Alternate Scenario Leyte Gulf
By October 1944, Imperial Japan had less than a year left. Most historians say by then it was too late for Tokyo to avoid defeat--if it ever stood a chance. Conceivably, though, by pursuing a different approach at Leyte, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) could've radically altered the course of the war. One possible alternate scenario:
- First, the Japanese don't divide the ships sailing from Brunei. All IJN vessels head for Letye via the Sibuyan sea, including those which historically entered the Surigao strait. A single IJN commander (other than Kurita) commands the entire fleet of battleships, cruisers and destroyers, including Shima's force, which joins it. The diversionary force, with its carriers, sorties from Japan as in real life, and does its utmost to attract attention. IJN submarines do not patrol near Leyte gulf but accompany the carrier force, in an attempt to ambush pursuers.
- As soon as the US subs Darter and Dace detect the IJN fleet in the Palawan passage, and radio its position and course, the Japanese increase speed to about 20 knots to make it more difficult for the subs to maneuver ahead into attack positions. In addition, they use searchlights to locate the shadowing subs. Once they're found, the Japanese ships drive them under with fire but don't send destroyers to hold them down yet. The idea is just to prevent losses such as the historical torpedoing of Kurita's flagship Atago, and other cruisers.
- Soon after diving, the US subs, although behind the IJN fleet and unable to attack, surface to resume reporting the enemy's course and speed. At first, around the morning of October 24th, the Japanese fleet does not enter the Sibuyan Sea but continues northward a while to make it appear it intends to join the carrier force near Cape Engano (which the US fleet discovered later on October 24th).
- Soon after the IJN fleet has passed the entrance to the Sibuyan Sea, i.e. apparently has no intention of entering it, Darter and Dace radio this information--their first radio message at this point will presumably mention it. As soon as the IJN fleet hears their transmission, with its presumed message, it reverses course, relocates the US subs and holds them down with four or five destroyers from Shima's force. No longer shadowed, the IJN fleet then enters the Sibuyan sea. The US Admirals Kinkaid and Halsey are informed of the enemy's northward progress but not its advance into the Sibuyan Sea. By the evening of the 24th, when the carrier force is located they presume the whole Japanese fleet is massing near Cape Engano. Halsey moves north to intercept it, as in real life, leaving Kinkaid's weaker fleet to guard the landing force at Letye gulf.
- On its way north, Halsey's force encounters some IJN subs, and suffers a few losses. He retains more than enough strength to keep pressing north, however.
- By the morning of the 25th, the IJN fleet passes the San Bernardino Strait and advances south, past the east coast of Samar as it did historically. In this scenario, "Taffy" aircraft soon detect it and warn Kinkaid, who orders the vulnerable CVEs away while sending his battleships and cruisers north to meet the enemy. Therefore the Japanese do not see any light carriers or accompanying vessels, hence are not diverted from their southward course. The big IJN fleet heads straight for Leyte gulf. Soon it encounters Kinkaid's fleet and a massive sea battle begins.
- After spotting Kinkaid's fleet, the Japanese admiral orders an initial attack with destroyers. Their torpedoes sink or cripple several US battleships and cruisers. The IJN commander then orders his most effective warships, including Yamato and Musashi, to finish off the rest of the US fleet in a running battle eastward. A smaller force of older battleships including Fuso, Haruna and Kongo stay behind to pound the US cargo ships, supplies and troops ashore. After Kinkaid's fleet is demolished the best IJN vessels return to add their firepower to the bombardment. US forces suffer very heavy casualties on land and at sea. Many thousands of American sailors and soldiers die. Around nightfall on the 25th, the IJN fleet heads down the Surigao strait to return to Brunei.
posted by starman at 6:43 AM
42 Comments:
Using that strategy might have brought better results for Japan. But the U.S. could still have brought Japan down by using total war in terms of bombing. Nuclear weapons could have forced Japan into a surrender if enough of them were used.
Hi Neal. It is true that by the time of Leyte, the US held Saipan, so it still could've resorted to massive conventional (and later nuclear) bombing, had it decided to continue the conflict. This scenario, however, envisages an end to the Pacific war by the end of 1944, before the US had the atomic bomb. Had the scheme outlined here worked, US losses could've been so high, and the effect on public opinion so profound, the US may have had no choice but to end the war on terms acceptable to Japan--especially if the IJN emerged unscathed from the battle, hence was still potentially deadly.
Very interesting military analysis which I'm not qualified to comment on other than that it sounds plausible to me. But politically and diplomatically I must say that we should not have fought Japan in WW II but not only permitted but helped them build their Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Of course as it happened they were so brutal e.g. the rape of Nanjing, as well as the Philippines etc etc but much of that brutality was mostly occasioned precisely because we were fighting them and none of their brutality comes close to matching ours in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. The GEACPS could have been a good thing if supported with possibilities for humanistic influence. I know what I am saying is abhorrent to most Americans and would need a great deal more explanation than the average American is willing to listen to so I will probably have to keep my mouth shut about it alas.
