This article from March 2011 can still be considered current. Although fortunately some events have been a little delayed, before the public they are anxiously kept secret, misrepresentated or at least significantly downplayed by politicians and the major news media. The serious problems in the world were not solved, they were only slightly delayed yet they gained in size and strength in the meantime. Likewise they also increased in number. More detailed information about world events you will find in the sections titled News and World Developments.

At the time of writing this article at the beginning of 2011, it appeared that world developments would proceed at a faster rate. However, despite the fact that some events were temporarily postponed, the world continues to be marching towards an abyss…



What Lies Ahead in 2011 and 2012

(March 10 , 2011)


This is a translation of our article Co nás čeká v roce 2011 a 2012.


This article is not recommended for pregnant or breast-feeding women, children, people suffering from heart disease or high blood pressure, or people currently receiving or having recently received chemotherapy. It is also not suitable for elderly people or persons suffering from depressions.

This is a summary of what we believe the development on our planet will be in the coming two years. The events described below will occur either within several weeks or several months from the moment they are sparked off or, with better luck, will spread out over a period of approximately one year. A spread over a longer period would be more propitious as it would give people more valuable time to prepare themselves thoroughly.

Writing this article, we tried to adopt a comprehensive approach to issues of global importance. We dealt with the interdependence of rapidly growing market saturation and economic globalization, the presumed size of oil, gas and coal reserves including the demand for these sources of energy, the Chinese “monopoly” in mining the essential raw materials needed for production in most industries, the clash of big power interests in different parts of the world, the economic issues connected to the ageing of the population, the increasing scarcity of drinking water, warehouse stocks and transport of raw materials, intermediate products and final products to often very distant destinations, the dependence on electrical energy and information technology, the economic interests of large – often supranational – corporations, the fight against so-called “terrorism”, the rising debts of households, towns and governments, the expansion of American military bases in the world, regions where elements of the air defense are being deployed – not only by the U.S. and NATO, but also Russia and China, the efficiency of conventional weapons and of weapons of mass destruction against various targets, etc.

We certainly would not dare to claim that the events described further must necessarily happen at the proposed time or at any other time in the future. What is presented is but a reflection of our current state of knowledge of what is happening predominantly in the global military, economic and political spheres. Nobody is infallible and that is why it is recommended to take this article mainly as food for thought, not as something to be taken for granted, although – as far as we are concerned – we have believed for some years now that these events are certain to happen.

This article deals with only some of the implications. This allows the information to be presented in a relatively brief form. More of the mutual links are described in parts titled News and World Developments. The details are presented raw, in an untreated form. The reason is that people have become largely accustomed to simply receiving information rather than concentrating on reading between the lines.




Content

The Origin of Money

Debts and Financial Derivatives

US Air Defense

The World on the Precipice

Economic Development from 1929 until the Present

Operation under a False Flag

The East Pulling Together

The Course of World War III

Simulation of a Surface Nuclear Explosion in the City

The World after World War III


The Origin of Money

Banks can be divided in a simplified way into central and commercial. The overwhelming majority of central banks is administered by the State and is in charge of, amongst other things, issuing money in the form of coins and banknotes. Commercial banks, on the other hand, do not issue coins and banknotes, but only electronic money. In that case, what happens to our money when we deposit, say, 100,000 czech crowns (CZK)? Commercial banks have a statutory duty to meet minimum reserve requirements. The amount of these reserves is determined by the central bank of a given country or group of countries. Commercial banks also have to set up a reserve fund. They can then use the rest of the money at their discretion. The money is usually invested in different ways or provided as loans. The bank will divert for example CZK 2,000 from our deposit to the central bank to increase the mandatory minimum reserves and then, say, CZK 8,000 into the reserve fund or possibly some other funds. This will leave CZK 90,000 for various investments, loans etc. (it will actually be more than that, but it is easier for us to make the calculation if we work on the presumption that the bank keeps 10% of each deposit) i.e. 90%. And here comes for example Mr. X who would like to borrow CZK 90,000 from the bank to buy a motorbike. He goes to the bank and, after meeting the conditions to be entitled to a loan, he gets the cash he is asking for. For this money he buys his dream motorbike from Mr. Y. However, Mr. Y does not want to keep the money under his mattress and so he deposits it in the bank. To make the story short, let’s presume that the bank would once again use 10% for the mandatory minimum reserves, reserve fund and other funds, and would then have CZK 81,000 left for further loans and investments. This is exactly the kind of money Mr. Z would come in handy, because he would very much like to buy a certain lovely old painting. So he goes to the bank and borrows those CZK 81,000. Then he goes to the antique shop and buys the painting. The antiquarian, of course, takes cash from sales to the bank, thus the bank account is credited with CZK 81,000. Again, the bank will take away 10% for the mandatory minimum reserves etc. and will have CZK 72,900 left for further lending. The diagram below is a good illustration.

