21, they succeeded in toppling the president. Yet, the fallout was about how much of a cover-up there was. The president didn’t just suffer a mental breakdown in the weeks before this debate. It’s been an ongoing occurrence for months. The media got raked over the coals for their less-than-aggressive attitude in covering this topic out of fear of losing access or hurting a Democratic president—all of which was inexcusable. Kamala Harris was with Biden daily reportedly and had to have seen the mental decline. Other officials did, including those of our European allies.

The Biden camp pathetically tried to pass off Biden’s 59-minute pre-scripted presser after the NATO Summit in Washington as proof of his fitness for office. Press conferences like this are expected of the president, and he or she is expected to hold multiple ones during their time in office.

Harris’ record is also a landmine field of political opportunism and outright bad policy. There is nothing this woman won’t say to gain more power. She also co-owns the failed Biden agenda, and her roadmap for the country is left-wing extremism run amok.

Potential Harris VP Pick Has Ties to Chinese Spy Balloon Company

 

A potential pick for Kamala Harris’ vice president has ties to a Chinese spy balloon company, putting him in the spotlight for possible ties to the Communist Party. 

Democrat Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) co-founded a company that manufactures spy balloons, much like the one that was floating across the United States last year. 

Kelly's Tucson-based company, World View, was funded by Tencent, a venture capitalist closely linked to the CCP. World View specializes in space tourism using spy balloons, which received funding from Tencent in 2013 and again in 2016. 

In 2020, World View president and CEO Ryan Hartman told The Arizona Republic that the venture capitalist has “zero access, zero input, and zero control" over the company.

Tencent and World View reportedly have an agreement with the U.S. government to provide aerial surveillance using their balloons. 

According to Vision Times, Tencent established its first CCP branch five years after the company was founded. It holds “Party Member Day every year when CCP members working at the company’s offices “celebrate the achievements of the communist party.” 

Taiwan News claims that Tencent follows a “party members first” rule when hiring new employees. 

The CCP-based company collects data from its mobile app, WeChat, a well-known social media platform in China. WeChat is used as a surveillance tool for the Chinese government, which regulates Tencent and reportedly suppresses opposing views.

However, the current leadership of Tencent said it was a mistake for the company to accept a Chinese investment. 

“When new leadership arrived in 2019 and learned of that investment, they swiftly moved to ensure World View was protected from any and all involvement from representatives of Chinese investors,” a spokesperson said. 

In 2019, Kelly left the company to focus on his political career. The spokesperson said that any leftover financial interest the senator has in the company is securely stored away in a blind trust. They also confirmed that Kelly surrendered his assets and control of the company before leaving.

Coup upon coup upon coup

 

In March 2020, all the major Democratic primary candidates abruptly, mysteriously, and in near unison withdrew from the presidential race, ceding the nomination to Joe Biden.

Yet Biden had lost the first three races in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada — and won his first victory only in South Carolina.

Suddenly, on the eve of the Super Tuesday mega-primaries, the candidacies of front-runner Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren and others simply evaporated.

The fear of a socialist, front-runner Sanders, winning the nomination — and thus an inevitable landslide loss to incumbent Donald Trump in the general election — had prompted the donor class and shadowy political insiders to act.

And they did so by choosing a perceived moderate, old Joe Biden from Scranton. That required the coerced departures of all his far-left rivals, who had hitherto performed much better than Biden in the primaries.

Now front-runner Biden still displayed obvious symptoms of serious cognitive decline that had seemed only to mount through the 2020 campaign. And his dementia continued to accelerate during his first three years as president.

Biden had deceitfully promised to conduct a healing campaign and a unifying presidency. But once in the White House, his extreme agendas proved the most divisive and far-left in nearly a century.

Rumors of that prior March 2020 Faustian bargain emerged. The Bidens got to serve as useful moderate veneers. So they enjoyed the ceremonial functions of the presidency while outsourcing the real operations to former Obama officials, consultants and advisors.

Indeed, Obama did not, as most ex-presidents do, exit Washington upon leaving the White House. Instead, he bought a mansion and stayed close by.
Democrats demonized anyone critical of Biden’s obvious mental decline. Their smearing crested during Biden’s now-aborted 2024 re-election bid, even as Biden could no longer display even a veneer of mental and physical engagement.

Polls revealed an impending Trump landslide victory in November — and a massive Democratic loss of Congress.

So suddenly on July 21 — just days left before state ballots were formalized with the names of the parties’ official nominees, and on the eve of the Democratic convention — party bosses, mega-donors and Obama puppeteers went into action for yet a third time.
They reportedly threatened candidate Biden with a complete loss of any further campaign funding and raised the specter of invoking the 25th Amendment to end his presidency — should he not suddenly withdraw from the race and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris as his surrogate on the ticket.

In one moment, the choices of nearly 15 million Biden primary voters were vitiated. No delegates were consulted. No other alternative Democrat candidates were even considered.

Biden was dethroned; Harris was coronated — without much public input or even knowledge of how or why. Democrat grandees stopped smearing Biden’s conservative critics, who had worried over his dementia. Instead, they now trumped opposition criticism of Biden’s decline.

Yet Biden most certainly did not resign his presidency. Instead, he promised to serve out his remaining six months in office.

So Democrat insiders not only removed their leading candidate, who for the prior six months had won all the 2024 primaries and almost all the delegates, but insisted that Biden keep Democrats and himself in power — but only if he agreed to quit the race.
In sum, at the eleventh hour of a two-year re-election effort, a cabal arbitrarily decided Joe Biden might well lose the Democrats the White House and the Congress. So they reversed course, now claiming his dementia was so acute as to destroy their November prospects. But mysteriously, his decline was not severe enough to imperil the American people, whom Biden must continue to lead until Jan. 20.

Furthermore, the bosses’ replacement choice, Harris, had entered no primary. She never won a single delegate. Harris also never captured a single delegate in her first and only presidential run back in 2020. She then dropped out of the race even before the first Iowa and New Hampshire balloting.

We have now witnessed three left-wing veritable coups.

In 2020, covert actors decided to ossify the Democratic primary races. Next, they conferred the nomination on a clearly cognitively challenged Joe Biden. He was now tasked with serving as a useful moderate vessel for a virtual, even more radical, Obama third term.

The same operators next assumed virtual control of Biden’s presidential agenda, given his accelerating cognitive decline. When that charade could no longer be sustained, for a third time, they circumvented the normal transparent democratic process.

So, they removed the once useful but now a liability Biden — while insisting that he was still fit enough to keep the left in power — until the anticipated Harris victory in November.

And all of this was the shadow work of those who sanctimoniously lectured America that “democracy dies in darkness.”

Local SWAT Team Dropped a Damning Update on the Trump Assassination Attempt

 

The official House investigation into the assassination attempt against Donald Trump hasn’t even started, and we can tell there’s going to be damning and inexcusable flaws in the findings. The first one is obvious: a rooftop with a clear vantage point to the stage during Trump’s rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, was left unprotected, allowing shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks to shoot the former president—a fatal headshot missed the former president by millimeters.

There’s been a trove of updates, all of them bad, in the wake of this assassination attempt. The latest from ABC News points to a local SWAT team that claims there was zero contact between them and the Secret Service. It was only until after the shots were fired and the mayhem assessed. This team reportedly took photos, had a description, and did everything possible to alert support teams that a suspicious person was nearby. None of this information made it to the officials running point on security that day. The team also took responsibility for failing to protect the former president, which also led to three others being shot, one fatally. Firefighter Corey Comperatore died shielding his family from the gunfire: 

The Secret Service is under siege for its incompetence. Why were communications such a shamble on this day? Who ran point? Has anyone been disciplined for this attempt on Trump’s life? It’s a circus, and while Kimberley Cheatle resigned as director, albeit not willingly, some other heads need to roll. The agency also got busted for lying: they finally admitted that requests for additional security for Trump were denied. 

