Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Although it may take several decades
for the process of transformation to unfold,
in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and
sea will be vastly different than it is today,
and “combat” likely will take place in new
dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and
perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare
may no longer be fought by pilots manning
tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of
opposing fighters, but a regime dominated
by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On
land, the clash of massive, combined-arms
armored forces may be replaced by the
dashes of much lighter, stealthier and
information-intensive forces, augmented by
fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in
soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could
be largely determined not by fleets of
surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but
from land- and space-based systems, forcing
navies to maneuver and fight underwater.
Space itself will become a theater of war, as
nations gain access to space capabilities and
come to rely on them; further, the distinction
between military and commercial space
systems – combatants and noncombatants –
will become blurred. Information systems
will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to
short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare
that can “target” specific genotypes may
transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
Perception is key.
When I read this, in context- it sounds alot like what they are stating could be a future possibility, and not what the US plans. It sounds to me as though this would be seen as a threat AGAINST us, not FROM us. And it sounds about right too.
But you quoted it out of context, and made it sound as if it was some conspiratorial plan. That isn't the case.
Just had to clarify.
Blacks believe that AIDS is a government conspiracy, that their right to vote will be taken away, and that they put sterilizing chemicals in Church's Fried Chicken.
That really would disenfranchise blacks.
AND ESPECIALLY given this is included in the section of the Mein Kampf manifesto called "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Of course, William Joyce. Everyone knows that when one has increased Melanin in their skin, it magically causes the brain to alter perception and develop tendencies to accept conspiratorial beliefs.
No, you're just a bigot providing us with an example of just how badly we need to improve education in this country.
You posted a link to "The Bell Curve"? That book and the data it is based upon has been disputed by many reputable experts in several fields. It has flawed methodology and conclusions. Likely the authors knew that their work was substandard which is why the basic analysis was never submitted for peer review prior to being published. If you want just one good critique that is objective, here is a link to a critique by James Heckman, a nobel prize winning economist.
Don't be a racist. Educate yourself.
BlackasCoal, I understand how you read this and how cjcord read it. The PNAC is, in my opinon, a document created by minds with a seriously twisted view of the world. The wording "politically useful tool" is a bit odd and when taken with the fact that the same document, without being explicit, describes a Pearl Harbour type attack on the U.S. as being politically useful, could cause one to perceive ominous intent. At the same time, cjcord's point about context is valid in the sense that this section of the PNAC lists projected changes in warfare and political conflict. The fact that it is in the section on "Rebuilding America's Defenses" does not lend weight to your view since it is reasonable that when discussing the rebuilding of defenses, one must consider potential future threats which is the alternative understanding.
I would have to say that I would not make the claim that the PNAC signatories are clearly promoting or advocating American use of customized biological agents targeting a genotype. However due to some of the more extreme and calculating positions throughout the paper and due to its ambiguous wording, it is something of which people should be made aware and calls for vigilence and scrutiny to prevent this being allowable in the U.S. arsenal.
I assumed that everyone on the planet knew of the Tuskegee Experiments. How in the hell did you miss it? It's called "American history"
But if it is a you say .. then no one should be surprised that people who have been tortured and terrorized for 400 years would also not trust the government.
I appreciate your thoughtful perspective and I recognize how one could come to your conclusions .. however, it's not as though we're talking about some obscure group whose intent and purpose isn't known..
And it's difficult to just dismiss them as just "twisted mids" when PNAC includes members of the US government and other politically influential people.
Nor is it any strecth of logic to come away believing exactly as I do, especially given that many of these same people advocate use of nuclear force and all manner of chemical and biological weapons .. and they were the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq .. first imploring Bill Clinton to attack Iraq, then George Bush.
These are not people who should be trusted or ignored.
Everything is Bush's fault. Everything is the white man's fault. That's liberal theology 101. End of discusstion.
I don't claim to know the full extent of their intentions. I may have my suspicions, but I try not to let my suspicions interfere overmuch with attempts at objective analysis. In short, it's not what I think, it's what I can prove. And while I understand you may want harsher criticism, saying these people have twisted views is not being dismissive but rather shows my opinion of their views to be somewhat contemptuous. Perhaps it is just of question of stylistic differences.
I was under the impression that this is exactly what I communicated in my post. I stated, "The wording "politically useful tool" is a bit odd and when taken with the fact that the same document, without being explicit, describes a Pearl Harbour type attack on the U.S. as being politically useful, could cause one to perceive ominous intent."which illustrates how I believe you could reasonably have your suspicions.
Once again, the last sentence in my post is "However due to some of the more extreme and calculating positions throughout the paper and due to its ambiguous wording, it is something of which people should be made aware and calls for vigilence and scrutiny to prevent this being allowable in the U.S. arsenal."
Which clearly states my position as being in opposition to trusting or ignoring these people on this issue.
I am not naive and unsuspecting. However, I am a skeptic. I am as skeptical of people in power being trustworthy as I am of unfounded conspiracy theories. I am not so arrogant as to believe I cannot be fooled or cannot be mistaken. That is why I try to look at as many indisputable facts as possible, and gather information. In this specific case, whatever unease I may have about the motivations of the authors, I cannot definitively say that this passage advocates the use of those biological weapons.
I believe that it is important to build credibility expressing ideas that are strongly supported and keeping private or at least clearly stating when ideas are speculation even if they are somewhat reasonable speculations. I may not be perfect in my adherence to this approach, but it is a goal for which I strive.
Study history and you'll know this is nothing new. Begin with the election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.
How about IQ tests for voters? Those under 120 don't get a vote.
