Friday, August 26, 2016

Alternate Scenarios Iraq 1980-91

Iraq's defeat in 1991 was probably the most lopsided in military history. Estimates of Iraqi tank losses range from 3,200 to 3,900. In contrast, the US lost just half a dozen tanks, all to mines. Marine M-60s destroyed hundreds of Iraqi T-62s, but the latter didn't score a single hit on any US vehicle. Saddam also lost up to 800 of his best tanks, the T-72s. Their gunners hit only seven M-1 tanks. None of those hits proved fatal, and most failed to penetrate M-1 armor. Baghdad's losses in troops, aircraft, SAMs etc were staggering. Seldom if ever has one side prevailed so overwhelmingly at such minimal cost. Coalition forces wiped out a vast army while losing only a few hundred dead, many of them due to friendly fire.
Was this catastrophic rout inevitable? Could Saddam have tried to dominate the Persian Gulf without incurring such a fate? A number of changes, on both the strategic and tactical levels, might've achieved his dream.
First, Saddam should've better timed his move. The invasion of Kuwait occurred in August 1990. By then, the Cold War was over, and the USSR had disintegrated. Iraq no longer had a superpower backup to restrain the US. As the sole remaining superpower, the US was now free to batter Iraq without fear of Soviet intervention. American and other coalition forces were no longer tied down in Europe to face the Soviets. They could be redeployed to face Saddam.
Had Iraq taken Kuwait much earlier, while the USSR was still viable, the risk of western intervention would've been greatly reduced. Few American forces could be spared for the Gulf and their freedom of action would've been limited. Washington did not want to provoke a nuclear war.
An earlier move south required that Saddam avoid war with Iran. It was foolish to attack Iran in 1980, and become bogged down in a war which drained Iraq's resources and strength. Had the money and personnel wasted fighting Iran been invested in more and better military technology and training, Iraqi performance might've been significantly--perhaps even decisively--enhanced.
As Iraq's early performance against Iran showed, it probably wasn't ready to invade the gulf monarchies had it targeted the latter in 1980. Saddam would've been well advised to build up his country's capabilities for about five years, until c November 1985, before moving south. With a much stronger force and a superpower backup, he could've rolled over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, with hardly more than a protest from Washington. (Of course since its 1979 revolution Iran was no longer willing to defend the arab monarchies.)
There would've been an added benefit to avoiding war with Iran. Without an Iranian front, Iraq's air defenses around Osirak, its nuclear facility, would've been much stronger. They could've prevented the destruction of the facility in 1981, by deterring or repelling Israeli attackers. An intact nuclear program might've granted Saddam the Bomb by the mid '80s, the hypothetical time of his big attack southward. Possession of even a small nuclear arsenal would've made outside powers even more hesitant to oppose Iraq.
But let's assume Iraq made all of the mistakes it did historically down to August 1990. Was it doomed to defeat the moment its forces invaded Kuwait?
Quite possibly not. No doubt, had the Iraqis known the US and its allies would ultimately launch a fullscale military operation against them, they would've gone allout to prevent it. Apparently thinking the West would soon accept his fait accompli in Kuwait, Saddam refrained from invading Saudi Arabia. He could easily have taken the oil rich kingdom. It took days, or weeks, before enough coalition forces had arrived ("Operation Desert Shield") to preclude this option. Had Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia in force right after taking Kuwait, it could've overrun the country's key oil region, exporting facilities, airfields and gulf ports. Most were within reach of Iraqi divisions in Kuwait. The Iraqis could've alleviated the logistical problems of such an operation simply by plundering food and fuel etc in captured areas--which were undoubtedly lucrative.
Had the objectives been taken, Iraq would've accomplished two important goals. First it would've deprived the Coalition of ports and airfields to bring in forces. Second, by seizing Saudi as well as Kuwaiti oil, Iraq would've had too large a share of world oil production for sanctions to be feasible. Either the oil continued to flow or there would've been a critical shortage. Saudi Arabia historically made up for Kuwaiti production, by pumping more oil, but no state could make up for both Kuwaiti and Saudi output, had they both been taken (and exports been stopped by the Coalition). The West probably would've had no choice but to accept Saddam's conquests, and pay him for the needed crude.
But what if Iraq had missed this last great chance, so that Operation Desert Storm was looming? Was it not then condemned to humiliation (withdrawal from Kuwait) or disaster?
Almost certainly yes. By that point, it was essentially too late. Iraq should've just pulled out, by December 1990. It would've been a humiliation, but with its armed forces intact, it would've been in a fairy good position to exert influence after the bulk of coalition forces had gone home.
But in arab eyes, a humiliation is worse than a defeat, so Saddam felt he had no choice but to fight. Could he have done so more effectively? This was possible. Strategically and tactically, the Iraqis could've taken a number of steps to mitigate the disaster, perhaps considerably.

