Anthony Freda Art
I watched the movie Pearl Harbor last week and it struck me how impossible it would be for Japan or anyone to pull off such an attack today.
In the age of satellites that can read license plates from space, the days of a fleet of aircraft carriers sneaking up on anyone are long past. In fact, there will never be another battle like Normandy where thousands were killed while storming forward directly into the enemy’s line of fire either.
That type of warfare is as obsolete as brigades lining up in formation as they did during the Revolutionary War in America. Even occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan are proving to be completely ineffective and outdated.
Additionally, because of advanced weaponry, the entire idea of conventional war seems utterly ridiculous.
It’s pretty well established that nations like the United States, Russia, China, and the European block all possess amazingly advanced weapons like weather weaponry, nuclear weaponry, chemical and biological weapons, EMP bombs, robotic drones, and space-based weapons like “Rods from God” just to name a few.
And, surely, there are ultra top secret weapons that make these advanced weapons seem antiquated. Thus, it would appear that conventional warfare with bullets and bombs is like using sticks and stones compared even to the weapons we know to exist.
So, what gives? Why do we continue to believe that ragtag nations like Iran pose a threat to powerhouse nations with sci-fi weaponry? And why does anyone still believe battles with sticks and stones are even necessary at all?
Conventional war may make some sense for minor conflicts in isolated areas of the world where one group of violent thugs wants to seize power and wealth from another group of violent thugs.
But if Iran were to launch a significant assault on any of their enemies, they would likely be turned into a parking lot in 30 minutes from these weapons. So they’re restrained by their own self-preservation and therefore pose absolutely no threat to anyone.
Similarly, after Japan struck Pearl Harbor it was rumored that Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant.” Shortly thereafter, America stunned the world by dropping atom bombs on Japan (even as evidence has shown that it was U.S. policy to provoke an attack by Japan, then deliberately allowed it to happen).
Since then, no nation will dare confront the United States, China, Russia, or European block with a military assault. So the idea that a conventional World War III between these powers would ever be necessary is as idiotic as Iran posing a threat to the West.
No nation is stupid enough to launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear power, as a swift and equally devastating response would be a certainty. Furthermore, no one would benefit from such an exchange. And when there is no benefit, there is no war. Top-level war orchestrator, Zbigniew Brzezinski has said repeatedly in his writings that it is preferable to have small-scale conflicts that are manageable. This has been the ongoing method of globalists since the last world war, where regional conflicts have become so widespread that their effects are felt globally, offering a de facto WWIII without the nukes or the announcement of global conflict. The posturing rhetoric of all-out global war is theater meant to keep everybody scared of perceived enemies and to keep the military-industrial complex flush with fear-driven profits.
What’s more, these powerful nations are too interdependent economically to be so foolish as to attack each other. Their leaders are too obsessed with power and control to let it happen. Their economies are so fragile that one domino of disruption could spur a domestic revolution that can threaten their power — including inside the United States.
Of course, history tells us that when a nation’s back is against the wall economically, the leaders rally the desperate people around a common enemy and use war as the engine of new economic output. This is happening now with the so-called War on Terror which is increasingly an excuse to spend money on surveillance of domestic populations.
Read other articles by Eric Blair HERE