Ha! I appreciate your input anyway Roger. It is true that the US itself was expansionist at the expense of native Americans. The GEACPS might've preempted communism in Asia and led to more economic progress sooner. I also think the US was too inflexible before the war, by refusing to end its embargo--which caused Japan to go to war--on any terms short of a Japanese withdrawal from China.
I agree although actually I didn't know that that (withdrawal from China) was the terms we were requiring, I guess that seems pretty obvious but I hadn't run across it before. Anyhow now I wanted to go back to some of the questions we were discussing back on the Muragi thread.
First, I am thinking of what kinds of empires I would support--I still have dreams of having some influence some day, plus maybe there are enough people like me to make a difference, and the only way I would support any empire would be if it were dedicated to some humanistic objective, such as solving poverty, creating universal prosperity, and going into space.
The biggest of these objectives to me is building universal prosperity. I can foresee this being accomplished within 100 years via a 5% annual growth rate in global mean per-capita income, which would double it every 14 years, from like $10,000 now to $1 million. THAT amount should enable the average person to travel widely in space and build domes, cities, and houses everywhere. Combined with a huge decrease in inequality, it could mean that even the world's poorest people should have incomes of $150,000 or so, which, if they save it up for many years, will enable even them to go into space. Of course, this would require more study of exactly how the money would be used, such as to what extent it would be for consumption here on Earth vs how much must be invested in rockets, etc.
Surely you've heard of the Pax Romana and its benefits--two centuries of relative peace and prosperity. Some time ago, I posted here on Great Speeches, including that of Aristides. You may want to read the excerpts from his Roman Oration. Even slaves btw benefitted somewhat in this period--c 27 BCE to 235 CE.
I wouldn't want to improve living standards greatly unless global population fell substantially. Otherwise the strain on the environment could reach the breaking point. It's nearing the breaking point already with just a fraction of global population at "first world" status. Of course increased energy sources/efficiency and recycling will help but population control is still vital. Look at Egypt. I'm sure their GNP is much greater now than it was c 1965. But the average Egyptian still lives in grinding poverty simply because the population has exploded, from roughly 25 million then to nearly 100 million now.
I think only authoritarianism can really stop world population growth.
Thanks, I'll try to look up your references very interesting, and another thing I like about the Pax Romana was its great constructions like the aqueducts and their very expansiveness with reaching out as far as England and so on, it had a great progressive humanist component although I should know more about how they interacted with the peoples who inhabited what is now England, etc. The very fact that they were a vast empire also I think automatically opened up lots of opportunities for many people, even though that was not I guess any of their Caesars' intentions. But when I support the establishing of the World Government in the future, it is in large part because I believe that opening up and promoting and subsidizing and yes even mandating international travel (I want to build a World Army of 1-2 billion troops supposedly in order to enforce the post-WW III peace, but it's actually also to give everybody the chance to travel all over the world through a system of rotating assignments) and redistribution of wealth will vastly expand billions of people's opportunities as well as living standards.
We don't know enough about the sustainability of the economic system relative to resource depletion, pollution, climate change, etc., to say how many people the world can support at what standard of living, quality of life, and production. The world's governments are going to have to work out a long-range plan for global development taking all these things and technical advances into account; they just aren't aware of it yet but it has to be dawning on some of them during their great summit meetings from Copenhagen to Paris and so on, there must be many more such summits in the future; plus they do not as yet have sufficient interest in cooperating for the good of humanity. SINCE WE DO NOT YET KNOW the answer, I'm taking a cautiously optimistic stance because we can be very creative, intelligent and innovative when it comes to establishing better lives for the masses, I mean don't abandon this possibility prematurely. So many great ideas have hardly been tried, such as better sharing of available wealth, such as through mass transit replacing private autos, etc. I mean I am full of ideas that could make a differenced, because I am so interested and concerned about this. I mean you just can't declare that all such ideas won't work without having studied them.
BUT yes I agree with you general about population but the way I understand it is this, Egypt like the poor countries in general will have to rise up and smash the current evil world order in WW III, including the United States as the prime enforcer of that order, and establish a new order. That's what all those people are for. The terrible term for them is cannon fodder. They will die by the billions but they will transform the world and wiser world governance will result. The reason for Egyptians' suffering is not (or mot only) overpopulation, but even more it is due to bad government on the global scale.
So did you see the excerpts from Aristides? I'm sure The Roman Oration mentions race and class not being a barrier to anyone. Something to that effect but I don't recall if I copied that part. The point is, the Roman Empire at its height did mean a lot of opportunities for more people. Eventually nonRoman Italians, then provincials rose to prominence. Even former enemies of Rome like Etruscans and Illyrians attained the highest posts. Of course that's what I predict a World Government will be like.
I certainly hope a World Government doesn't need a billion or more troops to maintain itself! Part of its raisen d'etre will be to reduce global defense spending--cutting it back to the minimum needed to maintain world unity and order. Most "big ticket" weapons will be eliminated.
