The price of fuels will soon be a moot point

Submitted by Michael S, Jan 14, 2017 at 16:44

Hi, Daniel. I'm sorry, if I wasn't clear. You said,

"Daniel Pipes replies: I think you contradict yourself, first saying we won't have cheap energy. then explaining how to achieve it."

I mentioned that my professors, for the most part, believed we would have to ultimately rely on nuclear energy -- which is actually not all that "cheap", when you count the cost of disaster cleanups, etc.

I didn't want to delve into the fossil fuel debate any further. It's a moot point, since I foresee a worldwide nuclear war in a few years (about ten, to be precise). This is not scaremongering, nor a "prophetic syndrome", nor suchlike. It is a sober appraisal of the direction we are going (howbeit with support from Zechariah 14). It is based on:

1. the fact that nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon states are proliferating. At the time of the 1967 Six-Day War, we had six nuclear states: The US, the USSR, the UK, France, China and Israel.

2. All these powers have indicated that they will use nuclear weapons, if attacked with same. Israel went further, threatening to detonate the "Samson Option", if needed, when they were invaded in 1973. Most recently, Communist China has threatened a nuclear attack:

"SOUTH CHINA SEA
China warns of nuclear war
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:58 AM January 14, 2017

"BEIJING—China is warning the United States of a nuclear war if the American government puts meat into a statement made by incoming US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that the Chinese should be prevented from occupying artificial islands they built in parts of the South China Sea that China is disputing with the Philippines and other countries.

"In an editorial, the Communist Party mouthpiece Global Times said Tillerson better "bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories.""

--http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/862116/china-warns-of-nuclear-war

President Xi would not make a threat like this against Donald Trump, unless he planned to follow through. It was sheer madness for him to say such things; but having said them, he cannot back out. It's like walking into a duel, and not planning to fire your weapon.

Anything can trigger such a war; and the more players get in the game, the more everyone is on a hair trigger. Nukes can be launched at sea, and not necessarily from ballistic missile submarines. They can be launched from an inoccuous container cargo ship, an oil tanker, anything with the room to conceal a launcher; and once launched, the receiving country will not have time to evaluate who launched it. Rather, they are likely to hurl a full retaliation against probable enemies. That accords precisely with the prediction of Zechariah 14.

If this doesn't seem feasible, consider further: India has two enemies, Pakistan and China, both nuclear powers. If some suicidal, extremist element in Pakistan launches a nuke at India, will India stop at retalliating against Pakistan? After an exchange with Pakistan, won't India be vulnerable to China, Pakistan's ally? She will probably retaliate against China; and in the communication fog created by such an exchange, China may preemptively strike anyway, assuming that India may already have done so.

On the other side of China, we have:

"Calls grow for South Korea to consider deploying nuclear weapons
Sep 13, 2016

"North Korea's latest nuclear test and recent missile launches prompt a faction within the South's ruling party to confront the possibility that Seoul also needs the ultimate military deterrent. Julian Ryall reports...

"Following an emergency meeting at the National Assembly in Seoul on Monday, September 12, a faction of the ruling Saenuri Party called on the government to consider developing and deploying nuclear weapons to deter Pyongyang from new and increasingly belligerent provocations."

-- http://www.dw.com/en/calls-grow-for-south-korea-to-consider-deploying-nuclear-weapons/a-19547289

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are all capable of producing a considerable nuclear arsenal on a few months' notice. With Red China becoming more beligerent every month, they are likely to either develop their own nukes (secretly or otherwise), or to ask President Trump to bring back the American tactical nukes that used to be deployed in S. Korea.

Concerning Iran, it has been noted that they have been working all along with North Korea. The Koreans are ahead in nuclear weapon development (though Iranians are said to have been present at their tests), and the Iranians have better ICBMs; so they have the basis of a cooperative venture, with or without US sanctions. Pakistan has also worked with both countries in the past. If Iran becomes nuclear capable, the Saudis are likely to deploy nukes as well -- either their own, or perhaps Pakistan-built. This is not a stable situation, and nobody seems to have an answer for it.

Russia and the US, meanwhile, have been beefing up their own stockpiles against each other, in terms of both defensive and offensive missiles. If either country is attacked by a rogue state from the sea, how will they learn in time, that it was not from one of each other's submarines? It is likely that if these two giants do go at each other, they will first launch an EMP attack to immobilize their enemy -- an attack that can be launched with only one missile from the sea. Will either side wait for such a missile to detonate, before responding? Not likely.

I believe this war will happen in some ten years, because that is when I expect a general attack against Israel by the united nations. Being threatened with such overwhelming odds, Israel will most likely apply the Samson Option, which, in turn, will provide a great opportunity for masking mischief on the part of one or more of the world's nuclear players. None of these countries really has a beef against Israel; but all are willing to USE an attack on Israel for their own personal advantage. Their real enmities, meanwhile, are against one another -- and with Israel out of the picture, or soon to be out of the picture, the great scapegoat of history that has united countries in opposition to it, won't they all go after one another?

We no longer live in a world of "Mutually Assured Destruction" as a viable deterrent to WWIII; we are living in a world of suicide bombers in nearly every country; of whole armies of madmen who prefer death to life, if their sacrifice can kill Christians and Jews. With reason no longer governing world affairs, eventual calamity is a certainty.

Because of this, I didn't want to bother speculating about future prices of fossil fuels.

May God bless and keep you and yours.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".