The rooftop will remain a focal point, however, especially since there were police officers in the adjacent building. The agency knew there was a threat against the former president ten minutes before the rally began but allowed Trump to take the stage anyway. Secret Service snipers did have eyes on Crooks two minutes before he opened fire. The whole thing was a total disaster, and the lack of answers to simple questions about the obvious flaws only fueled conspiracy talks.

Monday, July 22, 2024

DEI Cronyism and Woke Grifters

 

When ideology replaces meritocracy or provides immunity from the consequences of illegal behavior, systemic mediocrity follows.

Under toxic National Socialism, Stalinism, and Maoism, millions of cronies and grifters mouthed party lines in hopes that their approved ideology would allow them to advance their careers and excuse their lawbreaking.

The same thing has happened with the woke movement and the now-huge Diversity/Equity/Inclusion conglomerate.

Grifters and opportunists mask their selfish agendas under the cloak of neo-Marxist care for the underprivileged or victimized minorities. Meanwhile, they seek to profit illegally as if they were old-fashioned crony capitalists.

During the disastrous COVID-19 lockdown, California governor Gavin Newsom pontificated about leveraging the quarantine to ensure greater equality: “There is opportunity for reimagining a [more] progressive era as it [relates] to capitalism...We see this as an opportunity to reshape the way we do business and how we govern.”

Meanwhile, Newsom did not seem very “progressive” when he was caught in one of California’s most expensive restaurants dining with sidekick lobbyists while violating the very mask and social distancing rules he had mandated for 40 million others.

Newsom also bragged about social equity when he signed a new California law mandating $20 an hour for fast-food workers—while many of his own employees at his various company-controlled eateries made only $16 an hour.

And he allegedly gave a unique exemption from his wage law to one particular bakery/restaurant chain, Panera, whose owner is an old friend and major campaign contributor.

Newsom apparently feels that the more progressively he postures, the less he’ll be called out for his own hypocrisy and self-interested agendas.

In another egregious case, the now-imprisoned felon, Sam Bankman-Fried, may have been the greatest con artist in American history. He siphoned billions of dollars from his cryptocurrency company, destroying the fortunes of thousands when his multi-billion-dollar Ponzi empire collapsed.

How did Sam and his two Stanford law-professor parents manage to accumulate millions of dollars in resort properties and perks without getting caught until after their empire collapsed?

Answer: Sam showered millions of dollars on left-wing politicians to advance their progressive crusades. His parents justified this family giving as a form of “effective altruism.”

That catchy phrase masked the reality that his crusade for social justice was just an incredibly effective get-rich-quick scheme.

The Bankman-Fried family apparently reasoned that their devotion to this woke form of “altruism” would translate into riches for themselves, albeit bankruptcies for investors.

Another example: in Georgia’s Fulton County, District Attorney Fani Willis ran for office, promising to indict supposed right-wing monster Donald Trump.

She raised campaign money on her woke credentials. Often, when challenged, she played the race victim card.

Meanwhile, Willis hired as a special prosecutor her secret paramour, the incompetent Nathan Wade, although he had never tried a single felony or even criminal case.

She and Wade then went on expensive junkets. She claimed that she reimbursed him with cash that was, of course, unverifiable.

Given their woke ideology, both assumed they were entitled to splurge at taxpayers’ expense, offer likely-false testimony under oath, and violate canons of professional behavior for lawyers.

She wasn’t alone in her corruption. After the death of George Floyd, the founders of the left-wing Black Lives Matter movement went on a house-buying rampage. The more corporations filled their coffers with millions, either from guilt or as protection money, the more new homes the directors purchased.

One co-founder, Patrisse Khan-Cullors, a self-described Marxist, splurged by spending $3.2 million in BLM money to buy herself four upscale residences.

And the most radical Democratic members of Congress—the so-called Squad—apparently feel that the more they level accusations of racism, the more they can profit without fearing any consequences for their wrongdoing.

One squad member, Rep. Ilhan Omar, redirected $2.8 million of her office’s allotted government money to her husband’s political consulting company.

Still another member, the radical leftist Rep. Cori Bush, often harangued the country to defund the police. Now the FBI is investigating her for stealthily paying tens of thousands of campaign dollars to her own husband for “security.”

Woke and DEI activists may not necessarily be any more innately mediocre, corrupt, or conniving than other politicians and activists.

But they seem so, because they loudly broadcast that they are for “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion”—and thus assume themselves to be exempt from all scrutiny and free to profit in any way they please.

The woke/DEI project is enticing thousands of shysters, careerists, and mediocrities, all keen to enrich themselves on the premise that they are noble fighters for social justice who deserve immunity from any scrutiny.

How odd it is that America is wasting billions of dollars hiring DEI czars and electing woke politicians who so often accuse others of a multitude of sins, largely as a way of enriching themselves, hiding their own culpability, and making a mockery of the law.

Can we let the voters decide -- Not the FBI, CIA, DOJ, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges?

 

When Donald Trump seemed to have a lock on the 2016 Republican primary, the Democratic Party concluded that the people could not be counted on to do the "right thing" of electing the Democratic candidate in waiting Hillary Clinton.

What followed were eight long years of extralegal efforts to neuter candidate, then President, then ex-President, and then candidate again, Donald Trump.

The nonstop efforts were all justified as "saving democracy" — albeit by nearly destroying it.

In 2015-2016, the Hillary Clinton campaign fueled the lie that discredited ex-British spy Christopher Steele had discovered Trump to be a veritable Russian agent.

Hillary did not disclose that she had paid Steele — with checks hidden through three paywalls. The FBI, under Director James Comey, also hired the fraudster.

Yet almost nothing in his "Steele dossier" was true.

The FBI doctored evidence submitted to a FISA court. Comey leaked to the press confidential documents about his private conversations with President Trump.

Comey's successor, Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, lied on numerous occasions to federal investigators.

Both former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper repeatedly lied to the nation, saying that Trump was de facto working with the Russians.

The result? Trump lost the 2016 popular vote but still won the Electoral College.

Next, celebrities and well-funded liberals waged a media campaign to convince the electors to become "faithless." Left-wing elites begged them to renounce their constitutional duties and instead throw the election to Hillary Clinton.

Once Trump was elected, "Russian collusion" was fired up again in hysterical fashion.

A special counsel, Robert Mueller, consumed 22 months of the Trump presidency. His investigation team constantly leaked falsehoods about the "walls closing in on" Trump.

After nearly two years, Mueller announced there was no evidence of a Trump effort to collude with Russia.

Next was the first impeachment of Trump — nearly the moment he lost the House in 2018.

Supposedly, Trump had leveraged Ukraine to investigate a corrupt Hunter Biden by delaying foreign aid.

Trump was impeached on a strictly partisan vote.

But later, no one denied that the drug-addled Hunter Biden had indeed gotten rich from Ukraine, or that Joe Biden had fired a Ukrainian prosecutor looking into his son's misadventures while still vice president, or that Trump released all the military assistance designated by Congress, or that he included offensive weapons formerly denied Ukraine by the Obama-Biden administration.

Next, in 2020, when Hunter's laptop turned up abandoned at a repair shop and full of incriminating evidence of more Biden family skullduggery, the left struck again.

It rounded up "51 former intelligence authorities" to mislead the American people on the eve of the vote that the laptop was likely a fake — once again cooked up by Russian disinformation experts to aid Trump.

And once more, that was another complete falsehood. But the lie proved useful to Joe Biden in the debates and campaign. And he won the election.

Next, the learn-nothing, forget-nothing left turned to the 2023-2024 campaign.

This time, their next extra-legal efforts were twofold.

One, they unsuccessfully sought to remove Trump from some 15 state ballots.

Two, local, state, and federal courts began to wage lawfare to convict and jail candidate Trump, or at least bankrupt him and keep him off the campaign trail.

