Army Paper: How our economic war with China could turn real

31 Comments on "Army Paper: How our economic war with China could turn real"

makati1 on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 5:40 pm 



And I want to waste time reading a “report” by another wing of the US Department of Propaganda (RAND)? Nope.

However, the article does point out that fact. The Empire (US) is working desperately to get a real shooting World War 2 going before it collapses and burns from its own internal problems. No people om earth wants war more than the US Neocons. None. There would be no wars if the leaders were the ones who had to fight and die.

Boat on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 7:52 pm 



mak,

Before any war Japan, India, S Korea, Vietnam, Australia, etc would gear up. You forget the power of free trade. Not to forget the US has the most capacity to weapon up in the world.

Davy on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 8:35 pm 



The problem with these analysis is they fail to admit to just how reliant all nations have become on each other and all together in a healthy global system. The idea of war between China and the US is just not possible within the context of the status quo. There will be not status quo post conflict. This reality is absent from so many discussions even here on this board. We are talking the end of decoupling and the reality of common dependence or collapse. It is just not possible to diverge without sinking the whole undertaking. It may be possible to have a very limited conflict where purely military losses are sustained then a pull back to a rational understanding of the gravity of further conflict. We are mostly stuck in 20th century thinking in a 21st century reality. What this means is we have the habituated understanding of what we can do and where we are going based upon an obsolete narrative. Not only is our narrative obsolete from the standpoint of failing to transition to 21st century realities but the narrative is lost in false optimism. We are facing a collapsing world with a status quo mentality. That can’t end well.

makati1 on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 8:39 pm 



Boat, your delusional again. Better take your meds. LOL

claman on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 8:43 pm 



Boat; Let’s make some proxy wars against china in south east asia.
China has chosen to be imperialistic in south/south east Asia. Let them face the music. Let them know what imperialism is all about.

claman on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 9:00 pm 



Davy, what you are saying is that the bully will eventually grow up and come to his senses. I do not agree on that . WE HAVE TO STOP THE BULLY before his bullying becomes a habit. That might have a cost, but that is nothing compared to the cost of having a full grown bully that doesn’t respect others att all.
For the moment being China has no respect at all for any other point of view than their own.
They should meet resistance. NOW

Apneaman on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 9:09 pm 



Anyone have even 1 historical example of the bully just up and stopping when they still had the capability to bully?

China and weapons of mass destruction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

I don’t know much about China’s military capabilities, but I would not be surprised if they have stuff we don’t know about. Sneaky devils eh?

shooi dan tom on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 9:43 pm 



We don t want war with anybody in China.
We were invaded by Britain, US, Japan,
Russia, Germany, Portugal, France….We
were forced to buy opium from nice, decent, noble, holy, maybe wholly, and honorable people. Remember it was white people who killed the natives and stole their land in New Zealand, South America, US, Canada, Hawaii, Australia, Guam, Falkland Islands, Palestine……… We want to learn from white people, but we know our place in the sun. We are not as good as white people in killing other peoples.

sidzepp on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 10:08 pm 



Good point Shooi. Once the Chinese consolidated their Empire 2000 years ago they became more isolationistic than America in the 1930’s. The only major blemish on their dealing with neighbors is the annexation of Nepal and that can be justified in the dependency on the water resources of the Tibetan Plateau.

GregT on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 10:27 pm 



“WE HAVE TO STOP THE BULLY before his bullying becomes a habit.”

I’m betting that China and/or Russia will put the bully in his place.

Apneaman on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 10:30 pm 



Advanced Chinese technology.

Awesome! China’s futuristic “straddling bus” launches 1st road test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdl3uxW3aI&feature=youtu.be

I think they might be more crazy than white people……yeah right

Boat on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 11:10 pm 



greggiet,

Wasn’t it the US that got Japan out of China. I’m not sure Japan even needs any help.

makati1 on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 11:11 pm 



GregT, that is my bet also. And soon, I hope.

makati1 on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 11:12 pm 



Boat, Japan is a dying country that is even more in need of a big war to cover up the slow collapse they are experiencing.

makati1 on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 11:17 pm 



China can buy anything they want. They don’t need to steal it like Americans do.

