Dan R Allen wrote:

> Mark:
> If, however, you are making an oblique reference to the fall of nukes,
> well, what good would it do to ask for US assistance?  The damage would
> already be done.  And the US couldn't stop the missiles in any case.  NMD
> will not work and will not be built.
> Dan:
> Actually, it would work, (has in multiple tests),

Tests that would not pass scientific scrutiny, because the criteria were defined
ex post facto. Put into plain English, the tests failed miserably and the
Pentagon went into full spin control. Not a single test missile fired from
Kwajalein has ever hit a target when decoys were present. So the Pentagon simply
took that requirement out of its criteria, and, bingo! Success!

> but I agree that it
> probably will not be built. The cost is to great in a world that is
> beginning to rely on other means.

I realize that, despite my anti-war stance (which I think is not only
"compatible" with LDS teaching, but is "normative" LDS teaching; that is, a core
doctrine), in the real world in which we live we're going to have to have
military power. And better the USA as a hyperpower than the Soviet Union or the
Chinese. But even benign "empires" can cause a lot of "collateral damage" (both
literally and figuratively) because they also have the interests of themselves in
their guise as nation-states, not just as "world policemen" to mind.

So what's the solution? Basically I think it's for the US to support a multipolar
political-military world order in which the regions would be independent within
their spheres but cooperating with each other (and the first obstacle to that
latter is that they have to be democracies. I think someone once said that no
governments with true democratic governments have ever waged war against each
other. i don't know if that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised. But I digress).

This is me fantasizing here, in descending order of the quality of drugs I'm on
in each scenario ;-)

1. NAFTA/Caribbean, or "Northern Zion". US dominant nation-state, but free trade
[real free trade -- no subsidies for Congressmen's pet interests], and regionally
integrated military similar to NORAD, where soldiers wear, in effect, two hats:
their own country's but on some mission's, NAFTA's. This already happens between
Canada and the US -- all 2100 of the personnel we had at the height of our
involvement in Afghanistan were ultimately under US command. We didn't take this
as an "assault on our sovereignty" -- we only had a unit which at best was at the
brigadier-general level. But it's even worked the other way around, believe it or
not. My late father-in-law was a medic for the 17th Airborne and jumped twice,
once during the Battle of the Bulge and once on the Rhine, near Wesel. His unit,
the 17th Airborne, was a division, and commanded by a major-general, but that
major-general reported to the British 8th Army (a lieutenant-general) who in turn
reported to Field Marshal Montgomery (who in turn reported to 5-star general
Eisenhower). But at the divisional level they were under British command.
Likewise, the Deputy CO of what I think is called the US 5th Army, a domestic
military district covering most of the midwest and headquartered in Texas (San
Antonio, I think) is a Canadian lieutenant-general. He has US servicemen
reporting to him the same way they would to a US 3-star general [there are a
couple of limitations: he can't order a court martial, for instance, minor things
like that]. Why? Is the US Army short of 3-star generals that you have to import
a Canadian to help command your heartland military district? No -- it's because
we don't theatres that operate at the Army or even the Corps level, so in an
officer exchange program we often second our officers to work with US forces.  At
NORAD there are 4 shifts: the USAF shift, the US Army shift, the USN shift, and
the Canadian shift. The DCO of all of Cheyenne Mountain complex is a Canadian
lieutenant-general*. But NORAD has another headquarters, albeit a smaller one,
and that's at North Bay, Ontario (that's where Kennedy wanted the Bomarcs based,
incidentally). Here a similar arrangement, but in reverse, is in operation: the
CO is a Canadian Lieutenant-General and the DCO is a US major-general (2-star

*trivioid: the SF show Stargate SG-1, which starts off with a view of a truck
going into Cheyenne Mountain, is a Canadian show; the actors are mostly Canadian
and some had to take elocution courses to drop their "eh"'s and slow their speech
down to what US speakers are used to. ObNameDrop: I've toured Cheyenne Mountain
as part of a defence trade mission to Colorado Springs.

Anyway, I'm really rambling, so let me close with a reference to an article that
explains all of this better than I can. It was published in The Atlantic Monthly
earlier this year and is available online: "A New Grand Strategy":

Oh, and the other regions I see are:

2.    The EU
3.    Part of what was the old USSR, but less the Baltic countries, but still
including the Caucasus and Central Asia.  Russia would dominate.
4.    Southern Zion: South America. Brazil would dominate.
5.    Southeast Asia/Oceania: Indonesia, Malaysia/Singapore and Australia would
all dominate
6.    Far East: Philippines up to Japan, incl. Micronesia -- Japan would cominate
(yes, I know this is shades of the "Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," but
remember that I said a requirement would be recognition of natinal sovereignty
and true democracy in all member countries.
7.    West Africa: old French/British West Africa (Nigeria would dominate)
8.    North Africa (the Maghreb, from Morocco to Egypt, and Sudan, Chad, Mali,
Mauritania) (Egypt would dominate)
9.    East Africa (Somalia and Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania) Kenya
would dominate.
10.    Central Africa (the two Congos, Gabon, Rwanda, Burundi) DR Congo would
11.    Southern Africa (the old "front line states" of Zambia, Angola, Namibia,
Zimbabwe, Malawi, South Africa, Madagascar, etc. South Africa would dominate.
12.    South Asia: India would dominate (I know about Pakistan, but the drugs are
getting worse and worse here...)
13.    East Asia: China would dominate (see above comment; I am now smoking
highly adulerated stuff).
14. Middle East, with Palestine re-united with Jordan and Israel with secure,
recognized borders. Would actually be dominated by a triumvirate: Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, and Iran.

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to