Three county and state prosecutors campaigned on getting Trump on charges never filed before against a presidential candidate — and rarely against anyone else as well.

The Fani Willis Georgia lead prosecutor met secretly with the Biden White House counsel.

Alvin Bragg's Manhattan team hired the third-ranking federal prosecutor in the Biden Justice Department.

Special counsel Jack Smith was found by a court to have been illegally appointed and much of his case was dismissed.

On July 14, a shooter nearly killed candidate Trump, nicking his ear after somehow firing a rifle from a rooftop a mere 140 yards away — while undetected by law enforcement inside the very same building below.

Prior to the shooting, Joe Biden had boasted to donors that "it's time to put Trump in a bullseye."

Biden had railed nearly nonstop that a Trump victory would spell the end of democracy — a theme the left had fueled by comparing ad nauseam Trump to Adolf Hitler.

Yet here we are in mid-July 2024 and Trump, the Republican candidate, is alive and leads incumbent Biden -- either because of, or despite, the crude efforts to destroy him.

After nearly a decade of utter madness, can we finally order the FBI, DOJ, and CIA to butt out of our elections?

Can a bankrupt media cease whipping up hysteria about a supposed Nazi-like takeover?

Can the left stop relying on washed-up British spies, corrupt ex-spooks, and teams of clownish partisan prosecutors?

Instead, why not, at last, just let the people choose their own president?

Biden is losing World War III

 

President Joe Biden has become the James Buchanan of the 21st century.

Buchanan, the nation’s 15th president, widely considered history’s worst, sought to mollify everyone, yet in the end pleased no one. Under his rule, the nation drifted ever-closer to secession and Civil War.

More than a century and a half later, the world is devolving into a global ideological World War III. Russia, China and their proxies are actively attacking U.S. interests. 

Yet Biden’s National Security Strategy remains rooted in fighting “something less than two simultaneous or overlapping major conflicts,” according to a January Congressional Research Service report entitled “Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense.”

The report notes that, in 2018, the Trump administration was confronted with an Obama-era decision of “building a force not around the demands of two regional conflicts with rogue states, but around the requirements of winning a high-intensity conflict with a single, top-tier competitor — a war with China over Taiwan, for instance, or a clash with Russia in the Baltic region.”

But in reality, our nation is being confronted with three wars: the war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, and the looming war over Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Actually, make that three and a half wars, if you include the war of influence we are losing in the Sahel region of Africa as U.S. forces abandon bases in Niger.

Biden, seemingly caught in the vice grip of November electoral calculus, is refusing even to acknowledge that we are already in World War III, let alone take the necessary measures to win it. As a result, our nation’s military, weapons and munitions production capacity, and its ability to engage with the cyberwarfare and disinformation emanating from Moscow and Beijing, are all woefully lacking. All require an immediate remedy.

Biden, like Buchanan, is facing a Fort Sumter moment in history. 

In 1860, Buchanan, fearing escalation, refused to sufficiently reinforce the strategic fort guarding the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Although such a move likely would not have changed the trajectory of the war, it would have drawn a much-needed red line for the Southern secessionists.

Instead, Buchanan did the bare minimum, just as the Biden administration is now doing in Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific and in the Middle East. Defending U.S. allies is not enough, just as minimally defending Fort Sumter proved futile.

“Defending” must no longer be the watchword of the day in Biden’s White House, but “winning.” Winning this increasingly kinetic global ideological war is our only way forward if liberal democracy is to prevail against Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s shared vision of a so-called multipolar world, militarily and economically dominated by Russia and China and anchored by BRICS.

Biden’s escalation fears must also end. As evidenced by Oct 7., Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Iran’s April 13 attacks on Israel and now the Bastogne-like battle for the Kharkiv Oblast, fears of escalation have only led to vacuums being filled by our nation’s enemies — and the enemies of our allies in Eastern Europe and the Mideast.

Simply put, the more Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, argues for de-escalation, the more our enemies use those windows to escalate. 

Israel is a case study in the madness of Biden’s Buchanan-like approach to handling the nation’s foreign policy. Initially, Biden was strongly supportive of Jerusalem’s right to put an end to Hamas as a military threat to Israel. In the wake of anti-Israel Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses throughout the country and in particular in New York City, Biden’s resolve dissipated. The unity coalition government of Israel, in an existential war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, soon found itself under friendly fire originating from Washington, D.C. 

Defending Michigan’s 15 electoral votes seemingly became more important than safeguarding Israel, destroying Hamas, or alone extricating the eight American hostages still held by Hamas’s military chief, Yahya Sinwar, in Gaza. Lest we forget, 45 American citizens were brutally slaughtered by Hamas on Oct. 7.

On Monday, Biden’s abyss deepened. The United Nations admitted it had overestimated the number of women and children killed in Gaza by nearly 100 percent, implying that Israel has achieved a lower civilian casualty rate than the U.S. did during the Iraq War. Even so, Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, announced he was seeking arrest warrants for alleged war crimes in Gaza by Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

There was no mention whatsoever of Hamas’s continued use of Palestinian civilians as human shields, nor any of their Russian and Iranian sponsors, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

Ebrahim Raisi, the Iranian president killed in a helicopter crash, was never indicted by the ICC, despite being known as the “Butcher of Tehran” for ordering the deaths of tens of thousands of Iranians.

Biden has lost the plot — or maybe he is incapable of grasping it. Russia and China are destroying the post–World War II global order and the institutions that once safeguarded it — including the UN Security Council and now, indirectly, the ICC.

Instead of rallying the nation to fight and win this ever-widening global concerted assault on liberty, Biden and his politicos are sacrificing American national security in an attempt to win in November. 

World War III is upon us, and our nation is exposed. Fort Sumter stands symbolically empty. The country’s armed forces are overtaxed, facing potentially three wars at once and preparing for only one.

Instead of channeling Abraham Lincoln and his resolve to win, Biden is imitating Buchanan, derelict in his duty as leader of the free world.

Why it’s too late to stop World War 3 – according to one of Britain’s greatest military historians

 

Imagine, for a moment, that the Iranian government ann­ounces it has developed a nuc­lear bomb and threatens to use it on Israel. The United States reacts with the threat of military intervention, as it did in 1991 and 2003 in Iraq. Iran signals that it will not tolerate a third Gulf war and looks for allies. American forces mass to enter Iran, which orders national mobilisation. Russia, China and North Korea express their support for Iran, and Washington expands its intervention force, bringing in a British contingent. Russia enters the game, raising the stakes in the expectation that the West will back down. A nuclear standoff follows, but with tense and itchy fingers on both sides, as leaders gamble on the risk of not striking first, it all ends in disaster. The Third World War begins with an exchange of nuclear fire, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Or picture this: Chinese frustration over the status of Taiwan prompts a build-up of invasion forces. The United States is pre­occupied with its own domestic political crisis. Japan anxiously watches the exchange of harsh words between China and Taiwan, wondering whether to intervene. The United Nations condemns Chinese actions, and China repudiates the censure and orders invasion, confident that a quick victory will prevent others from intervening, as Hitler hoped when he invaded Poland in 1939. The United States now activates contingency plans to save Taiwan, and each side uses tactical nuclear weapons against the other’s armed forces. North Korea and Russia side with China. There is no general nuclear strike, but Russia warns Europe to keep out, dividing American strategy between the two theatres, as it was in the Second World War. The conflict continues to escalate.

Now let’s consider a totally different kind of global conflict. The growing division between the democratic West and the arc of authoritarian states across Eurasia has entered a dangerous new chapter. Neither side wants to risk outright war, but there is a possibility that destroying satellite communications will undermine the military and economic capability of the other side. Without warning, the West’s satellite communication ­system is attacked and massive damage is done to its commercial and military electronic networks. 

No one claims to have launched the missiles, but, in the chaos that follows, blame is quickly directed at anti-Western states. Retaliation is difficult to mount with the collapse of communications. Uncertain what to do, military mobilisation is ordered across the Western world, but Russia and China demand that it cease. As in 1914, the wheels, once set in motion, are hard to stop, and the crisis grows. Welcome to the First Space War.

