Saturday, October 22, 2016

Saturday Afternoon Cigar

I smoked a New World cigar as I continued reading through the Tom Clancy novels.  I finished The Cardinal of the Kremlin and started Clear and Present DangerGlorious Hat came in handy, as it was only 50 degrees today.  Remember Comrades, winter is coming!

From Cardinal of the Kremlin:
(P 21) To Russians, who rarely had enough of anything, "having enough" meant having more than anyone else - preferably more than everyone else.  Ryan thought it evidence of a national inferiority complex, and reminded himself that people who feel themselves inferior have a pathological desire to disprove their own perceptions.


(P 422)  If there was anything Russians hated, it was to be looked down on, and most of all by the Americans, to who they had a terminal inferiority complex.


(P 698)  "Our weapons make us equals!  Alexandrov objected.
"But what advantage do they give us when the West has weapons, too?  Is there anyone around this table who is content to be equal to the West?  Our rockets do that for us," Narmonov said, "but there is more to national greatness than the ability to kill.  If we are to defeat the West, it cannot be with nuclear bombs - unless you want the Chinese to inherit our world." Narmonov paused.  "Comrades, if we are to prevail we have to get our economy moving!"

The price of oil is high right now, around $50/barrel.  Here is Russia's oil-price requirement (from last August):

Hillary's main campaign theme seems to be, "elect me, and we'll go to war with Russia."  She's upset her private email server communications (and her many crimes) are coming to light, and she thinks Russia is behind it.

I'm just a simple hat maker who is the product of American public schools, but I have to ask: 
Why would Russia want to hurt the weakest candidate's chances at getting elected? 
Russia has enjoyed a weak US President for 8 years who has cancelled anti-ballistic systems in Poland and elsewhere, who has helped ISIS and the formation of the Caliphate in the Middle East, and who has purged the war-fighting leadership in the US military. Shouldn't they want four more years of this?

Bottom line: Russia is no military threat to the US at any level except the ultimate, non-option: total thermonuclear war.

The only variable that runs counter to this is a Democrat Party President. They know their history, and they have many stories of missed opportunities where a Republican replaced a Democrat and changed the geopolitical landscape at Russia's expense.  Recall, Reagan was the first Cold War President that reversed the Communist expansion into other countries.

$50 oil, thanks to US fracking and Saudi over-production, is killing Russia.  A President Trump will call their bluster bluff bs and meet them head-on in any regional misstep.  Putin has three months left to achieve his goals via illegal means.  Then, assuming Trump wins, Putin is stuck fixing internal problems the old fashion way: through hard work, sacrifice and all other legal means.


Check out this updated post suggesting the World needs to see a live demo of a nuclear weapon: Hiroshima Day - or- Nukes: Time for a Live Demo.
I can assure you that having the entire world tune in for "The Live Demo" -- and the whole world will tune in -- shall give the entire planet pause. It's not enough for humans to be told about nukes. Every so often, we need to see to believe.

And if you give some thought to this you'll be far ahead of any #NeverTrumper: It was our restrictions on steel exports to Japan that brought them into WWII.  They came to the [incorrect] realization that they had more to lose by not going to war.  Is Russia feeling the same way with $50 oil, a declining population and other internal stresses?  And if so, what would have a stabilizing effect: strong US leadership, or weak US leadership?

UPDATED 10.23.16 Noon:

1 comment:

Paul Bonneau said...

Nah, I don't buy it.

It's not a matter of weaker and stronger candidates. "Weak" and "strong" are dependent on a lot of things, not just the psychology of the person in question (for example, the percentage of people who support him). And even if you can straighten that out, it does not follow that good things follow from "strong" presidents, or bad things from "weak" ones. Hitler was strong; look what he did to Germany in the end. The best 20th Century president, Warren Harding, did essentially nothing in office, cut taxes and let people be.

Considering a single factor, the likelihood of getting into nuclear war, Hillary is significantly worse than Trump. But the individual voter really has no say in it, do we?