China net reserves: $3,230,000,000,000.00+

USA National Debt: $19,418,000,000,000.00+

Fred Fernandez on Mon, 8th Aug 2016 11:45 pm 



Commie China is world enemy #1 and the anti-Christ. China is doomed, toast, finished, kaput, bankrupt and soon starved. China can’t win any war especially now. An arms race against the world will bankrupt Chinaman. Idiot Chinaman should go home and take his meds.

makati1 on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 12:13 am 



Fred, I hope that is sarcasm, otherwise it is pure stupidity and ignorance. The US is world enemy number one with a long list of proof starting long ago. But your indoctrination makes you believe it is pure good and not pure evil. Americans share the blame equally because they not only allow it but support it with their ignorance and taxes.

theedrich on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 3:01 am 



Granted, China is corrupt and oppressive.  But we need some perspective here.  As war and imperialism go, the American public has always fallen for religious propaganda to excuse its mass murders:  the desired opponent is supernaturally “evil” and therefore must be killed.  Hence Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc., etc.  And before them, America’s entry into WW I on extremely spurious grounds (the “Zimmermannn telegram”), to say nothing about the Spanish-American war and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor, or the lure of Fort Sumter on Confederate territory, to say nothing of the Mexican-American War before even that.  All smeared over with religious “justifications.”

However, today things are different.  Even tiny North Korea has nukes, and is experimenting with delivery systems.  Nukes have been America’s main threat to Europe and Asia for many decades now, but our bullying of the rest of the world is slowly weakening, since other nations do not share our Protestant Ethic of self-justification.  Among other military dangers, there is also the electronic threat (cyber warfare, EMP, new forms of propaganda, as ISIL has shown, and so forth).  All amidst a deteriorating globe overpopulated with low-IQ primates and criminals of every sort.  Above all, we have a bottomlessly corrupt political leadership following the dictates of the highest bidders not only domestically, but in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.  We can see the results in the growing chaos in Allahland.  Meanwhile the American masses are told to continue their sleep.

But it may turn out to be a sleep from which they will never awaken.

shortonoil on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 5:42 am 



“2) Only an idiot (i.e. politician) would think this was unbiased gospel when it is merely a candle in the darkness at best and a sales pitch at worst.”

It has been such a successful sales pitch that the military had to tell Congress that it did not need any more money last year, even though Congress really wanted to give it to them. It has evidently gotten sort of ridiculous when the military can’t even figure out where to spend more money. Maybe more spending than the rest of the world combined has finally secured US defense? The US is now completely safe from anyone in the world, except for the fruitcakes running it.

shortonoil on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 5:58 am 



“I’m betting that China and/or Russia will put the bully in his place”.

They might, but they are not going to do it militarily. The US has invested over $10 trillion in its Star Wars system. It now has X-Ray lasers in orbit that could take out a small planet. It bought a Death Star. I’ve seen the things fire, and I have measured their output. The only question is why would humans build such monsters? It is definitely proof that we are as a species one box short of a Happy Meal. Truly nuts!

makati1 on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 6:15 am 



short, the US cannot even make a plane that works after 14 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. They certainly don’t have any of that bullshit you list.

shortonoil on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 9:26 am 



“short, the US cannot even make a plane that works after 14 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. They certainly don’t have any of that bullshit you list.”

It is certainly interesting that you have fallen prey to the malaise that is effecting the US elite. You have fallen in love with your own stories!

Baptised on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 1:58 pm 



35 countries have better test scores in Math & Sciences, than USA. My belief from reading foreign news is Russia, China, Iran are trying to stay out of a war and let the USA keep dumbing down.

Anonymous on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 2:50 pm 



The Rand Corporation never met a war (plan), they didn’t like.

makati1 on Tue, 9th Aug 2016 4:55 pm 



short, I am not one of the elite. LOL far from it. I just know what is bullshit and what has a chance of truth.

Cloggie on Thu, 11th Aug 2016 5:08 am 



@shooi – white people didn’t kill that many Chinese people and hopefully never will. But no nation has raged so much against its own people as the Chinese under Mao. Even more so than the Russians under Stalin.