These three scenarios are poss­ible, though not one of them, I should make clear, is probable. ­Predicting – more accurately, imagining – the wars of the future can produce dangerous fantasies that promote anxiety over future security. It is likely that even the most plausible prognosis will be wrong. The development of nuclear weapons has substantially changed the terms of any future global conflict. There are no doubt contingency plans prepared by armed forces everywhere to meet a range of possibilities that might otherwise be regarded as fanciful in the real world. And while history may help us to think about the shape of a future war, the lessons of history are seldom learnt. 

Yet the question of how a third world war might erupt haunts us today more than at any time since the end of the last world war. The very act of guessing is proof of our expectation that warfare of some kind remains a fact in a world of multiple insecurities. Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Myanmar and Sudan are a reminder of that ever-present reality. And regular threats from Russia about using nuclear weapons suggest that our fantasies may not be so wide of the mark after all. 

 

Perhaps, in attempting to forecast the outbreak of a future war, we should ask another question: Why do we make war at all? War has been a characteristic of almost the whole of recorded history, and warlike violence preceded the establishment of the first states. Why human beings have developed belligerency alongside their capacity for social cooperation remains a fundamental question.

It is a puzzle with which the human ­sciences have wrestled for much of the 20th and 21st centuries. For evolutionary biologists and psychologists, warfare was a means for early man to ensure survival, protect kin and cope with ecological crisis. No human biologist now argues that violence is in our genes, but early hominins, organised in small bands of hunter-gatherers or fishers, almost certainly used violence to protect against intruders, secure resources and food, and on occasion to act as predators on neighbouring communities. The resort to violence as one of the elements in the survival kit of early man became psychologically normative, as well as biologically useful. On this reading, bell­igerence is something deeply embedded in human development.

Yet this view is challenged by the other sciences, which see warfare as a phenomenon associated with the development of settled cultures and political systems, whether tribe, proto-state or state. By 10,000 years ago, there is no doubt that something resembling warfare emerged worldwide, evidenced in the archaeological record of weapons, iconography and fortifications. 

Warfare was not like modern war, organised in mass armies and supplied by military industries, but took a variety of forms: a deadly raid, a ritual encounter, or a massacre, such as the Nataruk killings, dating to the 9th century BC: the remains of men, women (one of them pregnant) and children unearthed from this site near Kenya’s Lake Turkana show the victims were clubbed and stabbed to death.

It was evidently not necessary to have a state to engage in violence, as the tribal warfare observed in the past few hundred years has demonstrated, but war did mean the emergence of a warrior elite and a culture in which warfare was valorised and endorsed: the Spartans, the Vikings, the Aztecs. There have been very few cultures in which warfare has not played a part, usually a central part, in the life of the community. In the historic period of states, from about 5,000 years ago, there are no examples where warfare was not accepted practice.

This says little about why wars are waged in the archaic past or the present. Wars are always waged for something, whether it is pleasing the gods by seizing captives to ­execute or sacrifice, or coveting resources, or wars for belief, or extending power over others, or in the search for heightened security, or simply a war of defence against a predator. This mix of motives has remained remarkably constant.

The seizure of resources is an obvious motivation for war, an explanation that extends from the ancient Romans as they destroyed enemy cities and grabbed slaves and treasure and exacted tribute, to the Japanese forces in 1942 when they captured the oil and raw mat­erials of South-east Asia needed for waging further war. Wars for belief also span millennia, from the Muslim conquests of the Middle East and North Africa in the early Middle Ages, and the age of Christian cru­sades that followed, to the current jihad campaigns of militant Islam. 

Security, as Thomas Hobbes famously recognised in his Leviathan of 1651, is always at risk in an anarchic world where there is no single common power to enforce it. Frontiers are a touchstone of security fears and lack of trust, as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza illustrate today. But the long Chinese frontier with the steppe nomads and the vast frontier of the late Roman empire were also sites of constant encroach­ments, defensive battles and punitive expeditions.  

 

Pursuit of power is perhaps the most common explanation for war – particularly popular with political and social scientists. Power Transition Theory, pioneered at the height of the Cold War, sees a constant race between major hegemonic powers as one tries to exceed the power of the other. The race, so it is argued, might end in war as a declining power seeks to protect its position, or a rising power seeks to replace it. At one time, the theory was applied to the United States and the Soviet Union, but they never went to war against each other; now it is applied to possible war between the United States and China, which has become a favourite scenario for those predicting 21st-century conflict. Yet it is a ­theory that works poorly. The two world wars began with a major power picking on a lesser one – ­Serbia in 1914, Poland in 1939 – and then dragging other powers into the maelstrom. That might indeed happen with Taiwan, as it is already happening with Ukraine.

Power works best as an explanation when history turns to the individuals who drove themselves to become the great conquerors, men whose raw ambition mobilised ­support from their people for unlimited conquest – Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler. This is hubristic power based on arrogant self-belief and it usually evaporates with the death or defeat of the leader. But so long as they lead, and there are people willing to follow, war is unlimited and destructive on a vast scale. This is the most dangerous and unpredictable explanation for the persistence of warfare and it covers the whole historical record. It is one of the surest indications that war still has a future as well as a long past.

The wars of the future draw on a grim heritage. The fact that peace would seem to be the rational option for most humans has never been able to stifle the urge to fight when it seems necessary, or lucrative, or an obligation. And that heritage is the chief reason it is possible to imagine a future war. After the end of the Cold War, there was once a fashion for saying that war was obsolete – if only that were so, we might now live in a world without weapons and fear. While few would actively seek the Third World War, few envisaged or wanted the other two. The sad reality is that our understanding of why wars occur has so far contributed little to setting warfare aside as an enduring element in human affairs.

Will There Be a World War 3?



Worst Case Scenario: Will There Be a World War 3?

In 2024, the world is experiencing heightened geopolitical tensions driven by a myriad of economic, political, and environmental factors. Increased conflict in key regions such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia are becoming significant points of concern for policymakers across the globe, prompting many to wonder: will there be World War 3? 

The ongoing war in Ukraine continues to strain relations between NATO allies and Russia. Significant economic sanctions and military support from the West have done little more than exacerbate the situation in Eastern Europe. 

In the Middle East, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, their increasingly close relationship with Russia and China, and their backing of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel have raised significant alarm amongst the international community. The Iranian-backed Houthi attacks on commercial shipping activities in the Red Sea have also disrupted shipping routes.

In East Asia, China’s aggressive show of military force in the Indo-Pacific region and fierce opposition to recognizing Taiwan as an independent state have led to escalating tensions between the US and China. Additionally, North Korea continues to advance its nuclear and missile testing, further contributing to instability in the region. 

Could we be on the precipice of a third World War? What could eventually cause a global war? Let’s explore some potential scenarios that could lead to World War III.

Historical Context: Wars Have Kicked Off Over Much Less 

Historically speaking, few wars have been the result of one major event. Rather, they result from relatively minor events that end up being the tipping point during ongoing heightened tensions. Take, for example, the events that led to World War I. 

In the early 20th century, Europe was experiencing fast economic growth leading to a subsequent powerplay for dominance in the region between Germany, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, and Great Britain. Additionally, we witnessed the rise of imperialism and nationalism among two key states — Russia and Germany respectively. 

With political tensions at an all-time high, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist in June 1914. Austria-Hungary backed by Germany declared war on Serbia which, in turn, was backed by Russia. Great Britain and France joined the war against Germany after it invaded Belgium. 

Come 1918, Germany was suffering from military exhaustion and internal unrest, leading to its ultimate defeat and the signing of the Armistice on November 11, 1918. The war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. 

Although well-intentioned, the Treaty of Versailles had adverse effects that led to extensive economic hardship and resentment within Germany. 

