The Danger is Defeat, Not Destruction

Back in 1979, Gary North published the anonymous analysis of a military insider commenting on the fact that the Soviet military buildup may have already surpassed that of the U.S.

The most important insight was that the Soviet Union had no economic or political interest in nuking the U.S. The U.S. had been (for decades) subsidizing the Soviet Union, as Antony Sutton catalogued in a series of books published by the Hoover Institution.

The military insider made this assessment of the Soviet threat: "The Danger is Defeat, Not Destruction." The concept received international attention. The Soviet Union was not planning on destroying the Goose that was exporting the golden eggs, just as the Confederate South had no intention of destroying its "manual labor base."

Let's apply that analysis to the current "bailout."

There is now some discussion about the fact that China holds as much as $350 billion of the $700 billion in bad debt. I doubt anyone can pinpoint the numbers, but the ballpark figure works well enough for the question being posed in this blog post.

Add to the debt picture the fact that China has nukes, just as the Soviet Union did. Maybe even some of the same nukes Carter and Reagan were worried about. Years ago a Chinese general made passing remarks about nuking Los Angeles if the U.S. intervened in the China-Taiwan conflict.

So here's the question: how do we know the U.S. has not been defeated by China? How do we know China has not made demands on the U.S. to bailout China's bad debt, demands which have been backed up with nuclear persuasion? How do we know that Bush and Paulson have not been persuaded by the Chinese?

If this scenario is true, do you think your "elected representative" in Washington will tell you about it?

As this is being written, the Senate is falling all over itself to get a bailout passed, despite the failure of the bailout in the House, due to overwhelming public opposition. Perhaps Fox News has been instructed to subtly slant coverage in favor of the bailout, switching from "bailout" terminology to "rescue" plan, and claiming that the entire economy is just going to come to a dead stop without the bailout rescue.

Do you think your letters to Congress matter if the U.S. has already been defeated?