@claman – are you a warmongering Russian or something? China is behaving quite moderate since 1980, minds its own business. Meanwhile it is now so strong that it wants the US navy out of its front yard. Can’t blame them. How about the US navy retreating to Pearl Harbor?

@Fred Hernandez – you are a major league fool. China is NOT communist but instead authoritarian nationalist and communist in name only. And aparently you missed that within 15 years China could be the most Christian nation on earth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

Chinese are so keen in copying anything western that they now embrace this semitic superstition as well.

I as a cynical European love the rise of China because it completely torpedos the NWO designs of Washington. China is going to be a superpower in this century and that very fact alone will force the EU and Russia to combine forces and set up a counter balance and together with China destroy the NWO and replace it with a model of a multi-polar world.

Meanwhile European America, lining up behind Trump, has understood that the American Era is over and prepares to go it alone although they don’t realize it yet.

Paris-Berlin-Moscow has 640 million people and outnumbers the 80 million or so of flyover country by a factor of 8. I’ll leave it to you as an exercise to figure out who is going to dominate who.

720 milion Europeans worldwide are more than enough to balance 1300 million Chinese.

Read this depressing story to understand why European America will want to escape from Washington and the intentions of the US deep state:

http://www.unz.com/ldinh/obscured-american-hank-the-small-business-financial-advisor/

energyskeptic on Thu, 11th Aug 2016 12:51 pm 



This report rules out nuclear weapons, but if you read history I don’t see how anyone could rule this out.

Nor is the threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) nuclear weapon exploded over the USA or via EMP generating weapons that can be built with instructions off the internet ever mentioned.

An EMP attack is by far the most likely strike from China, engineered to look like it came from North Korea or middle eastern terrorists. See my post “The EMP Commission estimates a nationwide blackout lasting one year could kill up to 9 of 10 Americans through starvation, disease, and societal collapse” at http://energyskeptic.com/2016/emp-commission-estimates-nationwide-blackout-lasting-1-year-could-kill-up-to-9-of-10-americans-through-starvation-disease-and-societal-collapse/

Here are some excerpts about China from my book review of “CYBER WAR. The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It” by Richard A. Clarke and Robert K. Knake at http://energyskeptic.com/2013/cyberwar-richard-clarke/ (also see my book review of Joel Brenner’s “America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare” at http://energyskeptic.com/2013/brenner-cyberattacks/). Again, the attack can be made to appear to come from Russia or elsewhere than China. I think an EMP attack is far more likely though.

If China was the attacker, we couldn’t retaliate against their systems, because unlike the United States, the Chinese government has gone to great lengths to protect their civilians by making their network secure, and can sever their network from the world-wide internet. Their internet is really more like an intranet due to the government being the service provider.

And we can’t hack them as easily as they can us, because Bill Gates sold them Microsoft’s internal code (Cisco did the same thing), which the Chinese modified to be far more secure and encrypted. Plus now the Chinese know what the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the code are and the best ways to break into Microsoft computers (or Cisco routers). The Chinese government doesn’t have privacy issues like the USA, so they scan incoming traffic for malware to prevent other nations from planting logic bombs and trapdoors on their systems.

Mutually assured destruction (MAD) has kept us from annihilating one another with nuclear bombs, but in a cyber war, both the power of the offense and the defenses of a nation are secret – there’s no deterrence holding nations in check.

If our offensive capabilities were made public, adversaries might think we were bluffing. If we demonstrated our ability with a small attack, that method is no longer available – many cyberweapons can only be used once because after that the enemy will fix their systems to deter a similar attack. All cyberweapons all have a limited shelf life as new operating systems replace old ones, logic bombs and trapdoors discovered and removed, security holes are patched, etc.

Nor is it likely the United States could be deterred by threats of a cyberattack. For example, both this book and Brenner’s “America the Vulnerable” describe a hypothetical military situation where China takes over the South China Seas to get at the oil deposits, and we in turn send in our navy in to try to get China to back down. At that point someone in the room should say something like, “Mr President, if we do that, the Chinese will cyberattack us and destroy our electric grid, crash the stock market, derail our trains, blow up our refineries and chemical plants”.

