StratFor report with implications for American recovery

[Adm.Lee]

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/201...vitable-empireHere's an interesting geopolitical analysis of America. A key point is that the navigability of the Mississippi River and its tributaries are a tremendous natural advantage to whomever lives there.

To my mind, it reinforces the idea that a key goal for Milgov/Civgov in 2001 should be securing the Mississippi watershed. IMO, send at least half of the returning OMEGA forces around to the new mouth of the Mississippi, and send most of the rest over the Alleghenies from Norfolk to Pittsburgh.

Tiny piece of family history: Shortly after the American Revolution, one of my ancestors moved to southwestern Pennsylvania. For several years, after harvest he would carry his crop (and his neighbors') by flatboat down the Ohio and Mississippi to sell them (and the boat) at New Orleans. He'd then get on a ship to Philadelphia, use most of the cash for whatever tools and things his neighbors had asked for, and then carry it back over the mountains by pack-horse. I can't imagine he did it alone, but he made this trip more than once. It had to have taken weeks, and it was not safe. The north bank of the Ohio and some of the Mississippi were still Indian country, and there were pirates/bandits on the rivers. New Orleans was still a Spanish (then French) port at that time.

[dragoon500ly]

Good point!

Related would be the changes on Old man River following the nuclear strikes, as the system of levees breaks down, we will get to see the Mississippi get wider (estimates are as much as 1-1.5 miles wide), as well as major changes in the river's course.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Related would be the changes on Old man River following the nuclear strikes, as the system of levees breaks down, we will get to see the Mississippi get wider (estimates are as much as 1-1.5 miles wide), as well as major changes in the river's course.

Hence Adm Lee's mention of the new mouth of the Mississippi.

[Webstral]

The Father of Waters entering the Gulf through the Atchafalaya will not be convenient. No. No, sir. It will not be convenient.

[Snake Eyes]

George Friedman also wrote a couple epic StratFor articles in the lead-up & aftermath of Katrina (dated 8/28 & 9/1/2005) on the strategic importance of New Orleans, the Port of Southern Louisiana and the Mississippi River delta.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

George Friedman also wrote a couple epic StratFor articles in the lead-up & aftermath of Katrina (dated 8/28 & 9/1/2005) on the strategic importance of New Orleans, the Port of Southern Louisiana and the Mississippi River delta.

Okay so this is tangentially related to Katrina but I found the following passage interesting in relation to how things seem to be in the Western World at the moment - particularly when it comes to such things as "political correctness".
It comes from a larger discussion on ethics from a now defunct website but the whole article can be found in the link after the passage I'm referencing.
I've highlighted certain sentences as much for importance as for breaking up the 'wall of text' look.

"The people within the society begin to believe that it exists solely for their benefit and over a period of time the survival of the society is taken for granted. Individual viewpoints are common and consensus is a matter of offending the least number of people. Soldiers are phased out because they are nasty and, after all, kill other people. Funds are spent on the well being of the individual and not on the protection of the state. Individuals in the society contribute less-and-less while demanding more. Positive ethical issues start to conflict with other positive ethical issues. (I.e. “Child Protection Laws” versus the “Rights of the Parent”.). Criticism, blame and responsibility are avoided unless it’s aimed at the leadership. Slowly, the society becomes increasingly introverted and vulnerable until it “falls” victim to social / financial disaster or the barbarians at the gates. No great civilization has survided this process - yet."

In a sense, this passage is saying to me that reasoned conflict for a greater aim is not necessarily a bad thing and a group/society etc. should look outwards as much as inwards but should also look to the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people - because an overabundance of "ethical" or "appeasement" behaviour actually stifles a group/society.

Maybe I'm being a touch too philosophical but seriously, screw political correctness, all it does is hide the reality.

Full article here http://web.archive.org/web/201104221...om/ethics.html

[Legbreaker]

So, basically what it's saying is a little conflict and disagreement is a good thing. Once a society, or group has reached a point where nobody is willing to upset the apple cart and disagree for fear of the social consequences, the society will fall.

The same concepts can be applied to smaller groups such as an online forum for example. If nobody is willing to speak up with an opposing point of view because of the belief those in power will shut them down, then the end is in sight.

[kota1342000]

I dont know why we didnt think of the Mississippi's importance before, its all over civil war history, and should have been obvious. I think Ive just got another campaign idea....

[jerry0503214]

Related would be the changes on Old man River following the nuclear strikes, as the system of levees breaks down, we will get to see the Mississippi get wider (estimates are as much as 1-1.5 miles wide), as well as major changes in the river's course.
__________________









________________________________
WOW Gold | Runescape Money

[kalos72]

This link dead?

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The same concepts can be applied to smaller groups such as an online forum for example. If nobody is willing to speak up with an opposing point of view because of the belief those in power will shut them down, then the end is in sight.

Delivery still matters. There's a difference between dissenting opinion and pub smack talk. Dissent can contribute or dissent can detract. When dissent is oriented towards making a superior product, dissent is constructive. When dissent is oriented towards self-assertion, dissent detracts. I don't know how things are in other countries, but here in the US dissent is oriented towards self-assertion more than improving outcomes. One of the great tragedies of our time is the end of dueling. There'd be less obnoxious running of the mouth if folks believed that freedom of speech came with some sort of consequences. I'd love to see Rush, O'Reilly, or Ann Coulter with long blades in their hands, albeit briefly.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by kalos72

This link dead?

Stratfor got hacked (BIGTIME) last week, so their site it down for the time being while they clean the mess up:

https://www.google.com/search?source...w=1090&bih=752