  • The Iraqi navy might've disguised its handful of small vessels as dhows, armed them with torpedoes and had them sneak up to US carriers in the gulf at night. When a prearranged signal was given, they'd torpedo the carriers. Even a single hit would probably put a carrier out of action for the duration of the war. If two or three were torpedoed, it would've significantly reduced Coalition airpower arrayed against Iraq.
  • The Iraqis should've known that the US had the means to suppress and knock out their SAM radars, with EF-111 airborne jammers and HARM missiles, respectively. Saddam's SAM crews should've made widespread use of optical backup systems of the kind used by North Vietnam. Had its SAMs remained effective, Iraq would've saved more of its ground forces and further reduced coalition airpower.
  • Saddam might've considered forming a special force of camel borne commandos. Disguised as beduoin, the force could've infiltrated Saudi Arabia via a circuitous route and moved toward the main coalition airfields. When a prearranged signal was given--same time as the torpedo attacks--the camel corps would've raced to the airfields and destroyed as many aircraft as possible. Or, at least stopped takeoffs for a few hours. While the airfield or airfields were disrupted, around dawn, Iraqi MIG-23BNs and SU-24s, armed only with gun ammunition, could've struck the airfield(s) giving priority to destroying AWACs and other key assets. Heliborne troops might've also participated.
  • As for the army, the Iraqi infantry should never have been deployed in southern Kuwait, or along the Iraq-Saudi border. It should've been obvious that Iraq could not adequately supply large forces in southern Kuwait. They were at the end of a long logistical tether largely exposed to air attack. The divisions in Kuwait should've been moved farther north, shortening their lines of communication. Many could've been positioned in Kuwait City, threatening the Marines with a Stalingrad if they tried to root them out.  Infantry forces along the Iraq-Saudi border should've been moved to the north and east, along the Medina ridge. There they would've been less vulnerable to logistical strangulation and better able to counter the coalition offensive against the Iraqi right flank in Kuwait. Some infantry units, though, could've been left in scattered positions along the presumed coalition path of advance, to report US movements and attack logistical units after the armor had passed. 
  • Like the infantry, the Republican Guards should've anticipated that the main coalition attack would come from the west toward Kuwait, not through Kuwait itself. The Tawakalna and other RG divisions should've been more alert, and better deployed. In theory they were in a reverse slope position along the Medina ridge, but apparently not well positioned. The T-72s could've aimed their 125mm guns at the ridgeline from a short distance below, so that they could hit the underside of M-1s and other vehicles cresting the ridge. Since M-1 front armor was impenetrable to Iraqi rounds, it was vital to employ some tactic to overcome this difficulty. Firing at vehicles atop the ridge from positions just below was one possibility. Infantry units should've had their RPGs ready for a similar tactic, while other infantry forces alerted the RG of the approaching enemy.
  • There was another ambush tactic the Iraqis might've tried. In the months before the war, they might've flooded large areas of southern Kuwait with oil. Together with mines--used, like the infantry, farther back from the border--the flooded areas could've channeled coalition armor into  kill zones. In this scenario, hundreds of Iraqi tanks would be hidden behind dunes, or dug in and covered by sand colored camouflage netting, a few hundred meters from the presumed path of the ingressing enemy. When coalition forces passed nearby, the Iraqis could've diverted their attention by shooting from the opposite direction. Turning to face that direction would've exposed the weakly armored sides and rears of US tanks to fire from scores or hundreds of Iraqi T-62s. In theory, this approach would've solved the problem of impenetrable M-1 front armor, or boxes of reactive armor, installed on the turrets and fronts of M-60s. In addition the close ranges would've enabled even poor Iraqi gunners to hit their targets. Many coalition tanks might've been destroyed.
More realistic and imaginative measures might not have prevented defeat. By making the US pay a higher price, however, Saddam might've made the US public more reluctant to stay in the Gulf, or invade in 2003.

27 Comments:

Blogger Emmanuel Ansu said...

Why didn't the T-72 shells penetrate the M-1s?

4:17 AM  
Anonymous Neal Robbins said...