But there isn’t anyone to speak up – no one wants to be Obama’s cyber czar for reasons explained in the book. The military can only see the positives of technology, they see it as our greatest strength, and can’t comprehend it’s also our greatest weakness as well.

Because we haven’t thought this through yet, and because we’re so vulnerable, it means we’re even more likely to strike first because we know that if we’re attacked first, the other side will have cut off their cyberspace so we can’t retaliate.

What’s really strange is that we have already been attacked (and “attacked” other nations as well). The battlefield is prepared for a future war. Since it wasn’t actual foreign military forces strapping bombs on our infrastructure or foreign workers returning home with briefcases of stolen intellectual property, we do nothing, feel nothing. Yet the logic bombs and trap doors within our electric grid and financial systems can do just as much damage as foreign secret agents with nuclear suitcase bombs. Which do exist, though we don’t believe that another nation has brought a nuclear bomb suitcase into America (yet), nor have we planted any of the several hundred we own into another nation (p 198-199).

Yet both we and foreign nations are planting bombs in each other’s computers, microchips, networks, and internet systems.

In the future, a cyberwarrior might be caught laying a trapdoor or logic bomb that’s interpreted as meaning an attack was on the way. The risk of an accidental cyber war is huge, and that in turn could lead to a (nuclear) war. Or a hacker or a network operator might accidentally trigger a logic bomb that’s already in place and start a cyberwar. The odds are good we’d retaliate against the wrong nation (i.e. the attack is launched from Viet Nam and made to look like its’ from China because Viet Nam is angry the Chinese are drilling for oil within their territorial waters and want the United States to intervene).

China’s Cyberwarfare strategy

The most likely conflict we’ll have with China is over the South China Seas. China has been claiming sovereignty despite objections from Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines for many years. This area has some of the last large stocks of fish, it’s an essential trade route, and above all, there’s oil and gas.

At the end of the 1990s China realized that they could use cyber warfare to make up for their lack of a physical military as strong as ours.

They’re especially keen on the idea of “asymmetric warfare” as expressed in the book “Unrestricted warfare”, which shows how a weak country can outmaneuver a much larger enemy using unexpected weapons and tactics such as:

Controlling natural resources
Join international legal bodies to influence them
Target civilians
Overwhelm the enemy nation with drugs
Steal an enemy’s technology, find the flaws you can exploit, and make your own version.

China’s cyberwar abilities are advanced enough that they don’t need to have equal physical armies to challenge the United States, as you can see in the Orbis article “How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015”.

As mentioned earlier, Cisco not only gave away their secret internal code to China, but China also makes Cisco routers, and with this combined knowledge made counterfeit routers sold all over the world at a discount – even the Pentagon bought some.

The FBI believes these routers could take down networks in a cyberwar and read encrypted data.

Knowing the internal code of both Microsoft and Cisco hardware, China could take down any network in the world. But they won’t harm themselves, because they changed the code to make it secure, and also developed their own microprocessors, and built their own operating system. China is also putting software on all computers that can scan for any malware already placed by the United States or other countries and remove it.

China even found a way to put software on thousands of computers at many embassies all over the world that turned on the computer camera and microphone and exported the information back to servers in China. It was nearly 2 years before this was discovered.

China’s cybertheft

Nothing comes close in history to the extent to which the Chinese government has hacked into industrial, universities, and government computers all over the world and stolen intellectual property such as military secrets, pharmaceutical drugs, and nanotechnology.

Our taxes and stock market investments have provided billions of dollars for research which China has stolen with cybertheft for pennies and made our businesses go bankrupt. We’ve lost tens of millions of jobs because of this cyberespioage, and swung the balance of power away from America both economically and militarily, since they’ve been able to get the designs for our most sophisticated fighter jets, submarines, destroyers, and other military weapons and systems.

A few years after China got Microsoft and Cisco source code, they stole Google’s source code by “spear-phishing”. Chinese hackers used social network tools like Facebook or Linked-in to figure out who the friends or colleagues of Google executives were, and sent emails that appeared to be from them. All it took was one executive to click the embedded link and the malware loaded on their computer spread throughout the network.