Three decades later, in 1939, Hitler Hitler invaded Poland to expand the Third Reich, gain territory, and unite all ethnic Germans. As a result, Great Britain and France once again declared war on Germany. 

By 1941, the United States had entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which played a crucial role in turning the tide. Four years later, the Axis powers of Germany and Japan had surrendered. It’s said that the conflict resulted in the loss of 75 million lives.

However, another conflict was just around the corner. The creation of Israel in 1948 led to the mass immigration of Holocaust survivors. This, in turn, led to the first Arab-Israeli war, which was a result of political tension, military conflict, and other disputes between various Arab countries and Israel.

Millions died due to a lack of equipment and preparedness. Back then, soldiers didn’t have proper body armor as they do now, like the MIRA Safety Body Armor. This no doubt contributed heavily to the astronomical death toll. 

World War II also saw a rise in chemical warfare. Limitations in technology at the time meant nerve agents could cause devastating effects. While nerve agents and chemical warfare are still deadly, soldiers now have gas masks and respirators to protect themselves, such as the CM-6M Tactical Gas Mask

As we’ve seen time and again, tiny flashpoints end up creating massive conflicts. The aftermath of 9/11 demonstrated how a devastating act of terrorism could trigger a series of responses that lead to prolonged military engagements, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Who Are the Players in WWIII?

Should the world enter into a World War Three scenario, we can expect the dominant players to be Russia, China, and Iran on one side versus the US, Europe, and Great Britain. The NATO states play a pivotal role as their expansion east is the main driver behind Russia’s aggression. North Korea would also surely play a role.

It is easy to visualize the players of World War III as “East versus West,” but with outlying Eastern countries such as South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia aligning themselves with the US and Europe, the equation isn’t as simple as it looks. 

The Russian-Chinese relationship is further fortified by their involvement in the BRICS group. BRICS is a group of countries with economic, security, and political ties that include countries such as Brazil, India, and South Africa. 

These are three dominant countries in their respective regions with significant mineral and defense resources. In early 2024, the BRICS group welcomed six new member states; Egypt, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia.  

BRICS was introduced as an alternative to the dollar payment system used by the G7, and it’s likely to face opposition as it continues to grow. Many of the BRICS countries enjoy a balanced relationship with both Russia and the US, though in time of war, things tend to change quickly. 

 While the BRICS nations enjoy close political, economic, and security ties, it’s unlikely that they’d immediately side with Russia or China. . The US, on the other hand, maintains close mutual defense treaties with countries such as Canada, the Philippines, Japan, Thailand, and South Korea — all of whom would definitively side with the US. 


Potential Scenarios Leading to WWIII:

Iran vs. Israel

Iran and Israel play an important role in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Iran has long opposed the existence of Israel, supporting groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas to foster skirmishes.

In April 2024, hostilities intensified in response to Israel’s counterattacks, leading to the war in Gaza in the wake of the October 7, Hamas-led attack on Israel. Iranian-backed militant groups launched rockets and drone strikes from Lebanon and Gaza, targeting Israeli cities and military installations. While the vast majority of the ballistic missile strikes were intercepted, there was minor infrastructural damage in some areas. 

Iran maintains the attack was in retaliation for a suspected Israeli strike on a consulate in Damascus which killed an Iranian military commander. Post-retaliation strike, Iran officials consider the matter concluded but have expressed that they would consider a more severe response should Israel launch any further attacks. 

A US official from President Biden’s administration said Israel was not seeking to escalate the situation further, although Israeli officials have emphasized that they would prepare for further attacks should Iran strike again.

Poland’s Posture Change

From 2015 to 2023, the ruling party in Poland was the Law and Justice party (PiS). The PiS government found itself on the receiving end of many legal actions brought against it by the European Commission for breaching core European Union (EU) values. Critics of the PiS complained that the party was illiberal and authoritarian, undermining the country’s core democracy. 

The 2023 Polish election results were a critical turning point for Eastern European politics. The new government seeks to more closely align Poland with the EU and play a more active role within the NATO states. 

This change of sentiment has angered Russia and Belarus who seek to undermine EU influence and expansion in the region. Poland remains critical of both Russia and Belarus who they see as a direct threat to regional security. 

Invasion of Ukraine 2022 

While Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky claims that Vladimir Putin has greater aspirations than just overtaking Kyiv, Putin hasn’t really countered that claim either. Those claims have become a reality considering the bombardment on the capitol as of June 2024. These attacks have led Biden to take a much more serious tone against Russia With sanctions towards Belarus, we could see increased aggression between surrounding nations and Poland (Not to mention the fact that Poland is the gateway of NATO weapons into Ukraine). 

If Russia would aspire for such access, this stream of resources needs to be cut off. With that said, doing so would incur serious consequences, as attacking Poland directly would of course constitute an “attack on all” in NATO terms.

Turkey and Israel map

Turkey and Israel. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Turkey Gets Involved

Turkey enjoys a complex and multifaceted relationship with both the US and Russia. While Turkey and Russia have successfully collaborated on strategic energy projects and in managing the Syrian conflict, it was the purchase of the Russian S-400 missile system that strained Turkey’s relationships with NATO and the US. 

Additionally, there are ancient religious and historical ties between Turkey and Russia. The Byzantine Empire, centered in its capital city Constantinople (modern Istanbul), profoundly influenced Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which is central to Russian religious identity. 

After the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, Russia viewed itself as the protector of Orthodox Christianity, which continues to influence contemporary relations between the two nations today. 

Turkey, however, remains a staunch ally of NATO and is committed to its cooperative efforts with the US on security in the region. That being said, the recent escalation of conflict between Israel and Gaza has somewhat soured the once impenetrable relationship. Turkey remains firm in its opposition to Israel’s policies towards Palestinians and fiercely condemns military action in Gaza. 

China Makes a Move on Taiwan

China has been adamant in its resolve to reunify Taiwan with the mainland. Increased military activity in the South China Sea aimed at demonstrating China’s capabilities have concerned nearby nations such as Japan, India and Australia who all maintain strategic military locations in the region. 

Additionally, the US remains a close ally of Taiwan and has reinforced its commitment to supporting an independent state. Should China act on its warnings, the implications would be far-reaching, especially when you consider that Taiwan remains the hub of semiconductor manufacturing globally. 

Such an assault would trigger international sanctions, however, considering China’s economic position, this is unlikely to deter a fiercely resolute China. 

Economically, sanctions would disrupt global supply chains, particularly in the technology and manufacturing sectors, leading to significant market instability. The other scenario is that an assault would lead to a conflict that would not only destabilize the Indo-Pacific region but could challenge the global order as we know it. 

There are Consequences of Global War

While the modern world has already experienced two World Wars, the threat of World War 3 is made even more concerning due to modern technology. Nuclear weapons, advances in chemical and biological warfare, and the threat of cyber-attacks and sabotage make the last two great wars seem like child’s play. 

Physical confrontation on US soil is unlikely at this point (the US often prefers proxy wars), but if we are to learn lessons from Pearl Harbour and September 11, 2001, one should “never say never.”

It is, however, expected that cyber-attacks will sabotage infrastructure leading to blackouts, breakdown in communication channels, and the disruption of basic services like clean drinking water. 

Fortunately, there are many safety and survival solutions on the market for such scenarios. Learning how to protect yourself, and investing in protective gear, is one of the best things that you can do. For instance, the CM-7M Gas Mask from MIRA Safety is one of the most versatile masks designed with tactical capability in mind, and offers maximum protection against harmful gases. 

Should tensions escalate to on-the-ground conflict in the US as they have in Israel and Gaza and Ukraine and Russia, protective body armor such as the MT-LVL4 Body Armor offers superior protection against everything from small handguns to battle rifles and common platform rifles. 