Saddam obviously pulled blunders. The swift victory in the 1991 Gulf War resulted in a certain amount of American overconfidence. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney assumed that the second war with Iraq was going to be a quick cakewalk. They did not realize that the Iraqis would resort to guerilla war after American troops had overrun Iraq. Furthermore, many U.S. forces were involved in Afghanistan. Fighting two wars split American military resources. To put it another way, George W. Bush's administration had two many irons in the fire.

Neal Robbins

4:54 AM  
Blogger starman said...

Iraq's T-72s had inferior ammunition, which couldn't penetrate the front armor of an M-1 Abrams tank. If a T-72 in a reverse slope position fired at an M-1 cresting the ridge, the shell might hit and penetrate the underside of the vehicle. But this doesn't seem to have ever happened.
Thanks for the great comment Neal. :)

5:27 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Hi Tim I finally got the time to read this interesting post (first let me say thanks for sending the pictures of my old gf, nice to see her face again). You make many interesting points in this article, but one I have difficulty with is that Saddam could have swept quickly into Saudi Arabia. I think if he had done that, the US would have come down even more brutally on him and it would have been a far worse slaughter than it was; no way would our government have tolerated it, I don't think--unless, what he might have done would have been to slash the world price of Saudi oil--THAT might have won him some tolerance--of course, his whole war was because he needed to RAISE the price of oil...maybe he could have done that after a couple of years of consolidating his grip on Saudi Arabia.
So many other points also worth discussing, for sure his war against Iran was wrong from every POV except that of the US, which helped him wage it: how rotten this country was under Reagan.
And now our gov't is eager to get into new wars with Iran and North Korea. Think they'll succeed again? Now my time's up, hope to get back to this in a few more days

4:59 PM  
Blogger starman said...

Hi Roger, always good to hear from you. :) Certainly the US would've been dead against an Iraqi takeover of Saudi Arabia. But if Saddam had taken Saudi ports and airfields, it would've been tough for the US and its allies to send in forces to drive him out. And if Iraq had taken Saudi oil and exporting terminals--I believe the most important was Ras Tanura on the Gulf--it might not have been feasible to impose sanctions. Had the US prevented the export of Saudi oil taken by Iraq that (combined with the loss of Kuwaiti and Iraqi oil) would've kept too much oil off the market. The shortage would be too grave and prices would've soared. Saudi production was just too important.
I saw a website which suggested Iraq couldn't have supplied forces in Saudi Arabia. I note, however, Iraq was able to supply three divisions near the Golan in 1973.
So I think that with careful planning and preparation, Saddam might've pulled it off.
Btw a recent book related to this topic made me realize how old I've become. :( M1 ABRAMS VS T-72 URAL, IRAQ 1991, has detailed illustrations showing views out of the gunsights of those tanks and exact procedures for range determination and aiming. I thought "Isn't that classified??" Then I remembered two things. The war was over a quarter century ago, and time seems to pass more quickly when you get older. What seems like only yesterday to an old guy is in fact ancient history.
Look forward to further comments. :)


September 8, 2016

3:09 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Yeah, it seems like the hours can drag while a quarter-century goes by lickety-split! Maybe in my case at least it's because my life is so much less varied now than maybe it used to be like every day I spend in the public library and so the days sort of all telescope together, collapse into one...but I think the times are changing very quickly and soon I hope to get active again trying to foment the revolution if (and really ONLY if) the Second Great Depression GD II sets in soon throwing millions out of work and setting the stage for change!
But back to the Persian Gulf War, it seems to me that the US wouldn't have had any problem smashing Saddam if he had occupied Saudi Arabia, wouldn't "we" (I mean our rotten gov't) have just carpet-bombed them like Vietnam?
And as for sanctions I admit I am having difficulty understanding this, really sanctions are a very bad idea in general (examples that pop to mind: Japan pre-Pearl Harbor, South Africa apartheid era, Iraq after the PGW), maybe I need to think about it more and get back to you in a couple days . . . .

4:04 PM  
Blogger starman said...

