food riots by 2012?

[IanMacQuaide]

Quote from 377OHMS:

What would a nuke-bio attack in, say, Chicago do to the rest of the country/world, induce a depression?

Nukes? Really, really bad scenario. Some of our citizens would take the law into their own hands once the info got out regarding the nationality of the perpetrators. We'd see some riots because some of us would think the world is coming to an end. Mkts would crash, but maybe not burn.

Bio, ya mean like a few guys walk across our Southern Border infected with Smallpox?
Worse than your wildest dreams. Our world, as we know it, would truly end.
After a few thousand died from some bio-infection? Total global anarchy.
Our financial markets would cease to exist, and money would be the least of our worries.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from 377OHMS:

What would a nuke-bio attack in, say, Chicago do to the rest of the country/world, induce a depression?

In these conditions? Hell yea.

Consumption in the United States would go to shit.

People would run for the hills, white-knuckle every last penny in fear of what might be next.

Not only would consumer confidence be shot, there'd be tens if not hundreds of thousands dead.

IF America got a major war out of it - went from butter to guns, a severe Depression might be averted.

But it would have to be a pretty big war, given that Defense spending is nearing a TRILLION DOLLARS ALREADY, and the economy is dropping pounds in the toilet.

Maybe a 3 or 4 Trillion Dollar War would do it. In that case, China or Russia would be great adversaries.

You know. Short term gain for long term pain - ie WW3.

I kid, but I'm serious.

Yes, absolutely a Depression would result.

See, the FED already shot its load. The bubble saddled everyone with tons of debt and even IF banks cleared themselves (imagine what would happen to Real Estate, the broader economy and mortgage payments if a few nukes go off!!!), the consumer wouldn't consume. Whose gonna buy big ticket non-essentials with nukes going off?! And whose gonna lend them the money to buy it!? In those conditions?!!?!

It would be devastating. Pre-2006 economy was running at MAXIMUM efficiency. Absolutely no more consumption to be squeezed. Now, the best we can hope for is a peaceful deleveraging and a tranquil period of forced austerity to pay off our crushing debt load.

 

[clacy]

We're teetering on the bring of depression as it is, so yes, a nuke going off in Chi would most likely cause a depression.

 

[rothschild]

It also depend whom is sending the nukes.

If it has implicit insurance from china, then US is in deep shit.

But if it is rogue states..things will settle and it will provide cover to centralize power and define a collective policy.

China or Russia:

Forced to consume less but not enough power to justify riots..people would settle for suburb where there is arable land behind houses.

There would be lots of squat camps in large landowners, who would react in different kind.

Some cities would implement agriculture on the roof everywhere it can be implemented, to avoid having to rely on transportation too much.

Minerals would be recycled in a drastic way.

This would happen once

 

[IanMacQuaide]

Quote from achilles28:

In these conditions? Hell yea.

Consumption in the United States would go to shit.

People would run for the hills, white-knuckle every last penny in fear of what might be next.

Not only would consumer confidence be shot, there'd be tens if not hundreds of thousands dead.

IF America got a major war out of it - went from butter to guns, a severe Depression might be averted.

But it would have to be a pretty big war, given that Defense spending is nearing a TRILLION DOLLARS ALREADY, and the economy is dropping pounds in the toilet.

Maybe a 3 or 4 Trillion Dollar War would do it. In that case, China or Russia would be great adversaries.

You know. Short term gain for long term pain - ie WW3.

I kid, but I'm serious.

Yes, absolutely a Depression would result.

See, the FED already shot its load. The bubble saddled everyone with tons of debt and even IF banks cleared themselves (imagine what would happen to Real Estate, the broader economy and mortgage payments if a few nukes go off!!!), the consumer wouldn't consume. Whose gonna buy big ticket non-essentials with nukes going off?! And whose gonna lend them the money to buy it!? In those conditions?!!?!

It would be devastating. Pre-2006 economy was running at MAXIMUM efficiency. Absolutely no more consumption to be squeezed. Now, the best we can hope for is a peaceful deleveraging and a tranquil period of forced austerity to pay off our crushing debt load.