This isn’t cybercrime, but it is intellectual “theft by China”. Recently the Chinese were caught trying to steal seeds that can take up to 8 years and $40 million to develop (not GMO, see the New York Times article “Designer Seed Thought to Be Latest Target by Chinese. Agricultural espionage is a trend, F.B.I. says” for details).

Thomas Friedman in “The world is flat” wrote that “the total supply chain for my computer, including suppliers of suppliers, involved about 400 companies in North America, Europe, and primarily Asia”.

Friedman draws the conclusion that this makes war less likely because everyone loses.

Clarke thinks it may make cyber warfare more likely. And that China would win, since many of the components were made in China and could have been engineered to have hidden logic bombs that could be triggered in a cyberwar, or known vulnerabilities, intentional or not, that can be taken advantage of.

energyskeptic on Thu, 11th Aug 2016 1:04 pm 



What is China’s long-term endgame? Here are a few excerpts from 18 articles I have in post “The Great Game and Future wars over oil: Will China and the U.S. collide?” at http://energyskeptic.com/2015/the-great-game-and-future-wars-over-oil-will-china-and-the-u-s-collide/

Glain, S. Dececember 20, 2004. Yet Another Great Game. Beijing’s aggressive petrodiplomacy in Africa has put it on a collision course with Washington. Newsweek International.

If a report circulating among senior members of America’s defense establishment is any guide, the Sino-American war for future petroleum supplies has already begun.

According to the 80-page study, Beijing has identified the United States as “a paramount threat to its energy security and economic stability” and is busily establishing a “string of pearls” — forward deployments of surveillance stations, naval facilities and airstrips–to safeguard the petroleum-transport route from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea. Once it controls Asia’s vital sea lanes, the report goes on, China may then move on some of the world’s key oil reserves–perhaps by replacing the United States as Saudi Arabia’s patron and protector, or by seizing a strategic oil pipeline in the Russian Far East. The Chinese, the report says, “equate energy security with physical possession or control of energy supplies” and “have a tendency to see securing their energy security as a zero-sum game.”

Once oil-independent, China has over the last decade become increasingly reliant on imports, which now account for 60 percent of its oil consumption, up from 6.4 percent in 1993. Within the next five years, according to Beijing, China will be importing 50 million tons of oil and 50 billion cubic meters of gas annually. Even for a country more concerned with human rights, those kinds of numbers would remove many inhibitions.

Hale, D. April 5, 2004. Will China need a blue water navy to protect commodity imports? http://www.chinaonline.com

China’s immense need for raw materials will have many economic and political consequences.

First, China will have to develop a foreign policy and military strategy to protect its access to raw materials. As its trade ties expand with commodity exporting countries in Latin America, Africa, and southeast Asia, China will want to insure that they are reliable suppliers of critical raw materials. The sheer growth of trade should help to promote good political relations. The interesting question is whether China will perceive the need to have a larger Navy to protect shipments of oil from the Middle East, iron ore from Latin America, and liquefied natural gas from Australia.

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, commodities played an important role shaping British foreign policy. Britain nearly took the side of the confederacy during the American Civil War because of its large cotton imports from the south. Britain went to war with the Boers in South Africa in order to control the country’s large gold deposits. After oil replaced coal as the fuel of the Royal Navy, Britain significantly expanded her political role in the Middle East. She acquired protectorates such as Iraq and Kuwait from the Ottoman Empire. She helped to overthrow regimes in Iran which threatened her control of oil reserves. She also defended Malaya from a communist insurgency during the 1950s because of concern about the colony’s production of tin and rubber as well as the fact that Malaya was a major owner of pounds in the offshore Sterling area.

Commodities also have influenced American foreign policy. The U.S. maintained good relations with South Africa during the apartheid era in part because of the country’s large natural resource endowment. The U.S. went to war over Kuwait because of concern about Iraq controlling too large a share of the world’s oil reserves. The U.S. invaded Iraq during 2003 in part because of doubts about the reliability of Saudi Arabia as an ally and oil supplier. The U.S. is now moving to strengthen its relations with west Africa because it could be importing 25% of its oil from that region by 2005. Both the American Air Force and Navy have greatly increased their activity in the region.