How banks create money from nothing.

This short and very simplified model example shows how the bank managed to make CZK 171,000 out of our 100,000 deposit (Mr. Y's deposit is CZK 90,000, the antiquarian's CZK 81,000) and still have CZK 72,900 (CZK 81,000 from the antiquarian minus 10%) left for further lending. And out of these CZK 243,900 (CZK 171,000 + CZK 72,900) CZK 143,900 have no coverage. This is money created out of “nothing”. Our initial deposit covers only CZK 100,000. Of course, this example has been simplified to a great degree compared to reality, but it suffices for understanding how commercial banks operate. In short, banks lend out most of the deposited money assuming that creditors would not withdraw their money all at once. In our example the creditors are we (CZK 100,000), Mr. Y (CZK 90,000) and the antiquarian (CZK 81,000), providing altogether CZK 271,000. But the bank has resources amounting to merely the sum of mandatory minimum reserves, the reserve fund and other funds, i.e. a total of CZK 27,100 (CZK 10,000 + CZK 9,000 + CZK 8,100) and CZK 72,900 in the till, i.e. a total of CZK 100,000. Suppose the bank lends the CZK 72,900 to the next person and that person, for one reason or another, decides to keep the money at home – in that case the cash the bank would have available would be a mere CZK 27,100. It is evident from all this that if the clients come to collect their deposits all at once, the bank would not be able to pay out their money and would have to borrow CZK 243,900 (CZK 100,000 + CZK 90,000 + CZK 81,000 – CZK 27,100) – presuming that no part-payments on the provided loans had yet been reimbursed nor interest credited to the deposit account – at a relatively high interest rate from the central bank. That could mean the end of the bank. If large amounts are involved, the bank would go bankrupt – that is unless the government or some other investor bails it out. The government would probably have to issue treasury securities to cover the expenditure, which would further increase the national debt burden.

We see that the way in which banks do their business is rather specific. The banks are very much aware that they would not be able to satisfy all their creditors if for any reason people decided to withdraw their savings within a short span of time. If any individual ran a business along the same lines, he would probably sooner or later be facing prosecution for criminal fraud.

We perceive banks as very unstable corporations. From our point of view, even a slightly alarming piece of news, which need not even be based on real grounds, may cause the bankruptcy of a number of banks if panicking mobs try to take out their savings all at once. In the worst case the banks may demand immediate redemption of mortgages notwithstanding their maturity dates that may otherwise be due in 10 or 20 years time.

Debts and Financial Derivatives

Many people cannot imagine living without a loan these days. Often they owe such amounts that they take a new loan or several new loans to be able to pay back the old one. That's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The main thing is to be able to wear designer clothes, drive a leased new car and enjoy other similarly important things. Instead of trying to get rid of their debts at this very moment and as quickly as possible by, for instance, making only urgent calls to their friends, giving up holidays abroad and expensive Christmas presents, etc., they continue to carelessly take out more loans making their debt soar. But one cannot live on credit forever. Repayment will be due one day. And then the bank or distrainer will come in and maybe seize house, etc.

Only few countries have a budget surplus, i.e. higher state revenues than public expenditure. The state budget deficit is usually covered by issuing treasury securities that are mostly bought up by local commercial banks or foreign central or commercial banks. The problem is that it is becoming increasingly difficult in today's world to find rich investors capable of immediately buying up all the treasury securities issued. Once investors are no longer willing to purchase any more treasury securities, great difficulties follow. And such a time is evidently not too far ahead. Most countries already have national debt of such a size that it puts them on the road leading undeniably to state bankruptcy. These countries include, in our view, the United States of America as well as a number of European countries. The issue is discussed for example in the article Public debt: unsustainable and simply unpayayable.

The global economic development is inseparably linked to the issue of financial derivatives. These financial instruments are used both to speculate on risk connected to certain purchases and sales, and to break down risk associated with certain financial operations. Derivatives usually take the form of a contract between two parties. We will not deal with them at this moment but only state that they will play a significant role in the next round of the financial crisis. More detailed information can be found for example in the article The REAL Reason Ben Bernanke Leaves a Paperweight on the “Print” Button When His Finger Gets Tired.