Not meaning to be obtuse, but war? With whom? Any device or bio weapon demised here in the states would be by some individuals claiming Jihad. They don't represent a country, just a great need for Xanax.
Oh we could certainly take out millions of people that look like them with 2 radio transmissions to a few nuclear subs, and maybe take out a few thousand of their supporters in the bargain, but it's not like a country has declared war on us.
Bush blew his "political capital" after 9/11. On the morning of Sept.12th, 2001, had he come on TV and told us and the world that Baghdad and Kabul were about to be laid waste, not many would have said much at the time, except maybe "Hey Thanks,George!". But as time went on, we lost that opportunity.

 

[rothschild]

Bush going in Irak in 2001?

They may have believed they we're not prepared enough to manage all that, also having your army in foreign land would have meant weakness at home while there was a void to fill.

They needed a lesser war, taliban was better.

Then with intelligence units, DoD on alert and everyone able to recognize the set of information to limit the opposition side-effect, they could start war with Saddam.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from rothschild:

Bush going in Irak in 2001?

They may have believed they we're not prepared enough to manage all that, also having your army in foreign land would have meant weakness at home while there was a void to fill.

They needed a lesser war, taliban was better.

Then with intelligence units, DoD on alert and everyone able to recognize the set of information to limit the opposition side-effect, they could start war with Saddam.

Saddam was firing on USAF aircraft in the no-fly-zone routinely. A friend of mine flew CAP missions in an F-15 in the zone and she said missles were coming up several times a week. There is good evidence that Saddam gassed the Kurds and certainly there was alot of torture and suppression going on. Plenty of legitimate reason to kick their asses.

But no, the Bush Admin had to gin up some bullshit about WMD and they got Colin Powell to lie to the U.N. What a freaking disaster. My hat off to the military for pulling it out despite the honked up civilian leadership. Oorah!

 

[jprad]

Quote from achilles28:

Not only would consumer confidence be shot, there'd be tens if not hundreds of thousands dead.

If someone really wanted to attack the U.S. they're going to want to seize the assets, land etc.

Bio-weapons and Nukes are the worst choice, they're so Cold War and passe due to the contamination problem.

Neutron bombs are a much better approach.

You know. Short term gain for long term pain - ie WW3.

I kid, but I'm serious.

I'm sure you are. But, Jericho was a TV show, not a quatrain.

One other problem. A WWIII scale war is going to require manpower and there's one slight problem there -- the lack of a draft.

A lot of democrats happen to believe that there's no constitutional basis for a draft.

And, even if you overcome that hurdle it's still not going to happen overnight. Our enemies, real or imagined, would get fair warning of what we're planning to do.

All this is about as likely as TEOTWAWKI is.

 

[achilles28]

Quote from IanMacQuaide:

Not meaning to be obtuse, but war? With whom? Any device or bio weapon demised here in the states would be by some individuals claiming Jihad. They don't represent a country, just a great need for Xanax.
Oh we could certainly take out millions of people that look like them with 2 radio transmissions to a few nuclear subs, and maybe take out a few thousand of their supporters in the bargain, but it's not like a country has declared war on us.
Bush blew his "political capital" after 9/11. On the morning of Sept.12th, 2001, had he come on TV and told us and the world that Baghdad and Kabul were about to be laid waste, not many would have said much at the time, except maybe "Hey Thanks,George!". But as time went on, we lost that opportunity.

Its a valid question.

If a conflict is needed, they'll blame an attack on their targeted prey, or an organization loosely affiliated. Al Queda based in Chechnya, or some such bullshit.

Americans will believe anything they're told, without question. Fertile ground for endless propaganda, fear mongering and staged war.

 

[jprad]

Quote from achilles28:

If a conflict is needed, they'll blame an attack on their targeted prey, or an organization loosely affiliated. Al Queda based in Chechnya, or some such bullshit.

So, I guess your precedent for this is that we "allowed" Pearl Harbor to be attacked and the same, or worse, with the Trade Center.

So, help me out here. Both Biden and Powell hinted at possible attacks early in Obama's presidency.

If they are in on it, why on Earth would they mention it? Or, were they trying to preempt a potential neo-con conspiracy?

Personally, both are paranoid bullshit.

Biden's a confirmed idiot. Nothing he's says carries any weight whatsoever.

Powell, on the other hand, couched it as nothing more than a plausible early test of the first AfroAmerican U.S. president.

IMHO, I still think it's a reach. Provided, of course, that our covert agencies and Homeland Security have managed to actually start doing more work than infighting so that there's some advance intel before a strike happens.