Additionally, the use of nerve agents, exposure to radiation and nuclear emergencies are all potential evils that we could face. Also, keeping safety items, such as  CWD-3 Nerve Agent Detection Strips, MIRA Safety Potassium Iodide Tablets for radiation exposure, and Thyrosafe Potassium Iodide for nuclear emergencies are all essentials that you should have at home.


Final Thoughts on the Possibility of World War 3

It would be a grave miscalculation to say that we are categorically entering into a Third World War. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s attacks on Israel, and China’s posturing in the South China Sea are all separate conflict zones that are only marginally connected. 

Each key player knows the importance of economic development in a time of global economic turmoil. While Russia remains an aggressor in Eastern Europe, Putin has said that there is no alliance with China when it comes to the idea that we are heading for world war. 

That being said, coolerheads need to prevail if we are to avoid nuclear war. Much also depends on the next US Presidential Election. Despite the end of the cold war, it seems that we are again heading towards a clash that may see the US pitted against Russia if things don’t change.

One thing is certain, we are in tumultuous times and it will take effective diplomatic conversation and strong international cooperation to steer us away from a path that may lead to another global conflict.  

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the world doing to prevent World War III? 

The powerful G7 Club of wealthy nations, Australia, and the EU have implemented heavy economic sanctions to stem the Russian advancement. In the South China Sea, both the US and China are hesitant to disrupt the $5.3 trillion trade shipping routes in the region. Both nations are proactively participating in multilateral forums and discussions to avoid conflict. 

Concerning the Israel conflict in Gaza, Qatar and Egypt are mediating peace talks while the UN and other humanitarian organizations are actively working on both sides to de-escalate tensions in the area. 

Would nuclear weapons be used in World War III? 

Yes, nuclear weapons would be used in World War III. While treaties exist outlawing the use of nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that countries such as Russia, China, and Iran will abide by these treaties. Russia, China, and Iran are some of the most nuclear weaponized countries. In the last few years, nuclear armament has only increased in each of the three countries.

How would World War III affect the global economy?

World War III would decimate the global economy. It is likely that digital infrastructure would collapse, international trade would all but cease to exist and oil and gas prices would skyrocket. Debt accumulation, unemployment, and rampant inflation would add significant additional challenges to the global economic fallout. 

A full-scale world war would smash trade and consumption, blow the roof off oil prices, and, overall, be a terrible outcome for the global economy.