The rising household and national debt will continue to accelerate. The financial markets will soon shake in their foundations. The euro and the dollar will collapse – difficult to say at this moment which will be the first. Most probably the euro, it seems. The European Union might still be able to provide a loan to Spain (roughly 500 billion euro), but probably no longer to Italy (around 1 trillion euro, i.e. 1,000 billion euro). If the European Union does find the resources needed to help Italy, it will bring the Union to the very peak of its financial capacity. There are, of course, more European Union countries requiring financial assistance. Internal strife will deepen in the countries most affected by financial problems. Maybe they will have to resort to rationing and, in some places also to declaring martial law. And this would be but the beginning…

And how would the world be affected if the economy of some large country hit the bottom? Many products, intermediary products and raw materials travel across borders to be sold to their final users or to be further processed. The moment the financial crisis puts an end to the activities of a manufacturing company whose products are difficult to replace, foreign producers dependent on the output of that company may be affected as well. The situation in imports to this country would be similar. The local population would be demanding, especially, the products and services they urgently need, and foreign producers and various distribution intermediaries, and the like, who supply less necessary goods or services would face a drop in sales. Unemployment rates would rise, the standard of living of the population would decline – and not only in that one large country. Property prices would start plunging. At first, all sorts of speculators would rub their hands with glee, but after some time they would find that their enthusiasm had been unfounded. Investment into gold, silver and art would later also prove to have been useless. Besides other things, our Protection against WMD course also proposes things into which it pays to invest today.

We should bear in mind that until the very last moment most politicians and economists will continue to assure us through the media that everything is under control, and that everything is, and will continue to be fine. Of course, the only reason for saying that will be their intention to avoid panic and a rush on banks.

US Air Defense

Developments in the world cannot of course be assessed from merely an economic perspective. That would be an absolutely basic mistake. The military and political perspective must be taken into account, too. The continuing deployment of air defense elements by the U.S. and NATO is causing a lot of tension in the world. The claim that the system is aimed especially at Iran has not been justified with sufficient logic. So far, no concrete evidence has been submitted that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon. What the public is being fed with are lies – the same as happened prior to the attack on Iraq when statements were made about proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction on Iraqi territory. With the exception of a couple of old chemical artillery grenades, no weapons of mass destruction were found. The Americans and the British lied intentionally to the whole world; the result of this policy were hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi civilians. The request of the Russians that the U.S. submit proof that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon is therefore justified. For several years now they have been waiting for such proof in vain.

The intention behind the project of American air defense in Europe – against the alleged Iranian threat – is well illustrated, for example, by the deployment of the mobile MIM-104 Patriot surface-to-air missile system near the northern Polish town of Morag. There are several versions of this American air defense system, none of them so far able to defend the space beyond a 160 km (99 mi.) perimeter. The town of Morag lies approximately 60 km (37 mi.) south of Russian territory, namely Kaliningrad, and roughly 200 km (124 mi.) north-northwest of Warsaw. The obvious conclusion is that this anti-aircraft and anti-missile system cannot, under any circumstances, protect Warsaw against a missile attack by Iran, which is south-east of Poland. For this system to be able to effectively defend a considerable part of Polish territory against Iran, it would logically have to be deployed in southern Poland, not in the north. If it is not therefore designated for protection against Iran, it must be there as defense against a possible Russian attack. This is good illustration of how, in some cases, major media organizations and many politicians intentionally inform us about significant events in a biased and sometimes quite fallacious manner.

Under the pretext of the fight against so-called “terrorism”, American air defense systems are being deployed at strategically important locations. The circle around Russia and China is already closing. For details we recommend to read the article The Next World War: The “Great Game” and the Threat of Nuclear War : Part III. For the time being, the Russians have been responding to this encirclement by deploying the most advanced air defense system in the world – known as S-400 – close to the eastern border of the Russian Federation and near Moscow. In 2010, China received 15 air defense systems known as S-300PMU2 from Russia (Russian media: from selling 15 battalions have already been delivered complete S300PMU2), which are said to be better than the American systems Patriot. These defense elements have been deployed around Beijing and Shanghai. It is obvious that the air defense systems newly deployed around Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. are not there because of a terrorist threat. Everything points to preparations for a major war. The situation can be compared to the Titanic where, also, people were having great fun until that very last moment…

The World on the Precipice

The obvious question is: Why is it that such maneuvers are taking place in the world? Doesn’t everybody want to live in peace? The answer is complex. There are several aspects in play and we will focus only on the most important ones.