There would've been at least three problems with bombing Saddam if he had overrun Saudi Arabia. First, if he had taken the airbases in the country, the USAF wouldn't have been able to bring in its jets. Second, while B-52s were still based at Diego Garcia and carrier planes were available, bombing alone wouldn't have forced Saddam to withdraw. In 1991, over a month of heavy bombing destroyed only part of his forces. Third, and perhaps most important, if Iraq had Saudi Arabia as well as Kuwait (besides its own oil), the West couldn't take a chance on wrecking the oil infrastructure, forcing Saddam to blow it up, or even cutting off exports. As I posted before, Saudi Arabia accounted for too much of world production for its oil to be taken off the market without serious economic repercussions-probably high inflation due to an oil shortage. The West probably wouldn't have been able to impose sanctions let alone initiate major hostilities.
We may not concur on the outcome of an economic crisis but I have no doubt it's coming either. :)



September 13, 2016

3:03 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Yeah, I think the consumer spending/retail sales report coming out Thursday will reveal a slowing economy already ...we shall see. meanwhile back to Iraq thanks for this information which really surprises me, for one thing I thought there were bases all over the place they could use, you do mention Diego Garcia and I haven't looked at a map recently but I thought can't the damned bombers fly 500 miles, drop 100 bombs and return to base? How about flying a thousand miles, dropping 500 bombs and returning? I just don't know their capabilities and how many we had, like it really shocked me at the time that Bush at first sent in only 150K troops or something like that, do you remember? Even at the peak I thought we had under 600 K, is that right? I mean why didn't we send 3 million? Even why didn't we nuke? How many jets and how many bombs did we even have? I mean for gosh sakes we never should have waged that war at all but if you're going to wage a war then WAGE it, I really never understood the way they seem to be fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Perhaps really what is wrong with US policy is that they have no conviction--they really do not know what to do so they pursue compromising strategies which are so stupid actually more than they are flat-out evil. Perhaps even Hitler's war on the USSR was even more stupid than simply evil. I used to think back in the Vietnam war era that if only I could have talked to LBJ and McNamara and all them I could have explained to them why they were wrong to wage that war and maybe so I was overestimating their intelligence in that regard but I now find myself thinking again that I was probably right in that it really was just their lack of brains and of decisiveness and clarity that led them into it more than evilness. Or even more than the selfish motives that have sometimes been attributed to them like they owned stock in defense contractors, etc.
Anyhow so you reminding me that even with a month of heavy bombing we only partially destroyed Saddam's forces, again I thought that that was because we were holding back, somehow rather than hitting them with everything we had--or that we could have had if we had allied with other powers, Russia etc.--which maybe we could have done had our cause been just, that might have helped us persuade the world to support us.
Also I'd've thought that we wouldn't have been too worried about destroying the oil-producing infrastructure, like maybe it could've been rebuilt for $100 B or so--less than the cost of the war? Plus we had so many alternative oil sources, the Strategic Reserve I think it's called, Nigeria, Venezuela, Russia. I don't think we would have been afraid of blocking blockading prohibiting all exports from SA + Kuwait in order to enforce our (evil) world order.

5:33 PM  
Blogger starman said...


The coalition forces consisted of several divisions, most of them armored, and they were more than adequate to roll over Iraqi units. There was no need whatsoever to use nuclear weapons. Throughout the Cold War the US always refrained from using them since it no longer had a monopoly on them. Had the US nuked North Korea, North Vietnam or Iraq, the USSR could've nuked enemies of its own like Israel or China.
The US had its B-52s, USAF planes and Navy planes from four carriers arrayed against Saddam. I'm sure it did its best.
There may be other producers besides Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. But if Iraq had control of the latter two, it would've had too much of world production capacity to replace. Saudi Arabia itself replaced Kuwaiti oil, but if Saudi oil had also been taken, it couldn't have been replaced because no other producer had sufficient capacity. Taking Saudi oil off the market by means of blockade, would've meant excessive hardship for the global economy. Ergo, the coalition may have had no choice but to accept Saddam's fait accompli, and pay him for the oil.
I agree Vietnam revealed a lack of brains among the country's leaders but the example I remember best is Iraq 2003. I was convinced the neocon democratization scheme wouldn't work. Had I been listened to, an enormous waste of lives and treasure could've been averted. It's an indictment of the whole system that the most intelligent views were ignored, or not even voiced, in the halls of government.



September 14, 2016

3:15 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

This is (picking up from your last paragraph) why I as a political scientist am often thinking about how to structure government in such a way that intelligent voices can get a hearing. The best solutions I can think of are what I am proposing: direct democracy at the Great-Regional level, and "full promotion" at the World Government level whereby all people are raised equally through the entire hierarchy of power. Yes it is a challenge to make such governments functional and I've written books about it. I believe that any attempt to preferentially empower the most "meritorious" will lead to the same kind of problem where "the best and the brightest" got us into the war in Vietnam--which is like I believe Mao Zedong had to wage his "cultural revolution" in order to oust those sorts of people from China's gov't; but that was 40 years ago and those sorts of people have since taken over not only in China and the US but worldwide which is why we are heading for another Great Depression and World War although individually many of these people are nice I believe even the likes of Hillary and Obama are nice personally but they will drive us to ruin. Trump is different but he too will be a disaster. Do you really think you could structure gov't in such a way that the wise could be heard without going towards full equality of power like I advocate?