The Lessons of World War 3


US and Chinese warships battle at sea, firing everything from cannons to cruise missiles to
lasers. Stealthy Russian and American fighter jets dogfight in the air, with robotic drones
flying as their wingmen. Hackers in Shanghai and Silicon Valley duel in digital playgrounds.
And fights in outer space decide who wins below on Earth.
Are theses scenes from a novel or what could actually take place in the real world the day
after tomorrow? The answer is both.
Senator McCain, Senator Reed, thank you and the rest of the committee for inviting me here
today. I am a defense analyst, who has written nonfiction books on various emerging topics
of importance to the discussions in this series, ranging from private military contractors to
drones and robotics to cybersecurity. Today I’d like to present a few of the lessons from my
new book Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War, which combines nonfiction style
research with the fictionalized scenario of a 21 st century great power conflict to explore the
future of war.
Old Conflict Risks and New Stakes
Great power conflicts defined the 20 th century: two world wars claimed tens of millions of
lives and the “cold” war that followed shaped everything from geopolitics to sports. At the
start of the 21 st century, however, the ever present fear of World War III was seemingly put
into our historic rearview mirror. We went from worrying about powerful states to failed
states, from a focus on the threats of organized national militaries to transnational networks
of individual terrorists and insurgents. Indeed, just four years ago the New York Times
published an article arguing the era of wars between states was over and that “War Really Is
Going Out of Style.”
If only it would. Today, with Russian landgrabs in the Ukraine and constant flights of
bombers decorated with red stars probing Europe’s borders, NATO is at its highest levels of
alert since the mid 1980s. In the Pacific, China built more warships and warplanes than any
other nation during the last several years, while the Pentagon has announced a strategy to
“offset” it with a new generation of high-tech weapons.
Wars start through any number of pathways; one world war happened through deliberate
action, the other a crisis that spun out of control. In the coming decades, a war might ignite
accidentally, such as by two opposing warships trading paint near a reef not even marked on
a nautical chart. Or it could slow burn and erupt as a reordering of the global system in the
late 2020s, the period at which China’s military build up is on pace to match the US.
Making either scenario more of a risk is that military planners and political leaders on all
sides assume their side would be the one to win in a “short” and “sharp” fight, to use
common phrases.
Let me be 100% clear, I do not think such a conflict is inevitable; though it is noteworthy
that the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper warned that if the US didn’t
change its policies in the Pacific, “A U.S.-China war is inevitable...” While this may be a bit
of posturing both for a US and highly nationalist domestic audience (A 2014 poll by the
Perth US-Asia center found that 74% of Chinese think their military would win in a war with
the US), it illustrates further a simple but essential point: The global context is changing and
what was once thinkable, and then became unthinkable, is again thinkable.
For the committee’s important work, it means our planning for deterrence and warfighting
must recognize these risks, and the greater stakes. To give a historic parallel, it is the
difference between the challenges that the British as a dominant global power in the last
century faced in many of the very same places we find ourselves today, like Afghanistan and
Iraq, versus the stakes and losses of World War One and Two.
Multi-Domain Conflict
A great power conflict would be quite different from the so-called “small wars” of today that
the US has grow accustomed to and, in turn, others think reveal a new American weakness.
One of the key aspects is where it might take place, not in specific locations on a map like
the South China sea, but in overall domains.
Unlike the Taliban, ISIS, or even Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, great powers can and will fight
across all the domains. This will present new threats in areas whwre we’ve had unfettered
access; indeed, the last time the US fought a peer in the air or at sea was in 1945.
But a 21 st century fight would also see battles for control of two new domains. The lifeblood
of military communications and control now runs through space, meaning we would see
humankind’s first battles for the heavens. Indeed, both China and Russia have anti-satellite
weapons programs. Similarly, we’d learn that “cyber war” is far more than stealing social
security numbers or email from gossipy Hollywood executives, but the takedown of the
modern military nervous system and Stuxnet-style digital weapons causing physical damage.
Worrisome for the US is that last year the Pentagon’s weapons tester found every single
major weapons program had “significant vulnerabilities” to cyber attack, while many of our
newest weapons are powered by microchips increasingly designed and built by those they
might face off against, opening up the risks of hardware hacks.
In both spaces, we have to focus more on building up resilience to achieve “deterrence by
denial,” taking away the potential fruits of any attack. This will require new innovative
approaches, like networks of small, cheap satellites, rather than a small number of billion
dollar points of failure, and new additions to our cybersecurity activities. This again is not
merely a matter of greater spending, but being willing to explore new approaches and forgo
our pattern of putting new challenges and capabilities into old boxes. For instance, there is
much to learn from how Estonia went from being one of the first state victims of mass
cyber attacks to one of the most secure against them, including through the creation of a
Cyber Defense League.
A New Race
Since 1945, US defense planning has focused on having a qualitative edge to “overmatch”
our adversaries, seeking to be a generation ahead in technology. This assumption has
become baked into everything from our overall defense strategy all the way down to small
unit tactics.
Yet US forces can’t count on that overmatch in the future. Mass campaigns of state-linked
intellectual property theft has meant we are paying much of the research and development
costs of our challengers (note the F-35 and J-31 fighter jet’s similarity, for example). These
challengers are also growing their own technology. China, for example, just overtook the EU
in R& D spending and is on pace to match the US in five years, with new projects ranging
from the world’s fastest supercomputers in the civilian space to three different long range
drone strike programs on the military side. And, finally, off-the-shelf technologies can be
bought to rival even the most advanced tools in the US arsenal. The winner of a recent
robotics test, for instance, was not a US defense contractor but a group of South Korea
student engineers.
This is crucial as not just are many of our most long trusted platforms vulnerable to new
classes of weapons, now in a wider array of conflict actors’ hands, but an array of potentially
game-changing weapons lie just ahead:
• A new generation of unmanned systems, both more diverse in size, shape, and form,
but also more autonomous and more capable, meaning they can take on roles from
ISR to strike, flying from anything from aircraft carriers to soldier’s hands.
• Weapons that operate using not the kinetics of a fist or gunpowder driving a bullet
but energy itself, ranging from electromagnetic railgun, able to fire a projectile 100
miles, to new directed energy systems that potentially reverse the cost equations of
offense and defense.
• Super long-range, and hyper fast air to air and air to ground missiles and strike
systems.
• Artificial Intelligence, ubiquitous sensors, Big Data, and Battle Management systems
that will redefine the observe, orient, decide and act (OODA) loop.
• 3-D printing technologies that threaten do to the current defense marketplace what
the iPod did to the music industry.
• Human performance modification technologies that will reshape what is possible in
the human side of war.
I would urge the committee and its staff to visit some of the various amazing government
labs and facilities, from DARPA to the Office of Naval Research to Sandia to Air Force
Research Lab, just to mention a few, where you can see firsthand how none of these science
fiction sounding technologies are fictional.
The challenge, though, is the comparison that could be drawn between what is now or soon
to be possible versus what we are actually buying today or planning to buy tomorrow. Our
weapons modernization programs are too often not that modern. For example, if you start at
their point of conception, most of our top 10 Programs of Record are old enough to vote,
with a few actually older than me.
We too often commit to mass buys before a system is truly tested, locking in on single major
programs that are “too big to fail” and actually aren’t all that new. And, this dynamic shapes
not just what we buy, but extends their development time, and ultimately our expectations of
how much of that system we will buy decades into the future, limiting our present and future
flexibility. To abuse a metaphor, the growing per unit costs of the cart drives where we steer
the horse.
At the heart of this failing dynamic is that while “disruption” is a new buzzword in defense
thinking today, part of the Pentagon’s new outreach to Silicon Valley, we struggle with the
dual meaning in the concept: We claim to aspire for the new, but to be disrupted, the
outdated must also be discarded. Amazon didn’t merely pioneer online book sales, but it also
ended the business of most brick and mortar bookstores.
The roadblocks to disruption exist at multiple levels, from specific weapons programs to
organizational change and operating concepts. For instance, there is a long record of the
government funding exciting new projects that then wither away in that space between lab
and program of record because they can’t supplant whatever old gear or program, factory, or
internal tribe that is in the way. Indeed, there is even a term for it: the “Valley of Death.”
The same goes for all the new and important concepts you have heard about in these
hearings over the last few weeks. To be adapted, something will have to be supplanted.
As you program for the future, ultimately what you support in the new gamechangers of not
just programs, but also thinking, structures and organizations, what you eliminate in the old,
and what you protect and nurture across that “Valley” will matter more than any single
additional plane or tank squeezed into a budget line item or OCO funding. It may be the
difference between the win or loss of a major war tomorrow.
The Pontiac Azteks of War
The issue, though, is not just one of pursuing new innovations, but that we too often plan
for the best in the future of war, not expect the worst.
A key challenge here is our defense acquisition systems has specialized in designing, building,
and buying the Pontiac Azteks of war. The Aztek, which debuted in 2001, was a car that
optimistically tried to be everything — a sports car, a minivan and an SUV. Instead, it ended
up overengineered, overpriced and overpromised. There is an array of Pentagon programs
today with similar characteristics. We optimistically and unrealistically planned for them to
be good at all types of war, but they risk being unequal to many of our new challenges.
For example, in the air, we are in the midst of buying jet fighters with shorter range than
their World War II equivalents three generations back and a tanker aircraft that lacks the
defensive systems for anything above a “medium threat” environment , at the very moment
a potential adversary is developing longer reach to target both their bases and themselves in
an air to air fight. And at sea, we are embarking on a buying program for a warship that the
Navy’s own tester says is “not expected to be survivable in high-intensity combat.”
There are deep dangers of this kind of “fingers crossed” planning. What will it be like in the
2020s to fly a fighter jet conceived in the 1990s that happens to get in a dogfight or is called
upon to do close air support? That leaders in 2015 argued such situations wouldn’t happen
will be little aid to that pilot. What happens if an adversary decides not to play by our rules
and raises the fight above “medium threat” level? What happens to a crew that goes into
battle in a ship “next expected to be survivable” for the battle?
My hope is that in helping the US military prepare for the future, this committee constantly
looks to the potential worst day of he future of war, not the best.
Challenge the Assumptions
From the rise of great powers to the introduction of new classes of technology to waves of
globalization, we are living through a series of sweeping changes that impact the
fundamental where, when, how, and even who of war. Child soldiers, drone pilots, and
hackers all now play a role in war. Still, especially given the overreach of acolytes of network-
centric warfare during the last 1990s drawdown (who argued that technology would
somehow solve all our problems, "lifting the fog of war"), it must be noted that nothing
changes the why of war — our human flaws and mistakes still drive conflict, whether it is
fought with a stone or a drone.
Nor does it mean that we can ignore the historic lessons of war, where we repeatedly fall
prey to what HR McMaster has described as key “myths” of war. War will never be perfect.
Indeed, when military aircraft gained widespread adoption in the 1920s, a new breed of
thinkers like Billy Mitchell and Giulio Douhet claimed that there would be no more need for
old ground armies. Yet the need for "boots on the ground" lived on throughout the 20th
century — just as it will live on into the 21st.
Such caveats are not to say that the new technologies like the tank or the airplane weren’t
fundamental shifts in the last century or that the dynamic shifts should be ignored in ours. If
the United States wants to hold on to its grip on the top, just spending more is no longer
sustainable, nor the right answer. Much as both military and civilian leaders in the British
Empire had to rethink their assumptions about the world, our old assumptions need to be
re-examined today.
We must be open to change across the system, from rethinking how we conduct
professional military education (such as by making the war college more competitive and
encouraging and rewarding more externships to diversify thinking and exposure to new
technologies and concepts) to re-examining the very roles we envision for weapons. Just as
the B-52 went being conceived as a strategic nuclear bomber to offering powerful close air
support capabilities, we might see everything from submarines gaining new utility by
becoming more akin to aircraft carriers for unmanned air and sea systems or long range
strike bombers complicating enemy access denial plans by taking on roles once handled by
jet fighters and AWACs and RPA controllers. Much is possible, if we allow ourselves to
break free of the status quo and experiment our way into the future.
To continue that Interwar years parallel, we will benefit from programs more akin to the
Louisiana Maneuvers and Fleet Problem exercises that broke new ground and helped
discover the next generation of both technology and human talent, rather than an approach
that focuses on validating present capabilities and approaches and/or making allies feel
better about themselves.
Any true change will be uncomfortable, of course, as there will be winners and losers in
everything from the defense marketplace to personnel systems. And it is to be expected that
necessary change will inevitably be resisted, sometimes for valid reasons, sometimes for
reasons that have nothing to do with battlefield performance. For instance, the British not
only invented the tank and used it successfully in World War I, but they carried out a series
of innovative tests during the interwar years on the famous Salisbury plain that showed just
how game-changing tanks could be in the next conflict. Yet the British veered away from
fully adapting to the Blitzkrieg concept they arguably birthed, largely because of the
consequences that implementing it would have had on the cherished regimental system that
was at the center of British military culture. This was not just a British phenomenon; as late
as 1939, the head of the U.S. Cavalry, Maj. Gen. John Knowles Herr was testifying to
Congress about the superiority of horse forces and resisting the shift to mechanized units.
We should be mindful of any parallels today. This resistance will sometime be direct and
sometimes be behind the scenes, including by claiming never to be satisfied budget wants
prevent change, when that is what should be causing it.
In this time of strategic and technologic shift, my hope is that the committee will be
constantly challenging the status quo and the underlying assumptions about what is and is
not changing.
Conclusions
There are two quotes that can serve as guide posts in this effort, one looking back and one
forward. The first is from the last interwar period, where Churchill may have said it best:
"Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of
clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation
strikes its jarring gong — these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of
history."
The second is from a professor at China’s National Defense University, arguing in a regime
newspaper how his own nation should contemplate the future of war:
“We must bear a third world war in mind when developing military forces.”
We need to be mindful of both the lessons of the past, but also acknowledge the trends in
motion and the real risks that loom in the future. That way we can take the needed steps to
maintain deterrence and avoid miscalculation, and in so doing, keep the next world war
where it belongs, in the realm of fiction.
Biography
Peter Warren Singer is Strategist and Senior Fellow at New America, a nonpartisan thinktank
based in Washington DC. New America’s funding, including full list of donors and amounts
can be found at: https://www.newamerica.org/contribute/#our-funding-section
Singer is also the author of multiple bestselling and award-winning books, including most
recently Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War, an editor at Popular Science, where he
runs the Eastern Arsenal blog on Chinese military technology, and a consultant for the US
military, intelligence community, and entertainment industry. Further background at
www.pwsinger.com