It may be hard to know how many people the world can support at what standard of living. It surely says something though, that the environment is already on the ropes even with a fraction of world population at "first world" level. I suppose we could "have our cake and eat it too" i.e. current population levels and higher living standards AND a good environment IF cleaner energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, fusion) came into general use and much industry was relocated to space.
I'll try to get back to your references within a few days but right now I'm really hot because I've been reading the newspaper--not recommended if you want to maintain an equable temper!--and it is one story after another that is just outrageous. To begin with the lesser of the two evils, notice how such countries as the US and Russia are condemning N. Korea for its supposed detonation of an H-bomb, this from the 2 countries that still have thousands of nukes in flagrant violation of the NPT which requires them to negotiate reductions, which, granted they started doing decades ago but have made no progress to speak of in many years now despite the obvious fact that neither is any threat to the other. O excuse me, Obama is guaranteeing the sovereignty and territory of the likes of Latvia, and I suppose that it's conceivable that Russia might try to promote unrest among the Russian peoples there like in Ukraine "forcing" our gov't to wage war against Russia--they are just that stupid and rotten. I'm not saying that we should just abandon poor little Latvia to whatever fate Putin might dream up for it, but at the worst, an almost unimaginable massive Russian invasion, we should just welcome Latvian refugees to well-supplied refugee camps in Europe or somewhere.
Even worse is the NE African famines spreading in Ethiopia and Sudan; the UN says they only have 5% of the money they need to feed the starving millions. They need $1.4 BILLION!!! 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!! As the richest country on Earth, shouldn't the US step up to help a little, esp. considering that with our carbon emissions over the last century we are possibly the very cause or significant contributor to their drought? Meanwhile we throw $SIX HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR into "defense", half of which goes for weapons that will never be used and serve no purpose whatsoever,, and the other half goes for waging unjust, immoral, illegal, and stupid wars that serve only to worsen the world situation, and don't pretend that our military might keeps the peace through "deterrence"--look at Brazil. I'd like to know what THEY spend on defense, I'll bet it's not over $20-30 B a year, there's a good comparison for what is actually needed for defense, a huge country with immense natural resources just ripe for the plucking!
Well, I don't suppose I have to lecture YOU on these issues! Forgive me for ranting and raving, I just have to get some of this off my chest. I will put it a little more strongly and succinctly: ALL OF THE DECENT PEOPLE ON EARTH LOATHE AMERICA WITH A PASSION.
It's obvious that no newspaper would publish this if I were to write a letter to the editor; but do you suppose that I could soften it enough that they MIGHT consider publishing it?
Sure if you'd like to get all this off your chest write a letter to the editor, "softened" if necessary to increase its chances of publication. Unfortunately not many are likely to see your views here...
Regarding nuclear double standards, the one that has long "burned me up" is Iran. Pressured by the US (or by Israel via the US where its toadies wield great influence) the world community got on Iran's back like crazy to force it to give up nuclear ambitions, while Israel gets away with possessing 1-200 n-bombs already! It's a glaring double standard yet the media has ignored it. We've been bombarded with claims that Iran's program poses a grave threat. Yet Tehran is well aware of the Israeli and US arsenals. It's deterred and only seeks a deterrent of its own. The sheer one sidedness of US policy, the appalling lack of objectivity and fairness, speak volumes about the degree of zionist power in this country.
As for African famines, what bothers me is the tendency to just "throw food" at problems of this kind. Famines result from environmental degradation and mismanagement. Various countries fail to stop population growth, resulting in land clearing, deforestation, loss of transpiration and rainfall, soil erosion and desertification. Unless the underlying causes are addressed, feeding the hungry is at best a temporary solution, or no solution.
I agree with you about the gov't's unfairness regarding Iran. Obama seems proud of his treaty but it's a heap a shit because it completely ignores the whole question of Israel, the elephant in the living room.
Of course you are right too about the need for long-term real solutions to the problem of hunger in Africa and the third world in general--and it is truly outrageous that the rich countries are ignoring their duties there as well. oops out of time again...
Now I was able to get back onto the library computer to hopefully continue with points I wanted to make. There is the Zionist power in this country you mention, but there is something else rotten too that contributes to their bad policies, which I think is a combination of racism (Jews are considered white while Arabs are seen as darker) and classism (Jews are rich, Arabs are poor--except, of course, for our great friends the Saudis and the Kuwaitis), educationism and democracyism (Jews having more education and "democracy" such as it is [plutocracy, I still will say perhaps we should get back to our debate about that]) and the rich white educated people's condemnation of poor dark illiterate people's struggles to get ahead, which can often be only by illegal means (crime and war).