2:55 PM  
Blogger starman said...

I suppose even government by "the most meritorious" can make mistakes. In my view, though, you shouldn't point to Vietnam as an argument against meritocracy. We never really had that. Elected officials have the real power; they made the decision to get us into Vietnam, so they, and the democratic system of government, must bear the responsibility.
I'm convinced "direct democracy" and "all people raised equally" would be worse. Remember the masses backed the foolish invasion of Iraq in 2003. They even reelected "shrub" in 2004. Back then, the voices of reason and caution were drowned out by legions of flag waving "patriotic" morons, most of whom couldn't put two Mideast countries on the map.
I think the wise will be heard once meritocracy replaces democracy. Granted, there are plenty of wise people among the ordinary citizens. But the solution is to identify and empower the brightest not humanity in general. Most people are neither vey bright nor very responsible. And that's largely due to innate limitations.
We may not agree on everything but it's always nice to hear from you. :)

September 25, 2016

3:10 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Yes I'm glad we're still talking to each other after 27 years! But I have to say something there are some really really rotten ideas floating around and I honestly believe that it's because people are not very bright, recently in the LA Times there was actually an op-ed by a Harvard prof who ought to have a bit of brains but, you know, they don't necessarily; but let me tell you what he said so I can explain to you at least why he was so wrong, his proposal was that we give all prospective voters a test of their knowledge and understanding and then weight their vote according to how well they do on that test, I have to say this which is that that is the way to backward fascism and it doesn't have to be that way, there is a progressive way of doing this! Why wouldn't the prof propose to do it this way I honestly suspect that it's because he just didn't think of it rather than that he is a backward fascist, which is that fine, give everyone the test but offer educational courses, and pay everyone to take these courses, and pay them according to how well they do on those tests but liberally like $100 for taking the course and an additional $50 to $100 according as their test score ranges from 0 to 100%--this will motivate everyone to study the issues and THAT is the best way to promote any sort of meritocracy; (also, you know, soon by 2030 we will have medical, pharmaceutical and surgical and DNA procedures for raising people's intelligence and the goal must be to set and raise minimum standards like anyone with an IQ below 70 should be given treatments to raise him to 100, etc.) I mean this is the PROGRESSIVE way to move towards better democracy--there is no need to go the backwardfascist way. I'm drawing a distinction between a progressive sort of fascism and the other kind, which is the way of brain-dead old-fashioned Central American banana small-country dictatorships.
Do you agree? Also, the reason people voted for smirk and supported the war on Iraq was not democracy but plutocracy, those were the people who had the money, which is how he became president--remember, he didn't win the popular vote even despite all his wealth, he was appointed president by the plutocratic millionaire-worshipping Supreme Court. How to get money out of politics is what we need to do.

4:41 PM  
Blogger starman said...

Yes, it's been over 27 years since we first met through LEX. (They're still around you know.)

I consider the Harvard professor's idea foolish but for different reasons. First how can you possibly implement it under present democracy? Imagine a politician saying "Vote for me and I'll make sure half of you dummies will effectively lose your vote." Also, instead of giving smart and knowledgable people an extra vote or so, why not carry the principle to its logical conclusion and just make such people, part of the decision making elite (or government) themselves??
As for your suggestion of voter education courses with monetary incentives, I don't know if the government could afford that and for now there's still the problem of innate limitations. Great numbers of people, and even some with high IQs, are just not interested in politics, the environment, space or anything other than self interest. Even raising IQ levels wouldn't, by itself, address the problem.
I'm certainly for progressive "fascism" but I don't like that term.

September 27, 2016

2:34 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

I'm glad if LEX is still around but writing letters seems more archaic every year alas; in my dreams of the future, the WWW is manipulated (benevolently of course) by the WG such that ordinarily when people go on the Internet, they only get connected to people in their own country or continent; so that when they want to communicate with people in faraway lands (which could be common assignments in school, e.g. where LatinAmerican kids are studying Hindu language and culture), the most natural way to do it is through the World Post Office.
The gov't could easily afford to pay people to study because it would cost less than $1,000 per person and so with 300 million people it would be only $300 billion every 4 years which could just become part of the overall full-employment program which would cost a trillion dollars a year which the rich and corporations could easily pay; granted, it will require a revolution to force them to pay the tax.
Yes any use of the word "fascism" meets an automatic repulsion rejection by most everyone these days although that will probably change in the coming depression and world war because only fascism or communism will be able to save the world...I may adopt the term "communist" for myself, since Bernie Sanders made "socialist" almost mainstream and Stalin's horrors have faded into history quite a lot.