For decades now we have been hearing about the peak in the production of crude oil. Once this peak oil is reached, the amount of crude drilled will start declining – not however the demand for it. Many wells have passed their prime a long time ago and their production is dropping. Discoveries of new oil fields are not significant enough to solve the problem. It is also important to understand that it does not pay to extract all the crude oil from any deposit because of the cost. The less oil remaining in the well, the more expensive its extraction. The exploitability of a deposit depends significantly on the quality of the crude. If it is inferior (heavy crude, i.e. with a high sulfur content), only a small proportion can be extracted economically. On the other hand, when the quality is high (so-called light crude, i.e. with a relatively low sulfur content) it pays to extract as much as 80%. Another thing that deserves our attention are figures given for the supplies of oil, gas or coal, because they usually reflect only estimated total reserves (often intentionally exaggerated) of a given deposit, not what proportion of the total reserves could be extracted using current technologies and what proportion could be extracted at reasonable price. If we take the latter into account, we find that the real figures are often completely different. Judging from the latest data from the end of 2010, it appears that we may have either reached the peak oil or have already passed it (EU energy chief: Worldwide oil availability has peaked). This means that the supply of this raw material will decline from now on, while the demand will either grow or will remain roughly the same. Difficulty in meeting the demand will result in higher oil prices. And since oil is linked to transport, food production, production of fertilizers, plastic materials, etc., it would be hard to do without. There are alternative options, but they are markedly more expensive. Cheap products and services will soon become a thing of the past.

It is no secret that for a number of years the greatest battles against so-called “terrorism” have been taking place either in oil or gas rich countries or in countries suitable for laying oil or gas pipelines (we recommend the article NATO Trains Afghan Army To Guard Asian Pipeline). Afghanistan is the focus of interest of western countries not only because its territory is considered useful for building transit oil and gas pipelines, but also because of large deposits of important mineral resources. Since China has control over approximately 95% of the global supply of rare earth minerals (China Is Said to Resume Shipping Rare Earth Minerals), the supplies in Afghanistan appear to be of vital importance to the U.S.

Another important aspect is the craving for power, the desire to rule others, to dictate them and to live in plenty no matter what the cost. Whoever gains control over major supplies of oil and natural gas will be able to decide to whom the oil or gas will be sold and for how much and in effect control the economic growth of different countries. Add to this context the current “disarmament” efforts and deployment of air defense elements mainly around Russia and China. In our view, this is an attempt to put the Russian Federation and People's Republic of China into a position of absolute military subjugation to the West, which in the event of a war conflict with the West would give the Russians and the Chinese very small space for effective defense once the deployment of the elements of air defense is completed. We consider this a very dangerous step. What happens when we corner an animal? What is the best thing to do when we are surrounded on the street by four people who evidently do not mean well? The answer is simple. A cornered animal that is not offered a route of escape will attack us. Similarly, it is better for us to attack first when mobbed by individuals with evil intent on the street. And the same rules apply to states. Once a state is pushed into a corner and its national security is under threat, it has no other choice but to defend itself; in such case the power of the enemy makes no difference. For such a country or countries it is thus better to take certain defensive measures before the completion of the hostile air defense in neighboring countries. And time is running out. We believe that a third world war can no longer be avoided and that the countdown has begun.

We believe that world peace is linked to the financial stability of the U.S. The collapse of the dollar would not allow the United States of America to have such enormous military expenditure as it has today when the Pentagon (Department of Defense) 2011 budget stands at a surreal 725 billion dollars (Pentagon’s Christmas Present: Largest Military Budget Since World War II), which is historically the highest amount spent on the U.S. Army since WWII (of course adjusted for inflation). The collapsing economy would force the Americans to start vacating one foreign base after another and terminate military actions in the Middle East and in the Central Asia. The United States would face disintegration and a gradual decline to the level of a more developed developing country. This is a terrible vision the U.S. will never accept. From our point of view, the economic difficulties of the U.S. would lead to a war in the Middle East, which will then, rather rapidly, spread – also to Europe. It is important to be aware that no country, under any circumstances, would be willing to invest several trillion dollars without wanting something in return, for the purpose of spreading this thing called “democracy” in the world when it is itself drowning in debt and borrowing left, right and centre. It is no secret that it becomes almost impossible for the United States to pay back its rapidly growing debts, which in March 2011 reach 14.3 trillion dollars, i.e. around 100% of its gross domestic product (GDP). This makes reports about how the United States, just because it has its heart in the right place, is helping the Afghan and Iraqi people on their road to “freedom” and “democracy” absolutely ludicrous. It could be mentioned on the side that due to growing military expenditure and resources going to various government agencies dealing with national security, large amounts of money are being siphoned off and these resources are then lacking in other spheres. We hear about the critical state of the infrastructure, a situation so severe that many cities are facing the threat of interruption of drinking water supplies, many roads are in a very bad state of repair and so on and so forth. On top of this, many American cities and states of the Union are on the verge of bankruptcy (for more see the Bob Chapman's short video 100 US cities risk bankruptcy in 2011). We believe that the current U.S. economy is based on the principle of borrowing until it drops, providing not only a decent standard of living for the population but also enough money for investment into arms. Our view is that these steps of the American Administration are concealed preparation for war. Under normal circumstances, most countries would probably give priority to investing into the repair of roads, bridges, water distribution systems, sewage systems, etc., not into armaments and waging wars.