Back to population growth, you know, all of the world's borders are wrong and will have to be adjusted by hundreds to thousands of miles, which will require WW III to accomplish. If Ethiopia, for example, had 10 times its area, it could well support its population with plenty of not only food but prosperity. In other words, to speak of limits to any country's population growth assumes that we and they have to accept their present borders as the limits to their expansion and that is totally insane as you know, Sykes Picot and all that and many African borders were even more stupidly and recklessly drawn or just evolved along with all sorts of ***natural injustice***: droughts, blacks being born with superior physical prowess enabling them to excel in sports, etc. (did you read about LeBron James contract with Nike to pay him $30 million a year for the rest of his life?) SO unfair!! Any halfway decent government would tax that at 99% rate and of course he is far from the only one, this kind of injustice is clear across the board and is one of the factors contributing to the African famines. Of course, that would require World Government to tax such excesses for revenues to help the world's poor...
But the failures of both rich and poor countries in the past to address the long-term problems in no way excuses the US now for its failure to help feed the Africans starving today.
So many more things I wanted to comment on but time is too short, but one thing was I'm glad that we agree on one of the humanistic benefits of great empires like the Roman and the future WG.
Anyhow I'm in a festive mood because I think we are now seeing the beginning of the collapse of the evil global economic system, e.g., stocks down 1100 points in the first week of the new year, Hooray! And the government thinks our economy is doing just great with 292,000 new jobs added; by the time they realize how wrong they are, the collapse will be well under way too late to stop it. It is slightly reminiscent of China's great tragedy, the 1960 famine. Mao thought his economic policies were working; by the time he realized that they weren't 30 million peasants had died.
Good to see you agree with my above points. :)
I don't think the power of the pro-Israel lobby and the Jews stems from race or education. Three key factors explain it: 1) The wealth of the Jews, much of which is used to underwrite candidates favorable to their agenda, 2) their passionate attitude and 3) perhaps most important, general ignorance. Despite the great geopolitical and economic importance of the Arabs, generally the only people who vote on the basis of Mideast policy are the Jews, or Israel's supporters. I've long cited this as an example of how democratic government distorts foreign policy. The US is prevented from acting in its OWN interests--as opposed to Israeli interests--by domestic politics. Most people are to dumb to understand the greater importance of the arabs or Muslims-- including Iran etc--so only the pro-Israel bunch exerts influence via the democratic process. It's a dangerous luxury and IMO will ultimately prove a fatal flaw.
I doubt most African countries can solve their problems by expanding, since so much of the continent is desert or already occupied.
Last point first: Yeah, as a practical matter, poor countries cannot PEACEFULLY solve their problems by expanding because the lands near them are already occupied (or are wastelands); but when all peaceful legal ways of advancing are closed to them, such as will happen in the oncoming Great Depression, they will turn to war, namely to kill off those who now occupy those lands--much as the Americans did in the 1800s to take the Midwest and West from Indians and Mexicans (although they would seem to have lacked the exculpatory exonerating factor of having all peaceful opportunities of advance foreclosed to them. On the other hand, they did not have any progressive economic philosophy, so in that way, peaceful opportunities WERE closed to them. The poor counties will therefore kill each other off in huge numbers and it's largely the fault of the world's richest countries led by the US for imposing "the Washington consensus" (neoliberalism [capitalism]) on the world.
While I agree with you on the 3 factors you listed as giving the Jews such inordinate power in our gov't, I still think classism educationism and democracyism account for some of the bias. Many nice people who've led sheltered lives look down on the ignorant, illiterate and uneducated "brutes" who often ARE brutes due to their lack of opportunities. Also 2 more points as you yourself note here, our gov't's policy is overly influenced by wealthy people--plutocracy, not democracy; plus the fact is that this shows the evils of defining democracy, a universalistic philosophy, as being within one nation. If our policy were based on WORLD democracy, as you note, the Arabs and Muslims would play a vastly greater role than the Jews, just as the world's poor would play a vastly greater role than the world's rich, so contrary to what happens today.
And to get back to an earlier topic, you're right that once the fires of WW III are exhausted or extinguished, there would be no need for a billion-troop World Army; and I have to admit to a lapse in my own mind, when I was writing my novel of the future in 1975-80, I don't seem to have noticed that I was putting a FIFTH of the world's adults in that WA! I seemed to have imagined that only about 1/20 of the world's adults were in it. How I would reconceptualize it today would be something like this, the World "Army" is actually a gigantic full-employment programme intended to boost wage levels in the 150 or so poor countries by giving 1-2 billion people jobs doing every kind of useful work along with a few months of military training during a 4-year term of duty. So what if they never use that military training, it is still a good experience for most of them! (Except, in my novel, for my main character--for him, that training is Hell, which helps motivate my novel's plot.)
It is true that for many years the Jews here touted Israel's democracy as a reason the US should support it. As I've written, policy should be based on real interests not values. Israeli democracy can't run our cars or heat our homes. There's no doubt the pro-Israel groups are, for various reasons, at once extremely powerful and detrimental--to this country, the Mideast and ultimately the world. It'll take a major upheaval to break their power and usher in a new order--devoid of the democracy which empowered such groups.