5:02 PM  
Blogger starman said...

Ads on one or more websites indicate quite a few people still want postal penpals. Emails, in their view, are a poor substitute for a nice, often decorated, physical envelope and letter.
It seems more practical to me to rely on electronic means for international communication. But I like sending and receiving air mail letters too. Did I tell you about writing to over a dozen kids in Belarus via their teacher?
Of course there already is public education, and scholarships and financial aid for students. I always felt, though, that education should be free through university level.
Agreed! Only "communism" or "fascism" will save us in future crises. I've long eschewed both terms in favor of Wholism. In actual practice there wasn't all that much difference between the two and in any event both are failed, outmoded, 20th century systems. Many Russians actually admire Stalin, and if THEY (his former subjects) are favorable to him, who are others to slam him? You may recall in my books I predict an eventual crushing of the Palestinians by Israel. The hypocrisy of Israel and its supporters here will finally end people's tolerance of holocaust preaching, and get many to see fascism more favorably. Still, it would be far better to use a new term like Wholism (or New American Patriot as an outer facade) instead of fascism.



October 9, 2016

2:56 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Yeah, I think there ought to be a huge expansion of free public education, the day should come when everyone worldwide has at least a BA or MA perhaps in 2 or 3 fields, so that they will have plenty of time to learn other countries' histories, cultures, and languages. Everyone will learn to read in their second language (the world language [Esperanto]) and then learn 1 or 2 more languages of their choice in high school and college. I remember 50 years ago writing airmail letters to a friend in Hong Kong and even before that, writing to my parents who were traveling around the world. Do they still use that distinctive blue light-weight stationery for that? I haven't written internationally in over 40 years! I don't recall hearing of your writing kids in Belarus, sounds interesting, tell me more.
Even if communism and fascism are outmoded, they should still enable us to build a world government strong enough to end war and poverty, achieve universal prosperity, and bring us to the Space Age by 2100-2150 I believe.
I don't think Israel will crush the Palestinians because I think the other Arab and Islamic countries and Al Qaeda and ISIS will help them fight back and eventually assemble a coalition mighty enough to conquer or at least control and tax the West. I think this is WW III we are already entering with our gov't's upcoming stupid attack on Mosul, did I already say that?
Wholism is a good term. I don't like American Patriot it reminds me of the SOBs who call America "the indispensable nation". How about World Patriot, Universal Patriot, Matriot (to eliminate sexism :) ) because I don't think you should try to just appeal to Americans if you want to build a world government? Maybe you want to appeal to the American branch of the WG movement? Of course I think you ought to have a following just like I ought to have a following, where my hopes for that would be based on a "Fight For Good Jobs" when they are disappearing probably sometime next year according to the monthly jobs report that is now the most important and widely-followed report the gov't puts out.

3:42 PM  
Blogger starman said...

Do you now have your own means of accessing the Internet? I wasn't expecting to hear from you so soon, as public libraries (in my experience) aren't open on a Sunday.
No way everyone can get a hs diploma, let alone a BA. Lots of people just don't have "the chops." I once had a penpal from Michigan who kept harping on alleged low black IQ. He himself never got past 8th grade and failed to get a GED. He was just very poor at math.
I first heard of the Belarus kids via an online penpal site. A teacher wanted native English speakers to write to her kids. After contacting her, I got a bunch of letters four months later. Most were brief, but I replied to every one. Still, to save time and avoid confusion over whom I was addressing, I wrote on the backs of the letters and mailed them back to the teacher (I didn't have the kids's addresses).
I didn't mean that the basic idea of fascism is outmoded. I just think there should be a new Worldview behind a new authoritarianism. It would essentially be fascism but be based on much better knowledge of Cosmic Evolution, and progress in general.
A date of 2100-2150 for a real Space Age sounds reasonable to me. In the past I thought it would get started by 2060 or sooner but now I think it may take until 2100 for its prerequisite--a Wholist World Government--to be firmly established.
I'm glad you like Wholism. I know "New American Patriots" sounds silly and dopey. But face it, US democracy and US nationalism are so deeply entrenched they can't be dislodged too openly. Or certainly not overnight. Just like Augustus in Rome, we'll probably have to pay lip service to the past. It'll take a while before Ultimate Wholism can replace the archaic system. Before then, it would be a wise tactic to appear "patriotic" and appeal to American nationalism. That may be essential to overthrow democracy without incurring too much resistance and in motivating US troops to fight to help establish a World Government.