Commodities have influenced Japanese foreign policy as well. During the 1970s, Japan adopted a pro-Arab foreign policy because of concern about oil supplies. In recent years, Japan has attempted to maintain a good relationship with Iran in order to obtain access to new oil deposits. Japan has also had a close relationship with Australia because of that country’s role as a primary supplier of iron ore and other raw materials to Japanese industry.

It has been over 500 years since China has deployed naval vessels far from the country’s territorial waters. But if China becomes dependent upon raw materials from regions as diverse as the Middle East, central Africa, and Latin America, she will naturally want to project power and influence in those regions.

China has already deployed 4,000 troops in the Sudan to protect its investment in an oil pipeline which it developed there with Petronas of Malaysia. The Sudan has been in a civil war for many years because of conflicts between the Moslem North and the black Christian South. China is concerned that the conflict could disrupt the pipeline so it has taken direct action to insure the project’s security. There has been little international attention focused on China’s role in the Sudan but is could set an important precedent for the future. As China’s dependence upon foreign commodities expands, it could decide to offer military support to governments in other countries suffering from civil wars or military rebellions. African countries also like doing business with Beijing because the Chinese government does not criticize their human rights policies. China’s relationship with Liberia demonstrated the flexibility of its political relationships with Africa. During recent years it has been a large buyer of Liberian timber despite the fact that Liberia had a civil war and authoritarian political regime which recognized Taiwan.

The other regions which could be vulnerable to Chinese territorial claims are the Senkakus Islands (the Chinese call them Daiyous) and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. It is widely perceived that both sets of island could provide access to large oil reserves.

December 4, 2003. China’s huge thirst for oil set to change world’s energy flows. Asian Wall Street Journal.

With its factories working overtime, and its consumers on course to buy almost 2 million cars this year, China is developing a world-class thirst for oil. And its hunt for steady supplies is reshaping the global energy scene. China – which this year surpassed Japan as the No 2 petroleum user after the US – is increasing its oil purchases even faster than it is pumping up its brawny economy.

Some fear that China, which doesn’t have large strategic reserves of fuel, might grow so desperate for oil that it would battle the US for influence in the Middle East or even trade weapons technology to alleged terrorist states.

Chinese demand is also making geopolitical waves in the US. Last month, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a committee of congressional appointees, debated how China’s thirst for oil would affect US access to energy supplies. Last year, the Pentagon reviewed a report on what it would mean for US national security if the Chinese and Saudis grew closer. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter, is negotiating to build a huge refinery in China with Exxon Mobil. The desert kingdom even has begun giving Chinese-language lessons to its oil officials.

makati1 on Thu, 11th Aug 2016 5:40 pm 



Energy, that is a very good outline of the situation. In the SF novel, Dune, the Harkonnens had everyone fitted with a heart plug that could be pulled anytime the masters decided to. The internet is today’s ‘heart plug’.

Can you name ONE vital service or commodity that is NOT connected to the internet somehow and would be vastly affected should the net go down for a long period, or forever? Other than what you personally own in hand, or can do locally, everything is connected to those chips and screens. Everything. ATMs and the world banking system, communications, inventories and shipping, etc. Everything important.

As for the use of nukes. Of course they will be used. It is only a question of when. Preemptive strike or when the opponent is backed into a corner and losing. Doesn’t matter. We will not survive as a species for very long after. MAD will not deter it this time. I grew up in the age of “Duck and Cover” and it didn’t happen then, but our leaders in the West are insane and believe that they can survive a nuclear exchange. It is much more likely to blow up this time.

Anonymous on Fri, 12th Aug 2016 12:27 am 



Just a minor nit mak, the ‘heart plugs’ only exist in the David Lynch movie. They don’t exist anywhere else. Not in the novels, nor in the recent Dune Mini-Series, or anywhere else. Though they might be in some of cheesy computer games, not sure.

IoW, the plugs are not canon.

But I get your point of course…

makati1 on Fri, 12th Aug 2016 6:07 am 



Anon, thanks for the correction. I will have to dig out my Dune series and reread it.