USA's chip war on China is going to backfire. Just wait. Toyota of Japan
cut production of cars by 40% in Septemeber, and that just gives an
idea what it will be like going forward. Cars do not need high end chips
anyway, so what is the issue?
Chip war will affect many Asian
countries like South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, themselves chip producers.
But they have still to depend on raw materials for making chips from
who? Mainly Russia and Eastern Ukraine, for Neon and Palladium. Being
considered non-friendly countries by Russia, what do they expect. China
will of course be able to get Russian raw materials, as they now have an
agreement for chip co-operation with Russia. Will the USA help South
Korea, Japan and Taiwan when the USA itself has to rely mainly on some
raw materials from Russia and Ukraine as well? Sure, the USA can supply,
but at what price?
Just as Europeans were banking on the USA to
supply them oil and gas, it was a evil ploy and they were suckered into
buying USA oil and gas, at four to five times the price they could have
sourced from Russia. Now crying foul, but they deserve the treatment
without having a plan as to how they can overcome the shortage.
Following
the USA blindfolded is not the way, and proven costly, even if they are
allies. The USA does not treat them as allies and their own interest is
the only thing they care about, and so it is slaughtering the Europeans
like enemies. Does that prove that Kissinger's warning that 'to be a
friend of the USA is fatal'. Well, I do think so.
Now, Olaf
Schulz is going to China and already they are howling and warning him
not to act unilaterally in dealing with China. Schulz obviously has
taken the advice of Angela Merkel and knows that Germany cannot decouple
from China. It would be catastrophic. The fact that Schulz is going to
China alone, shows that all is not well in the EU, as far as unity is
concern. We have also seen that Hungary still honours it's good
relations with Russia and ignoring the USA's and Nato's coercion.
Meanwhile
the USA is said to be restoring defence talks with Russia, but as
usual, start with antagonising Russia and saying Russia is not
interested in talking about ending the war in Ukraine. Does that needed
to be said? When Ukraine and Russia reached agreement to stop the war in
March/April after negotiations, the USA and UK scuttled the agreement,
with Boris Johnson the main instigator.
Now why would Russia
want to talk about ending the war, when what the USA and UK did earlier,
makes talking about ending the war an exercise in futility. The USA is
trying to show their hypocritical stand of showing the world that they
want peace in Ukraine, which is totally and diametrically opposed to
their real intention of keeping the war going. There is really no
sincerity in their approach of wanting peace, when they keep pouring
weapons and aid to Ukraine.
Anonymous
US shouldn't play play with nuclear strikes:
ReplyDelete'A modern country is a system of systems of systems, interdependent and interconnected—water, electricity, manufacturing, energy, telecommunications, transportation, pipelines, and complex supply chains. These are interconnected, interdependent, and rely on large numbers of trained people showing up for work. Modern warheads are not the popgun squibs of Hiroshima. Talking of repair any time soon after the nuclear bombing of a conurbation is foolish because the city would have many hundreds of thousand of dead, housing destroyed, massive fires, horrendously burned people with no hope of medical care, and in general populations too focused on staying alive to worry about abstractions like supply chains.
What would happen in, say, New York City even if, improbably, it were not bombed? Here we will ignore the likelihood of sheer, boiling panic and resultant chaos on learning that much of the country had been flattened. In the first few days there would be panic buying with shelves at supermarkets being emptied. Hunger would soon become serious. By day four, people would be hunting each other with knives to get their food. By the end of the second week, people would be eating each other. Literally.'
'Most things in America rely on electricity. This comes from generating plants which burn stuff, usually natural gas or coal. These arrive on trains, which would not be running, or in trucks, not likely to be running. They depend on oil fields, refineries, and pipelines unlikely to function. All of the foregoing depend on employees continuing to go to work instead of trying to save their families. So—no electricity in New York, which goes dark.
This means no telephones, no internet, no lighting, and no elevators. How would this work out in a city of high rises? Most people would be nearly incommunicado in a lightless city. Huge traffic jams would form as people with cars tried to leave—to go where?—as long as gasoline in the tank lasted.
Where does water come from in New York? I don’t know, but it doesn’t flow spontaneously to the thirtieth floor. It needs to be pumped, which involves electricity, from wherever it comes from to wherever it has to go. No electricity, no pump. No pump, no water. And no flushing of toilets. River water could be drunk, of course. Think of the crowds.
In all likelihood, civil society would collapse by the end of the fourth day. The more virile ethnics would surge from the ghettos with guns and clubs to feed. Police would have disappeared or be either looking after their families or themselves looting. Civilization is a thin veneer. The streets and subways are not safe even without a nuclear war. The majority would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves. People who had never touched a gun would suddenly understand the appeal.
How would the next season’s crops be planted? Answer: they wouldn’t be. Where would fertilizer come from? Parts for tractors, trucks, harvesters? Making these requires functioning factories which require electricity, raw materials, and workers. If the attacker chose to hit agricultural lands with radiation-dirty cobalt bombs, these regions would be lethal for years. Nuclear planners think about these things.
Among “defense intellectuals,” there is, or was insane talk of how America could “absorb” a Russian first strike and have enough missiles in reserve to destroy Russia. These people should be locked in sealed boxes and kept in abandoned coal mines.'
Full article at:
http://thesaker.is/on-going-seriously-boom/
After a nuclear strike, it will be civil disaster, if they survive that is. I think surviving in the aftermath of a nuclear strike would be worse than just getting turned into ashes, which is immediate. It will be the end of mankind, of whatever colour. Nuclear bombs have no conscience, only targets and annihilation.
ReplyDeleteNow, when the USA nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they even choose cities with large population. They also calculated how high to detonate the bomb to cause maximum damage. They knew that detonating the bomb at ground level will cause less damage. Isn't that a war crime, targeting cities and civilians? Yet, now the hypocrites are talking about Russia targeting Kyiv and civilians and shouting - war crime, war crime. Spare us the agony!
The hypocritism is killing those who know, fooling those who are blind, and using world bodies like the UN, ICC, Human Rights to shout for them for better effect. When people can get information from the internet, all that fakery is not going to fool the world nowadays.
Just like keeping their own citizens ignorant of what China looks like today and still selling the hubris of an underdeveloped and poverty stricken China. Those who had the opportunity to visit China today, were shocked when they compared facilities like airports, railway stations, high speed trains in USA and China. That is just what they see, and what is not seen is the advancements in the military, technological field, and manufacturing acumen, which will jolt them out of their pants. Just one Huawei already makes them nervous and paranoid that they have to call out their stooges to target Huawei.
So, from the standpoint of the rest of the world in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, all that fabrication of the China threat is not gaining any ground for the USA and the West. They are losing support in every corner of the world, save for Europe. But Europe is also turning away, trying to get rid of Nato, and by extension trying to get rid of the shackles of the USA in Nato. People in France are already protesting for France to get out of Nato, that have brought them nothing but trouble.
Good riddance if they can succeed.
The USA can absorb a Russian first strike and destroy Russia with their reserves? Worth a try! At most, only collateral damage, nothing much.
ReplyDeleteYou see, everything is so easy to win in their simple mind. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Trade Wars, all won on paper only.
Yep. Ukraine is winning for the USA. So much winning, people in the USA must be getting tired of winning.
ReplyDeleteThis is what the infamous Gonzalo Lira has to say:
ReplyDeleteNATO Is Cocking Its Fist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdqR-XMvbS4
Worth a laugh if it isn't so deadly and crazy at the same time!!