I've long predicted that the military will increase due in part to automation eliminating private sector jobs. Maybe there WILL be a billion man army. Ha. But I doubt the World Government will need a fifth that many. Most military people will not be armed but engaged in civilian tasks like environmental rehabiliatation, space expansion etc.
Yeah, we seem to agree that the "World Army" will be engaged in lots of nonmilitary things.
But when you say policy should be based on interests rather than values, it seems like you are talking about NATIONAL (U.S.) policy. One of the great points of *World Government* policy is that its interests should align well with its values. Also, policy based on values got an undeservedly bad name due to the damned neocons. I would really support intelligent policies based on promoting freedom and democracy, but the damned neocons "tried to promote them" (so they asserted) with stupidity and war, mass murder and destruction.
I do believe that ideally there should be both WG policy and national policies, and, since I hope that wiser people will be in the WG, they will be able to strongly influence national policies in a direction more well aligned with the interests and values of all humanity. Part of what's going on is that the US elites/ruling class, as the leadership of the sole remaining superpower, seems to think of itself as running the world. They think they know how to run the world and man oh man, they DON'T, and they think they are morally superior to other countries, and man oh man they AREN'T!!!!!
Sure I meant US national interests. In my view, policy based on values already had a bad rep as far back as the arab oil embargo of 1973. As I've written it's instructive that NO other nation backs Israel like the US.
Freedom and democracy shouldn't be promoted since they tend to preclude essential sacrifices. I was amazed and disappointed by all the support given to Tianamen demonstrators in 1989, despite China's amazing ability, under authoritarian rule, to have a one child policy. Why replace efficacious government with one which does nothing while its country becomes a overcrowded cesspool?
It sounds oxymoronic to have both World Government and national policies; the raisin d'etre of a World Government is to eliminate national soveriengty in the interest of overall global civilization. I agree that current US elites are trash but face it, the masses are ultimately to blame for voting for dopey politicians and making the rich wealthy in the first place. To a considerable degree, the rich got that way by catering to the masses--selling them what they want like booze and porn. Do they spend money on what we have to offer? :)
You raise a number of interesting points, even some of those we may have mentioned in the past but that deserve more discussion. One point I wanted to make is that there's a time for work and sacrifice, and another time for rest and enjoyment--happiness earned through your very hard work and sacrifice. Enjoyment of life is an important purpose of existing, of living; all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and so on, the Lord rested on the Seventh day and so on, a great point even if based in Christian mythology which we ourselves do not generally follow. I just do not believe in nothing but hard work and sacrifice forever, that is ultimately not going to make life worth living. The rhythm of life, a summer for the squirrel to store the acorns and a winter for him to eat out of his stored food; the football team plays with all their might for an hour but afterwards they join the ladies to party. One thing I often think of is that if we had a wise government, it would be accumulating surpluses instead of piling up its gigantic national debt, I'm sure we agree on that part, but I also do believe that there will come the day, when the WG will have stored up a surplus of say $500 trillion, and that from then on, succeeding generations will gradually draw it down--and rightly so at first, but it is certainly foreseeable too that a time of decadence will ultimately ensue when governments will again be running deficits, though that could be a thousand years from now, in a fantastically expanded Solar System empire including maybe a hundred or two neighboring solar systems and maybe a dozen or two alien civilizations, with fantastically advanced technology, etc.--even if we still have no gravity shield, time travel, or warp drive etc.
In some ways you remind me of one of my favorite philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, who insisted that the Sovereign must have absolute and total unquestioning obedience, which I want to talk about more but first I would say that when I am thinking about that, the way I interpret it is that Hobbes is talking about an extreme situation--such as when the nation is under siege, under attack by mighty forces such as the USSR in 1941 etc., or an Alien Invasion of Earth. For which Hobbes offers the necessary solution but much more important in general 90% of the time is that our situation is NOT that dire, so that while we are best off to *support* the Sovereign/emperor/WG in general, we should maintain the right to argue and bear arms and even sometimes to fight them because as you know, in general the Sovereign is not infallible and down here among the 99%, the masses, are many (or at least us few :) ) who have better ideas. Truly I agree with the Founding Fathers, slavers and otherwise wicked though they may have been, that it's best to have a system of checks and balances most of the time, the exception being at the time of great crisis. But such crises cannot be our plight most of the time but maybe only 10% of the time or something. You could argue that since the Universe is full of highly advanced civilizations many of which are bound even if only by chance to be hostile, that we are ALWAYS in a state of crisis even when we suspect nothing, because although that enemy may be a thousand light years away today, they could be at our gates before we know it. But I would disagree because I think that when we become vastly more advanced, our main goal will be to help uplift and advance the backward worlds, we and the universe being so benign like the parents of little children. Granted, this is just based on wishful thinking :). That's why I want both a WG and significant power to remain at the national and/or regional level of governments.