A war in the Middle East would help, especially, the American economy (on condition that it would not transform into a world war). A post-war renewal of the Middle East would require large investment of the part of the affected countries and American manufacturers would experience a boom. The circumstances would also benefit American arms producers. The Americans would save large amounts of money by not needing to liquidate old ammunition – they would get rid of that in the Middle East simply by using it. It is many times more expensive to liquidate old ammunition than to use it in a conflict. Testing new types of weapons in real conditions would also be a priceless experience for arms producers and the military command.

We have pointed out several aspects that all blend together and affect, and will continue to significantly affect world development. Anyone can now think of other things affecting what is going on in the world. There is the issue of the increasing scarcity of drinking water, of weather swings affecting agricultural production and the subsequent rise in the price of food … And there is possibly yet another important factor – that of astrophysics.

In August 2010, a certain document came into our notice on the possibly imminent increase of solar activity that might lead to the disruption of power supplies on this planet. We are not in a position to judge whether what is in the document is true or not. We do not possess the knowledge to be able to do so. If anyone reading this text does, we would welcome your opinion, especially if it is the view of an astrophysicist or other expert. We leave it up to the reader to weigh the details and recommend the article The Coming: A Boeing Whistleblower’s Warning : Will a Massive Celestial System Change Our Solar System?. There has been, however, one interesting official warning against a strong solar storm that might occur sometime around the end of 2012 or beginning of 2013. The details were presented in September 2010 in Australasian Science Magazine in an article titled Huge Solar Storms to Impact Earth, describing the possible consequences of such storm. Satellites, computers … all would be exposed. According to this article, many regions can expect a blackout. The article Sun storm to hit with 'force of 100m bombs' says, amongst other things, that if the storm occurred now, the damage would reach 1–2 trillion dollars, and the subsequent renewal would take 4–10 years. If the information turns out to be well-grounded, there would be a logical reason for the Unites States to try to bring under its control the greatest possible reserves of crude oil and natural gas before the solar storm strikes.

Economic Development from 1929 until the Present

The year 1929 has become known in history as the year of the beginning of the Great Depression that was triggered by the collapse of stock market crash in New York. The Depression gave momentum to the collapse of most of the world's economies and the resulting mainly high unemployment and drop in production and the living standards of the population. The crisis lingered on until the start of WWII. In 1939, the United States of America offered material assistance to the countries fighting Germany (and its allies) in the form of what has been called cash and carry. Countries needing material aid paid the United States in cash, gold or securities. Soon, however, they ran out of resources, and so, in 1941, the Lend-Lease Act came into effect in the United States, allowing payment to be made to the U.S. for the delivered material and food after the end of the war.

In fact, the Second World War ended the world economic crisis. From the very beginning of the war, the arms industry was rolling out production at full speed and expanding in the U.S. For this reason it was necessary to recruit more workers. These people got paid for their work and then used the money to buy also the goods which earlier they had not been able to afford. The producers of these goods were forced to step up production and recruit more employees as well. These people could also afford to spend more, and so more and more new people had to be employed. Unemployment rate started to decline sharply. The main mover of the American economy, besides other large public contracts, was arms production. It could be said with some exaggeration that without WWII it would have taken the world much longer to get out of the depression.

The United States had practically not been afflicted by the war, while Europe lay in ruins. The postwar renewal was a bonanza for especially the manufacturing industries. Market saturation was out of question, employment was on the rise and people were buying anything they could lay their hands on. And so it went for several decades, until competition began raising its head. Companies then had to start taking greater note of the requirements of customers. Economic and technical development facilitated international transportation and led to greater specialization of production. Today it would be difficult to imagine going without many imported products, intermediary products (semi-finished products intended for further processing) and raw materials. The speedier transport of goods, etc. enabled us to optimize stock reserves so that only the smallest possible amounts necessary or even no stock at all need to be warehoused. The world set out on the road of optimization towards the absolute extreme. This, however, will work unfailingly only on the presumption that no important supplier falls off the merry-go-round. The consequence of keeping minimal stock is that we have to wait weeks or even months to get a number of products, which means that in case of a crisis the goods might not be delivered until the crisis is over.

