Countering Russia and China’s covert campaign of aggression against the US.

A comment by David Warren, that Iran and North Korea “are obviously pooling nuclear and missile expertise, and both benefit from technology provided by China and Russia — which in turn shield both against sanctions at the United Nations” leads to a vision and counter-strategy for the United States in the early 22nd century.

Therein lies the fundamental geo-political problem facing the US in 2010.

As grave a threat as Iran and North Korea present to the US, they are but symptoms of Russia and China’s covert campaign of aggression against the US. Both nations are actively facilitating increased nuclear proliferation and using these rogue nations as stealth arms of aggression against the US.

The salient question thus becomes, how do we stop that campaign?

Realism requires that we first accept that President Obama and the Democrat Party will do nothing, in fact whether out of ideological naivete or intentional mendacity, Obama is virtually certain to make things worse.

So 2012 will be the first real opportunity to right the ship of state. As even with regained control of Congress in 2010, the Republicans will be focused on stopping the bleeding. In Jan. of 2013 we can start to initiate strategic actions designed to begin to counter the Russian and Chinese campaigns.

An effective strategy begins with consideration of an opponents strengths because that is how we discover their weaknesses. Sun Tzu first taught that an opponents strength is also their weakness and that maxim is as true today as it was in his time. Russia’s strength is its oil exports and China’s strength is its manufacturing. Both nations are export driven economies, which rely upon customers to buy their products.

Ironically, the Democrats are right about something, though par-for-the-course, their advocacy is for the wrong reasons. We must end our dependency upon oil for our transportation needs, which average 70% of our oil use.

New but economically practical, alternative transportation technologies are a national security issue and we need a man-on-the-moon crash program to develop them. Not however governmental in scope but rather private enterprise driven. Make the incentives attractive enough, monetarily and status wise and entrepreneurial innovation and genius will solve the problem in short order.

Nuclear technology can meet our electrical generation needs. And while oil will still be used, in plastic manufacturing and fertilizers for instance, eliminating the need for oil in transportation would reduce our oil consumption by 70%. If we then leased that alternative transportation technology to Europe, it would reduce their oil importation by at least 70%.

The West’s reduction in oil use by 70% would greatly affect Russia’s balance of payments and they would then lack the money to fund their aggressive policies. The West’s reduced dependence would also greatly reduce the cost of oil, further affecting Russia and…Radical Islam’s ability to export terrorism. For without the ‘fuel’ of money, even the fiercest army grinds to a halt. This strategy would effectively neutralize Russia. And greatly hinder Radical Islam.

A similar ‘Manhattan project’ for China is needed to render their manufacturing base obsolete and the only way to do that is with disruptive technology which changes the current paradigm. That disruptive technology is robotic workers to replace factory assembly. A basic level of artificial intelligence is necessary to accomplish this but we’re not aiming for Einstein levels of intelligence, just enough to emulate the average assembly line worker. What would that do to China? It would emasculate their manufacturing base, just as their cheap labor has replaced our manufacturing base.

No human assembly line, no factory worker could begin to compete with a semi-intelligent robot’s precision and tireless productivity. No breaks, no illness, round the clock production, etc, etc.

Manufacturers would return to the US or wherever their market resided. As, why pay for International shipping charges if there’s no benefit? Cost of goods would lower for the same reasons that applied when manufacturing left the US for Asian countries.

Take away China’s manufacturing and their financial resources evaporate because, if the developed world doesn’t need them, they have no exports. They would then face a choice, initiate democratic freedoms and capitalism to honestly grow their society’s wealth or collapse into communist driven poverty. Either way, China ceases to be a military threat.

The problem isn’t what to do, it’s the vision of what to do and the will to do what needs to be done, wherein the problem lies.

Geoffrey Britain


2 thoughts on “Countering Russia and China’s covert campaign of aggression against the US.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s