You know, Roger, we've probably done more communicating here, in 2016 alone, than we did via postal mail in a typical year in the '90s. Your comment above is longer than many of my posts. :) But to address your views:
Sure, at a certain point in the future, when sacrifice has borne fruit, there should be a time to enjoy its benefits. A few points though. First, after mass automation, many people will have plenty of leisure time, on the dole, or even in government service. Since you can't expect much reward if you're basically not needed for much, the basic sacrificial orientation may be here to stay. Second, ideology itself will change from individualistic to wholistic. People will think more in terms of community and serving a greater common cause than in self seeking (although a modest amount of that is OK). Third, while much of the galaxy may be off-limits to Earthly expansion due to prior alien expansion, fully utilizing just our own solar system and perhaps nearby planetary systems, will be so time consuming and costly the sacrificial system may have to remain in place for quite some time.
True an authoritarian system may seem superfluous after crises have passed. But I've always argued that authoritarianism should exist on a continuing basis or the problems which led to it--problems threatening civilization itself and the whole planetary environment--could come right back. The idea is not only to master threats but to prevent their recurrence. If history shows that democracy and freedom lead to devastating problems, or are impotent in the face of them, it would be foolish and risky to bring them back. That apart from the need for authoritarianism to progress in space.
Yeah, we're talking a lot these days! Which is great because I think the rotten System is soon to collapse! I seem to agree with you on a lot of things but one extremely important point I have to make is that where there isn't enough work to go around, the Government has to redistribute it, share it out equally (like on a Spaceship, you know!), like say to offer everyone who wants an autoworker's job (they pay so well) a 12-hour work week or a rotating position that each person can hold for 5 months, say, instead of lifelong "possession" of that as a career. Sacrifice will be necessary sometimes but it is better to SHARE if that is a possibility, as it would be in this type of case. Then there's SHARED SACRIFICE which could be better than imposing all the sacrifices on one particular group of people.
Frankly, I don't think the present system will collapse soon. I've been predicting its collapse for 40 years, and once thought it would be finished off in 1993. Obviously that didn't happen. I'm still confident it'll ultimately crack, in a manner I've always foretold. But in recent years I've concluded its fall may not be consummated in my lifetime. For about the last ten years, my latest forecast--included in my books--is for an Ultimate Transition phase from c 2050-2100.
Of course all groups should have to sacrifice. It is possible though, that future society will consist of highly efficient clone or android slaves, besides pure machines, toiling for no pay, while a more human elite living in luxury and relative leisure oversees their efforts. I doubt there will be many autoworker or even spaceship assembly jobs in the future. They'll probably be among the first to be taken over by machines.
While no one can predict the future, I'll stick with my forecast of imminent collapse even though I've probably been predicting that at least as long as you have! If you think they can keep their rotten system going till 2050, I'd like to know what you think they may pull out next out of their bag of tricks, although of course it may be something of which we have no knowledge, like just now the thought occurs tome that GOVERNMENTS might start to play the DERIVATIVES game, which might yield quadrillions of rottendollars that might bubble along for what, 10-15 years before popping. Maybe in that way they could keep the GDP growing but remember, the governments of the world are ignoring their people's needs, so unemployment and poverty could rise right along with the rotten GDP and result in those gov'ts getting overthrown, as kind of an alternative to the strictly economic collapse which means a collapse in GDP.
The one big obvious trick that governments haven't turned to (yet) too much if at all is printing money inflation. The Fed in its Quantitative Easing was very much like printing money like that--and I think they were both surprised and appalled to find that they could print up $3 trillion without creating any CPI consumer price inflation. Next time a recession hits, they might find they have to print up $100 trillion, scary--and THAT at last might cause a ruinous German 1923-class hyperinflation.
As part of the world revolution, we'll be fighting to keep auto mfg jobs and spaceship mfg jobs open and available along with all kinds of other work. But I must admit that the outcome of this aspect of the global class struggle is unpredictable but very likely I would say you could well be right in the 2400-3000 epoch as Mankind, spaced out thinly throughout the Solar System lives off accumulated surpluses and is too dispersed to employ, forcing mfrs to turn to robot slaves or clones whatever alas! What a nightmare! But I have faith that probably centuries after THAT the situation will change again . . .
First, see my latest (January 16) comment in the "mysterious star" thread. Schaefer's findings are interesting. If you read the story yourself, you may wish to share your latest thoughts in that thread. :)
The transition to robot slaves has been underway for some time, and should have a profound impact before 2050, let alone 2400. :)
The transition to automation and robots will indeed have a terrific impact and real soon--it's creating the great depression and mass poverty that will provoke the World Revolution WW III--THAT will put an end to such automation/robots; but that ban will probably last only a couple hundred years. BTW Tim, I never heard back from you after I posted your ideas for terraforming Venus to my spacedreams.org website. I'm afraid that's because you didn't like it? Why not?
I certainly concur that automation will spur substantial change, but I doubt the upshot will be to empower most people. When they're basically just not needed anymore...And I don't think you can turn the clock back.