From approximately the beginning of the 21st century, the western world had to start dealing with growing market saturation, overrated property and security prices, risk lending, rapidly growing debt, etc. The financial and economic crises did not take long to follow. In 2008, the western world, especially, started finding itself in rather great difficulties. Many politicians and economists now often declare the crisis over. We believe that what is over is but the first round and that the second round will be the final one. The past, in our view, will be repeated. Compared to the consequences of the impending second round of the financial and economic crisis, the recovery after 1929 would appear to have been like shooting fish in a barrel. The above-mentioned problems will, in our view, lead to a third world war. However, we expect much faster course of these events compared to the past.

Operation under a False Flag

It is extremely unlikely for a global conflict to flare up out of the blue. The political-military analysts who not infrequently consider a third world war to be an inevitable process usually also share the view that the precursor of the global conflict will be an attack against Iran. According to them, the attack on Iran will be preceded by an event described as a second 9/11, or also as a false flag operation – if, of course, it would not be possible to incite a war against Iran in any other way. What is usually meant by the false pretext is the blasting of a “small” nuclear bomb (it is said it could be a nuclear weapon of less force than the one used in Hiroshima or Nagasaki) on a ship in some American port or even inside some continental American or Iraqi city, or the firing of several small missiles from the Iranian border into Turkey, Iraq etc., followed by an almost immediate revelation that Iran or al-Qaeda backed by Iran had been behind the attack, etc. Actually, we need not look too far for examples of false pretexts. Suffice to remember the reasons given for the 1939 attack against Poland by Nazi Germany (Gleiwitz incident) or the event that led to the U.S. entry into the war in Vietnam (NSA Releases History of American SIGINT and the Vietnam War). A more recent event, for example, was the intervention and occupation of Iraq in 2003 on the basis of the allegation that there were weapons of mass destruction on its territory.

A “small”nuclear explosion would have its justification. Compared to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it would probably cause many fewer casualties, because in this case the nuclear explosion would be on the ground or on water (both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions were airbursts) and, moreover, it would be carried out in a modern city with much more resistant buildings than those in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It would also trigger, of course, the required emotions and people would call for the prompt detection and punishment of the perpetrators. There would be no long search for evidence, the same as in the case of the “investigation” of 9/11 events. We would not be surprised if next to an evaporated ship the Americans find a floating passport belonging to some terrorist supposed to have taken part in the attack – in the case of 9/11 a chance male passer-by who left before being identified found not far away from the Twin Towers – and just before they finally collapsed – the passport of one of the alleged hijackers, Satam al-Suqami (The 9/11 HIJACKERS AND CONSPIRATORS – page 21 and 40). In the event of a limited missile attack from Iranian territory (it is not such a big deal to penetrate the Iranian border several kilometers inland for a short span of time) one would not have to wait long for the other shoe to drop. Later, maybe once the fighting starts, the public might be shown some proofs in the form of remnants of some missiles, and that would be it. The mentioned false pretexts are of course mere speculation. Time will show what the real pretext for war with Iran will be.

We expect the attack on Iran would lead within the order of weeks or months to the rapid onset of a world war. It would not be of much use to expand on a description of how the fighting could spread in the Middle East and beyond since a number of various combinations are possible. Let it just be mentioned that many people think that the Americans and Israelis have sufficient resources to keep the conflict confined to the territory of Iran or the region of the Middle East. We do not share that view. There is a firm military and political alliance between Iran and Syria. An attack against one would mean the involvement of the other in the battle against the common enemy. Also the Lebanese Hezbollah would immediately join forces with Syria and Iran. Iran is certainly no small country and would thus have “enough” time to respond rapidly by a retaliatory strike before the destruction of its rockets, planes etc. in the case of a hostile attack, mainly by the Americans or Israelis (or joint attack by Americans and Israelis). Its only option would be to spread the fighting to neighboring countries as quickly as possible. We believe that the retaliatory attack would be aimed at U.S. bases in nearby countries, at Israel and those neighboring states that allow the attack to be launched from their territory. This will cause the war conflict to spread rapidly to the whole Middle East region and the gradual involvement of individual NATO countries in the fighting. We expect the fighting to spread quickly to Central Asia and the Far East. Australia, Japan and South Korea would fight on the side of the United States and its allies and engage in hard battle primarily against North Korea and China. The entry into the war by the Russians and Chinese would be very unpleasant for the whole world.