October 10, 2016

3:06 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

I'm grateful--LAPL Central Library at least is open on Sundays (although it was closed Monday for Columbus Day).
Once the surgeries and other medical or DNA treatments become available to increase intelligence, I think everyone will want it like a minimum will be established like IQ 85 and set to rise 1 point a year so that everyone will eventually be smart enough to earn BA, MA, PhD, Nobel Prize...Nobody should be forced to go to school, however--good jobs must be open to all regardless of education--, but why wouldn't they want to? It's fine if it's just because there are so many other good options for them probably equally educational like running a business or traveling or hobbies, etc.
Would be interesting to have kept in touch with the Belarus kids--especially I'm thinking with the global upheavals I foresee...I kind of wish I had penpals around the world but actually I expect to get acquainted with many people in all countries through the World Revolution--I know that doesn't sound realistic it's just my wish
I do like Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again...it appeals to patriotism but I could use it while keeping in mind that my objective is to make ALL countries great (the "again" part is open to further study and debate but I suppose all countries have had their heroic moments in history).
I do believe that we will be able to persuade many Americans to fight to help build the WG while many others will inevitably be fighting against it

3:38 PM  
Blogger starman said...

A library that's open on Sundays sounds great. Maybe holy joe influence or tradition is less in California.
Just because a person may get an average/above average IQ doesn't mean he'd be intellectual. I knew several guys who were bright but nonintellectual. One even shunned me because of my interest in astronomy. Also, like the old saying "it takes all kinds (of people to make a world)." If everyone were inclined to get a BA or higher, who would do mechanical or blue collar work? Robots or computers maybe, but they'd do white collar work too.
I still have a number of postal penpals in the US and elsewhere. Some new foreign contacts may work out. Did I tell you the joke I told to a Russian lady in Volgograd?
No doubt many Americans will continue to fight for their country, even if in the future its real objective is to abolish countries, and establish a World Government. But despite the best efforts of propagandists many will see through a facade and oppose the new US authoritarianism and World Government. You've seen my scenario outlining the solutions--a major war to help stifle domestic dissent, and ETs to get the world to back the World Government.
October 14, 2016

3:22 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Yeah, when I thought about it later I realized that I hadn't thought it through enough, my train of thought was like--of course I'm daydreaming although really I'm not going to give up on this as long as I live -- but anyhow, I was thinking that I would make a name for myself hopefully leading the domestic American revolution over the next few years, and then I would use that fame and following to lead the world revolution culminating in WG a few years later. But I know most Americans, even revolutionaries, will never support the world rev or WG. It's going to have to be an entirely different group of people. I'd almost have to start from scratch and many American revolutionaries would feel I was betraying them.
Like who will pick the tomatoes and clean the latrines when all have MAs, the pay for those kinds of work and all the types of mind-numbing assembly-line work and so forth will have to be raised--maybe to the point even that the janitors anybody who's willing to clean up vomit and so forth could make so much money that they'd become the new elite, that is an uncomfortable thought for me, what awful kinds of work would I be willing to do if it were the only way to rise above mediocrity? You may be right that there are some high-IQ people who don't feel any need for intellectual stimulation or desire to learn anything but it does surprise me that they would be so uninterested as to shun you but also maybe it was because they were just intellectual in another direction, like maybe they were interested in history or the arts or something?
This might be a difference in our expectations for the future--I've been thinking that developed countries like the US and Europe would have successful domestic revolutions to establish progressive governments for themselves, but then that their good works would get swamped by WW III and their socialist utopias conquered smashed by the Third World as it establishes WG (which, however, will adopt bits and pieces as well as some/many ideals of the very progressive governments it will have crushed). I'd like to hear more of your comments on that concept....

4:42 PM  
Blogger starman said...

The person who shunned me because of my interest in astronomy had no interest in other intellectual fields either. For a while it seemed like he did, but sensing that to succeed he had to be very practical, he abandoned what interest he had--and me. He was mainly interested in sports, and became an engineer.
I think only the US can establish a World Government. You've seen my writings on that. The average American won't be told he's fighting to establish a World Government, necessarily, just that he's fighting "enemies" and it's his patriotic duty to do so. But the US itself will be subsumed by the new global regime.