I'll get back to your specedreams.org. Btw I have a small electronic weather station with colorful displays. Last evening it still didn't forecast snow--just overcast--but this morning at 5 the station icons indicated snow....Oh well, what do you expect for January? :(
You know, when people aren't needed anymore, they CAN fight back, which is what Hitler was all about, when 25% of the German workforce wasn't needed anymore. It WAS wrong that they took it out on the innocent Soviet Union more than the global capitalists who were actually the ones who didn't need them anymore. So I can't use this as much of a successful example, I'll try to think of better ones although it is true too that much of the class that didn't need the 6 million Germans unemployed did include and was to a large extent composed of the financiers, many of whom were Jewish people whom the German workers DID successfully beat although of course the vast majority of Holocaust victims were innocent. Also Hitler believed that socialism Communism was to blame for a lot of Germany's problems for having ruined the economy during the Weimar years I'm afraid he had a bit of a point, so his invasion of the USSR makes some sense that way.
We CAN turn back the clock (halt unwarranted technological progress) if we get into power, that's what power is FOR is to improve people's lives. It's just a matter of outlawing certain machinery and giving businesses incentives to use more humanistically-beneficial technology. In many cases, of course, though, the better approach is to make workers SHARE the available work and leisure so that all can benefit.
Good as always to see you here. :)
I don't think you can compare depression era unemployment with that caused by a machines. The German unemployed WERE needed, if robust economic performance was to revive, or if the reich was to churn out adequate armaments. In contrast, future economic output might be as high as ever without 5% of humans contributing to it.
In theory you can get rid of technology you don't like but I doubt it'll happen. Inevitably people will buy the cheaper product even if it means a worker here will lose his job to a foreigner, or a robot. People are selfish. They won't get rid of technology that benefits THEM and I doubt they'll share work so OTHERS can benefit.
You make an interesting point about Jews being partly to blame for high unemployment in Germany. For many years, holocaust remembrance has made any criticism of jews taboo (indeed this is the actual PURPOSE of holocaust remembrance see e.g. Finkelstein THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY). This is absurd as no group of people should be above criticism.
Thanks, good to be here! :) You raise a bunch of interesting points but let me begin with the fact that people are selfish, it's true and yet they are wise enough to understand the need for self-restraint and even a little sacrifice where they can see that it is for the benefit of the whole, look at most people's willingness to pay taxes if they believe that the money is to be used for good purposes and that the tax burden is fairly distributed. Look at the great support for the high taxes and sacrifices Americans made in WW II which is admirable even though I don't believe we should actually have fought that war. I believe that my--ahem, "our" (not yet too clear just who is included in that!)-- vision of universal prosperity and a human destiny in Space could motivate people to similar sacrifice. I mean we all agree to refrain from robbing banks because we can see how everybody going along with that universal sacrifice is necessary for the public good. Another example is the arms-reduction agreements with the USSR, each side gave up a supposed advantage for the good of the world.
Generally sacrifice is unpopular and without coercion I doubt it'll be adequate to meet many challenges. Deficit spending is a good example as is NASA's paltry funding (In a recent year, Americans spent $ 88 billion on tobacco or alcohol alone while NASA got $20 billion). Excess carbon emissions are another example.
Don't you have any comment on the latest post? :) Whatever you want to say next, why not do so there?
Yeah, it is insane how this country misallocates its wealth but that is so much due to bad leadership. Where are our Lincolns and Roosevelts, Washingtons, Jeffersons and Madisons?? I do want to say more in this line of conversation but am a bit reluctant to do it under your latest post because too much scrambling, too much discontinuity. I'm looking forward to reading your latest but haven't had time yet.
OK hope you have time to read my latest post and add to the comments already there.
Wealth is certainly misallocated and wasted but current "leaders" aren't the fundamental problem. It's democracy, under which good leadership, willing to impose sacrifices for great common endeavors like space, is prevented to enable the masses to squander the nation's wealth on petty luxuries and vices. People complain that taxes are too high but look what they do with the money they have....
I will soon get to your latest but lemme respond to a couple of other points here first, beginning with your point that the unemployed Germans WERE needed--whether to revive robust economic production and/or supply German's armed forces with armaments. SO MUCH of that depends on the character and quality of the leadership; the weak leaders of the Weimar era had no ambition, no greater goals--that's why they had no "need" for the unemployed workers (while Hitler needed them for his great grandiose dreams fantasies of lebensraum and the Thousand Year Reich). By contrast, if it were possible for an idealistic person like myself (while you may well be right that democracy would prevent any such person from getting into power) to become leader, my great goals of building universal prosperity and enabling all to travel and migrate into Space, would for sure provide full employment because there is so much work to be done in spite of automation.