The East Pulling Together

In 2001, six countries – Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan founded the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which besides promoting mutual economic cooperation acts also as a kind of counterweight to NATO. There is one other grouping that blends together with this organization – CSTO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization. CSTO members are Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Armenia. These are relatively powerful organizations and one should not trifle with them.

Relations between Russia and China have improved so much in the recent years that they can now be marked as friendly. In case of need, therefore, they will fight side by side as they are well aware of the threats posed to them by the continuing enlargement of NATO, the proliferation of American military bases and American air defense systems in the world. Therefore, their only meaningful option is to join forces with Syria, Iran, North Korea and other opponents of the western diktat and go into battle together. Otherwise they would end up like Iraq or Afghanistan – in ruins.

The Course of World War III

The third world war will come suddenly. The onset will be swift and sharp. The public in general will be caught absolutely unawares by the development. Similarly surprised will be various constituent components of the State, like the army, civil defense etc. and yet the indications of a looming major conflict are and will be many, but people do not want to see them… The first wave of attack will be aimed mainly at militarily significant targets (radar stations, command posts, assemblages of troops, airports, ammunition depots, fuel depots, rocket silos, etc.) and power sources (thermal, hydro and nuclear power plants and power distribution centers). The overwhelming majority of people would thus lose the possibility of getting up-to-date information on the web or from radio and TV broadcasts. The public will be immediately cut off from GPS and GLONASS navigation. Mobile networks will quickly become overloaded and soon stop working. If nuclear and electromagnetic weapons are used from the very start, the electromagnetic impulses might destroy or damage unprotected electronic devices like computers, TV sets etc. The population would have to rely mainly on siren warnings. The currently available option to launch a rapid attack means that any warning (if it will ever happen) would in many cases be limited to just several minutes before the attack. Most people would probably fail to reach shelters in time. People will then often have to rely only on themselves. Roads in the cities will be largely impassable. This will make it even more difficult to bring in supplies. Rationing of food and drinking water will be significantly limited and in many areas impossible. The possibility of providing medical care will be very limited from the very beginning. Everybody will be very unpleasantly affected by power outage. Epidemics will be able to spread due to unsanitary conditions.

All this will happen within a very short span of time, probably weeks or months. Compared to this war, WWII would appear to have been long and rather “harmless”. All available weapons would be used in the third world war. Also experimental weapons with effects that are still the subject of mere speculation would be deployed. Nonetheless, the biggest killer will not be the immediate effects of weapons of mass destruction that cannot be avoided in certain situations, especially if one is too close to the epicenter, etc., but lack of knowledge about protection against their effects and the total unpreparedness of the population for a war conflict and its consequences.

Simulation of a Surface Nuclear Explosion in the City

Let us show how lack of knowledge about protection against the effects of weapons of mass destruction, especially on the part of civilians, would often result in absolutely unnecessarily high numbers of dead and injured. Imagine nuclear bomb explosion in the centre of a town. The calculation of the impact of the nuclear blast on this hypothetical town will be based on the following presumptions:

Since we are presuming that in the event of a nuclear conflict there would be a scarcity of good medical care and salvage technique, we expect severe injuries to be fatal. To illustrate the point, we will divide the numbers of dead persons according to the destructive factors of a nuclear burst. The first category will include people who would die due to the effect of the blast wave and marginally initial radiation, seismic waves and light and thermal radiation. The second category will include individuals who would die due to the high radiation dose received from radioactive fallout and who do not fall under the first category. The estimated number of people killed in a nuclear attack on the model town is given in the following table.

Knowledge about
protection against WMD
Number of dead
(blast wave, …)
Number of dead
(radiation from fallout)
Total loss of life
 none 40,000 90,000 130,000
 general 39,000 80,000 119,000
 good 38,000 40,000   78,000
 very good 37,000 10,000   47,000
 excellent 36,000 Dozens   36,000