Joe Biden’s Final Humiliation and the Fight Ahead

 

Alleged President Joe Biden’s cowardly capitulation to the will of the Democrat elite validated the cruel truth that we have always known about him – and that he has always known about himself. He’s a quitter. He’s a loser. He’s weak, and he’s stupid, the Democrat Party’s Fredo, given – by default – responsibility beyond running a nightclub out in the boondocks or picking somebody up from the airport and, predictably, botching it. Joe Biden is the ultimate personification of the Peter Principle, the only principle he has ever demonstrated. 

Good riddance. 

I guess that the Trump +7 Michigan poll on Sunday kind of put a nail in the coffin of Joe Biden’s dreams of a legacy of adequacy. It sure was a smart move to spend $320 million on that pier and to screw over Israel to lock down the Michigan vote. But that’s Joe – always wrong, always inept, always blowing it – yet always convinced he’s a prodigy and a visionary. It would be funny if his incompetence had not gotten so many people killed, from our troops to citizens murdered by coddled criminals and illegal aliens he invited on in.

Biden feels no shame; his crime family apparently lacks the necessary genes. A normal person would be utterly humiliated at having to surrender after making a babbling and incoherent spectacle of himself in an ambush debate he demanded. The question is whether Biden is still smart enough to be embarrassed or whether he is so demented as not to understand just how much of a punchline he has made himself. Joe Biden will always and forever be the guy too senile to be president, to the extent he’s remembered at all. Jimmy Carter has now lived long enough to see himself overcome his legacy as the worst president of the last hundred years, and the ghost of James Buchanan can console himself that Slobberin’ Joe still has another six months to lift from him the title of Worst President in American History.

With his towering ego and rock-bottom talent, Joe Biden is now faced with the reality that he will be – if we are lucky and he doesn’t get us all conquered or killed in the next half year – a mere footnote in history. Don’t go away mad, Joe. Just go away. Your rocker and Matlock await.

Of course, he’s not resigning from office, though his submission to the demands that he withdraws proves he cannot fulfill his duties. That kind of unselfish act would be putting his country above himself and, therefore, be totally out of character. He is, was, and remains a grubby little mediocrity who managed to beat the bottom-run competition in his tiny garbage state after lucking into a seat in the Senate that he could’ve never hoped to earn in a real state. His imposter syndrome and inferiority complex led to his reputation for bizarre lies among those paying attention, even as the Senator from Citibank cultivated his fraudulent framing of Middle-Class Joe. Barack Obama is no dummy and was never fooled by his creepy veep. Barack Obama always had contempt for Joe because he knew him, and he picked Joe because Joe was a reassuringly mediocre guy with an undeserved image as an “amiable dunce” who wouldn’t provide any competition or steal the limelight. Barack Obama treated Joe with the appropriate condescension. He mocked Joe privately, allowed his jibes to be made public, and then denied Joe Biden the chance to run in 2016. That always grated on Joe Biden, as it should have, because it reflected the contempt those who know Joe Biden have for him. Now history will portray him as what he is, a doddering clown and a grubby, corrupt scumbag who couldn’t even stagger his way through a full term without making a fool of himself.

We will soon see what the Democrats will do, having cut the anchor that was their senile incumbent, but what we can hope is that they tear themselves to shreds. I think they will rally around Kamala quickly. She has Biden’s endorsement and Hillary’s too, so how could that go wrong? But Kamala is somehow even more unpopular than Joe is, so others might be tempted to step in. An open convention would be amazingly hilarious, and the elite that booted Biden will try to avoid it. But what if the other competitors do not fall in line? Who else is in the mix? Ghastly crone Gretchen Whitmer, the Shrill and Disproving Roommate of America’s College Girlfriend, may jump in. So might Governor Hairstyle, fresh from ruining California. Maybe Pete Buttigieg will take a break from calling roads racist to get in. Everyone says Mayor Pete is a genius and a generational talent, especially Mayor Pete. Hopefully, they will shred each other, but they might also see 2024 as a losing cause and keep their powder dry for 2028.

Advertisement

If someone has to fail, let it be Kamala. After all, that’s her brand.

There is no way Kamala is going to get out of the way and just let this opportunity pass by. This is someone who got with Willie Brown and Montell Williams, so there’s no depth she won’t descend to in order to get what she wants. She gets access to Joe’s campaign money, which the other candidates don’t. She checks the DEI boxes, which give her a huge edge in the circus, which is the Democratic Party. The Party is likely to unify around her fairly quickly. This week, we will see an enormous fundraising spike designed to show us that the Party is behind her. The regime media will swoon with adoration. She might be uncharacteristically smart and pick a solid running mate – Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro is the worst for us, but he also creates cracks within the coalition she will need to build because, frankly, so many of her voters hate Jews.

She will see a poll bump—how long it lasts is the issue. She will definitely upend the race, and she will at least temporarily have some momentum. What do we do in response? Fight, fight, fight, to quote her opponent after he got shot (If we had a real media, a reporter would ask Her Incoherency whether she agrees with a third of her voters that Trump faked the shooting). The Border Czarina is vulnerable. She’s a mush-mouthed halfwit with a track record of failure. Normal people find her annoying, and her negatives are high. It is unclear how effectively the coming regime media tongue-bath will clean her up.

Trump needs to handle this latest black swan event wisely. He’s got great instincts, and he has certainly thought this through along with his campaign advisers, who have been doing a fantastic job during this campaign. There will be a debate, and Trump will be able to point out that she knew Biden was senile and lied to their own voters; she will probably respond that we should look to the future, which lies ahead of us in the future that has not yet happened. Watch for the CNN and MSNBC harridans to proclaim her the rhetorical love child of Cicero and Pericles while ordinary people scratch their heads.

I’m not worried about the Trump campaign. I’m concerned about us Republican voters, taking for granted that we’re going to win this thing easily. It’s not going to be easy. Kamala Harris can very well win this election. She will have countless dollars and the enthusiastic support of the regime media. She will harness the power of cheating. Remember, a significant number of people would have voted for a demented old husk; they will vote for her, too.

Guys, we’ve got to fight. We’ve got to fight hard. We can’t get complacent. We’re not a few points ahead. We are 10 points behind, and we have got a play like it. Get out there and organize. Volunteer. And when you get your ballot, fill it out that day and mail it back in. Then, tell everybody you know to fill out their ballot that day and mail it back in. We can’t slack off. We can’t rest. This is the time to supercharge it. Get on it. It’s a whole new race, and we have no idea how that’s going to break down, but we do have an idea of how we can win by outworking them. And that’s what we have to do.

But you should remember to take some time to laugh at Joe Biden because that corrupt, desiccated, and perverted moron deserves his humiliation. Rub it in.