2:57 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

I think the WG is most likely to be established by countries that hate the present world order and know that we need to redistribute the world's wealth--that would be the poor countries, the Islamic world, and probably Russia and China. I can't remember why you think only the US could (or would?) do it? Can you refresh my memory on that? Did you cover that in your book? I do remember one interesting point you made which was that the US uniquely is composed of people of many national origins. But I think that effect would be completely overwhelmed by poor countries' fight for a fair world order. You might also make the point that the US could do it because we are the most powerful country, but I think if China, Russia, India, etc., combine and throw in their lot on the other side, they would be able to defeat the US.
You know, my gut instinct is not to mislead anybody but you are probably right that misleading US soldiers, if necessary for a good cause, would be the best path forward--certainly by CONTRAST with the way they have been lied to to get them to fight our rotten wars on Iraq et al.
As for the friend who ditched you, my first thought was that I know many people in this rotting economy are forced to abandon their dreams for economic reasons, maybe he would have loved astronomy if he hadn't been forced to take a job to survive and feed his kids. But also you know engineering is full of intellectual stimulation, I would love to be a space engineer or even a theme-park engineer e.g., have I told you of my dream of building a large city a km below the sea? What a terrific challenge for both scientific and creative thought! And some people can even find intellectual values in sports . . . I think . . . .
Soon I will get to your recent post :)

2:28 PM  
Blogger starman said...

I've long felt the US alone is capable of establishing a World Government. Only the US has adequate strength to impose its will, especially in a post-democratic era, and it has long been in a position to project power over the whole planet. And yes, I wrote that its great ethnic diversity naturally enables it to lead the whole globe in the interest of all races not just one particular group, as was the case with other would-be hegemons such as the reich. And a new Wholist US may have much better rapport with most nations than the current one. Not many nations (rich or poor) can relate to our current "Israel is #1" approach to foreign policy. The new US I envisage will result from a revolution against those responsible for current policy.
In theory a coalition of other nations could do it but it's hard to see how a coalition will be united enough, as a real nation is, to unite the planet.
That guy, like most other people, just wasn't naturally intellectual. Practicality played a part but he was mainly interested in sports--which I never saw as intellectual, lol.
Sure, there may be many exciting engineering schemes in the future, on Earth and in outer space. But the guy evinced no interest in that...
Always glad to see you here and look forward to comments on the latest recent post!
October 21, 2016

7:29 AM  
Anonymous progrev said...

Yeah for sure, this we strongly agree on, only with and as an outcome of a great revolution in the US could this country possibly lead a WG!! But I don't see much likelihood of such a gigantic revolution here, I think at best a Leninist-Stalinist rev in the sense that its main concern would be to save the nation and solve America's economic problems more than trying to save the world. I find it more credible that Third World countries with substantial help from Russia, China, and some others, could collaborate enough to smash into the rich countries to take (a lot of) their land and wealth and then establish a WG which might at first be merely a vastly expanded and reformed United Nations just like the victors of WW II did only much better and more powerful but still well short of wholistic WG....it occurs to me that I am probably just sort of repeating myself although my thinking has evolved somewhat and maybe now expecting that the full development of ultimate WG will take longer than I'd thought. Man, I can only hope for myself to play some role in the US rev. I have bad news, which is that my sister is in nursing home and may only live a couple more months :( :( Why I mention this of course it's weighing much on my mind but also she and I have often disagreed politically over the many years but she does now agree that the people are getting fed up enough so that US rev is starting to become a little bit credible at so long last. Fascinating election coming up perhaps for the first time since the Great Depression.
I just now got to read your latest post + 15 comments very interesting and will try to comment in a few days

2:56 PM  
Blogger starman said...

I fully agree that the INITIAL purpose of a revolution would be to get the US itself in order. Major foreign policy initiatives, like establishing a World Government, would come later, but soon. Economic and environmental problems are global in scope, so you can't really achieve much in one country. In addition, a World Government would mean stability and, in the long run, far less defense spending, thereby freeing up a lot of resources for other uses like space.
Sorry to hear about your sister. I wouldn't say this election was fascinating, as neither Clinton nor Trump have the answers or even much enthusiastic support.
I hope you do comment on my latest post.:)
October 26, 2016

6:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fascinating site. Is this all based on your own research? Gonjeeshk.

7:34 AM  
Blogger starman said...

Great to see you here Gonjeeshk! Yes the ideas expressed here are mine, based on my own research.

2:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home