On the basis of the evaluation of initial conditions, the diameter and fireball rise velocity, shading of the light and thermal radiation by dust, smoke and buildings (at different times after the explosion and also with regard to the blast wave arrival time), the possible flaring up of fires, the amount of light and thermal energy released at different times after the explosion throughout the duration of the light and thermal impulse, the effect of seismic waves on buildings, the decrease of energy from blast wave caused by the destruction of barriers, the protective properties of buildings against radioactive radiation and the onset of fallout arrival we came to the conclusion that total loss of life could be around 130,000 people; of this number, around 40,000 would mainly be killed by the blast wave. It is evident from the table that the greatest losses in this model case would be caused by radiation from fallout (a 225% increase in the number of deaths compared to losses caused by, mainly, the blast wave). This radiation would claim a large proportion of deaths from the ranks of those exposed to radiation within several days or weeks after the explosion. We also see that increased knowledge about protection against weapons of mass destruction is matched by a swift drop in the numbers killed by irradiation from fallout; however, in the case of blast wave appropriate knowledge about protection against WMD is reflected in a merely small decline in the number of deaths. This is because it is not so very much difficult to avoid problems caused by irradiation since there is relatively “enough” time. Were the population to have excellent knowledge about how to protect themselves against the effects of weapons of mass destruction, the total loss of life would be a mere 9% (36,000 individuals) of the total population of the town, while total ignorance of protection against WMD would in this case result in something like 32.5% (130,000) deaths.

In this particular case we have simulated a 100kt nuclear burst. Although the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a force of about 16 kt and the Nagasaki one about 22 kt, the losses in our model are not so much different from the estimated number of deaths in Hiroshima (90,000 to 166,000) and Nagasaki (60,000 to 80,000) by the end of 1945, the nuclear weapon we used was roughly 5× more powerful. Unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we simulated a surface nuclear burst, thus significantly increasing radioactive contamination of the terrain. If the people in this model town had good or very good knowledge about protection against the effects of weapons of mass destruction, the total loss of life would probably be less than Nagasaki.

We have, of course, rounded the final figure when calculating the population losses. The example has been very much simplified compared to what the reality would be. In a real situation a nuclear strike against any town would be chosen depending on the population density during day or night hours, the resistance of buildings, important targets in the town, the size of the town, … More nuclear weapons could be used as well, the attack repeated after a certain interval, chemical and/or biological weapons used shortly after the nuclear strike to increase the overall number of casualties, etc. Nonetheless, the example serves to illustrate that nuclear weapons are not all-powerful and that it is possible to resist them to a certain degree with relative efficiency. We have shown that lack of knowledge about protection against WMD could result in numbers of dead and injured that are many times higher than would be inevitable. It is evident that the most destructive factors of a nuclear burst are not the blast wave, light and thermal radiation, initial radiation, the electromagnetic impulse, radioactive contamination and possibly also seismic waves, but human ignorance of protection against the effects of weapons of mass destruction and unpreparedness for a war conflict and its consequences.

Nuclear weapons have their limitations and they certainly are not able to do anything that would contravene the laws of physics. Frequently and quite unjustifiably, much greater effects are attributed to them than is physically possible. We could add, at this point, that nobody had evaporated during the nuclear blast in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that nuclear weapons would not be capable of eliminating humankind not once (more information is on the Protection against Nuclear Weapons course). They may be capable of annihilating humankind perhaps only providing all people gather in the largest town squares and wait there patiently for the nuclear blast.

We could use the same way in which we showed the effects of a nuclear attack on a town to deal with the effects of a chemical, biological or toxin attack. We could also discuss a possible blast of neutron weapon, which is a type of nuclear weapon. This might be interesting, but it is unnecessary. In all these cases there would be a direct relation between knowledge about protection against WMD and total casualties.

The World after World War III

The third world war will not mean the end of humankind, but “only” the end of our technically advanced civilization. A post-war renewal of the society that would bring it back to its state today would be practically impossible. Destroyed power plants and electric distribution substations will be an enormous problem. Without electricity, it will not be possible to supply drinking water and gas. The sewage system, rubbish collection, medical care, industrial production, supply, computers (most of them would have been either damaged or destroyed by electromagnetic impulses anyway), telephone lines, etc. are not expected to work. Oil refineries, fuel storage facilities, large numbers of important vehicles (tankers, excavators, lorries, cranes, etc.), many roads, bridges, dams … will be destroyed. Add the enormous reduction of the population including many experts. Anybody is able to imagine what would come next. The question is to what century would our civilization fall back into? Will it be the 18th century to be swiftly followed by the 15th century? Unlike today, production in the Middle Ages developed without computers and in locations where all the suppliers needed for the production of certain goods were within easy reach of a manufacturer. The post-war development being what it will be means that the education, social status, job position, accumulated assets, etc. we had acquired would no longer be important. What will be most valuable will be the special knowledge focused on protection against weapons of mass destruction, on ensuring supplies of drinking water and cultivating crops, providing basic health care, surviving in the wild, craft skills, etc. The acquisition of necessary skills and knowledge is very demanding. It is also necessary to do the sufficient material preparation to be able to use the knowledge and skills appropriately. The conclusion is that these matters cannot be postponed and dealt with at the last moment…TOPlist