Now I read something about Urainus (note my spelling, I want it to be pronounced to rhyme with "Your Highness" by contrast with the 2 obscene traditional pronunciations) which calls into question my assumption of geothermal energy on the Ninth Planet: Urainus has no heat of formation! Its core is cold and it receives more radiation from the sun than it emits! An outer layer of clouds is up to 500 degrees, but layers below that are -360! What an incredible planet! I looked up Neptune, for comparison, superficially similar, but its core is as you would expect, 5,000 degrees although I can't recall whether that was F or C (K). So we don't know yet whether the 9th is more like Urainus or Neptune. Anyhow also I just had to get this too off my chest, I think Ted Cruz is finished despite winning in Iowa because of his wife. I have to say this: If you are any good at all, you will not work for Goldman-Sachs, you will not advise wealthy clients, you will not call them "people who have achieved the American Dream" (as she did), you will not go into politics in America, and you will not accept campaign loans or contributions of over $100, if you have at last any decency at all (taken from the Army-McCarthy hearings). I wonder if most people--and you--are ready to agree with that even if they already do hate Wall Street.
NOW I'll try to go to your new post :)
No doubt here's a tremendous amount of work to be done, to achieve a lot of goals--establishing a unified planetary government, solving environmental problems and expanding into space. It's hard to predict, though, how much of that will be done more efficiently by machines or perhaps cyborgs.
Cruz is a republican so it's no surprise his wife is like that. Yesterday I saw Robert Reich attempting to refute arguments against Bernie Sanders.
As for Planet Nine, do you remember back around 1972 there was talk of a "PlanetX" (far out in the solar system) due to gravitational perturbation of certain celestial bodies?
If at all possible do comment on my latest post! :)
Using that famoucity might have brought Japan good result. United state of America has the power to brought Japan down by the way of using negotiable instrument. Which means settlement of issues concerning the two nations.
Hello Emmanuel, it is not clear to me what you mean by "negotiable instrument"? Do you mean by diplomatic negotiation, or do you mean the atomic bomb, or threat of use of the bomb, or what?
In all fairness, I must add that the article about Ted Cruz's wife did say 4 nice things about her, she tries to be athletic and vegetarian (following her religion, the Seventh Day Adventists) and she is a mother and homemaker. But it still all doesn't make up for her ties to G-S. And then as for Hillary, she too self-destructs IMO by having given 3 speeches to G-S for $675,000. I don't mean to set G-S up as a demon but they are big and powerful and inherently opposed to progress.
I only vaguely recall that 1972 talk about a PlanetX; it would be interesting to know if the Ninth Planet could have caused any of the perturbations referred to in '72.
Seems practically unintelligible. He may have just mangled what I suggested in the post--that a big Japanese victory would've led to a negotiated settlement before the a-bomb.
Roger, I might still have a 1972 newsclip about Planet X. Dunno if I can find it. Pluto was discovered after perturbations led to a search but it's presumably too small to account for the gravitational effects observed. The real cause remained undiscovered in 1930 and to this day. But evidence for this Planet Nine/Planet X has apparently been known for nearly a century.
I hope Emmanuel comments again to clarify but I guess your interpretation is probably right. As for the perturbations the evidence remains vague to me, hopefully some day I'll have time to look into it more. What really stands out to me now is how well-arranged our Solar System seems to be contrasted with the other planetary systems they've found, with 4 rocky planets, an asteroid belt, and then 4 gas giants, and then the vast Oort Cloud beyond. How could such a neat arrangement have resulted even after such catastrophes as a Mars-sized object hitting the young Earth and perhaps even a greater collision needed to account for Urainus's peculiarities.
PS about Goldman-Sachs, what I SHOULD have said is "big and powerful and inherently (because they are for the 1%) opposed to the 99%"....and yet as soon as I put it that way, I thought OMG there ARE a few things on which the interests of the 1% are aligned with those of the 99%,such as for economic growth, slower population growth, and even inequality although the 1% don't know it yet, that will ultimately not be to their advantage.
now I promise to try to get to your latest soon
I told Emmanuel, in effect to brush up on his English before commenting here again. :) The presence of gas giants in close proximity to their central stars came as a surprise, based on our own solar system. I understand that resulted from near misses between gas giants, in which one was sent toward the star the other farther away.
I look forward to your comment on the latest post.
This phenomenon, of bodies throwing each other around, whether kicking them inward towards their star or outwards away from it, is still puzzling to me although it seems like it should be not too hard to figure out, do you know the answer to this? Is there any kind of general rule you could apply to figure out whether a given encounter will result in a body getting kicked in or out?
You can answer that here or under Fawzi and Sadat to which I now turn :)
You are more adept at math than me. :) I don't recall if I mentioned D. Sims to you back in the old LEX days. He was a real whiz and often used his expertise to answer my questions. Btw after he stopped writing in '94 he went from being a revolutionary socialist to a far right racist.
I'd prefer comments in the latest thread to be on topic if possible--at least at first. I just got two costly new softcover books---ARAB MIGS 1973 Volumes 5 and 6.
oh yeah, I remember you've mentioned Sims before what a sad case--too bad I guess neither of us now knows anyone we could ask such questions but it does occur to me that I might be able to get an answer online, there used to be companies like "Ask Jeeves" which became "Ask" I think...I'll give it a try
OK I'd be interested in any good answer you get.
Post a Comment
<< Home