If one wanted, hypothetically, to win a world war, and studied the previous world wars to glean what relevant information might be revealed, one would be struck by the fact that America is a formidable foe, with tremendous natural resources. Americans habitually throw away enough food to feed another continent. Or a war effort. It would be advantageous to remove this fertile ground from the equasion. What if Rome had salted the fields before waging war on Carthage?
In World War One, the ever conscientious Germans found that when America entered the war, their calculations indicated no possible way to counterbalance these American resources. They rightly conceeded. It was the only sane and humane choice. What happened next was a crime against humanity. Their people were enslaved with war debts, a crime which resulted in the unrest that incubated World War Two.
Again, in World War Two it was the steady supply of raw materials and food from America that sustained the British, regained control of northern Africa, and broke the western front, turning the tide of the war. If one were inclined to wage war on a global scale, this American cornucopia would be enemy number one. But how can one conquer such vast territory at such great distance? It’s impossible. The Americans have been studying that scenario since 1946.
If it cannot be conquered, then it must be destroyed, or at least incapacitated, so that the resources are taken out of the calculation. But it cannot be done by force, or even by stealth, because America has developed a paranoia rivaling our most totalitarian enemies. It must be done from within, with the approval of the American people, or at least the shareholders.
At a time when Russia is risking war to annex Ukraine in plain sight of the world community, a country which was once known as “the bread basket of the USSR,” a tiny group of international businessmen are planning to introduce billions of gallons of a top-secret and highly dangerous chemical compound into “the bread basket of the USA.” This pipeline (which is expected to spill at least every five years, according to TransCanada, the company which wants to build it) will poison the water supply used for 30% of irrigation in the United States.
Also, it’s highly explosive. The rail carriers insist that diluted bitumen is far to dangerous to transport by rail, although they have transported oil and coal for a century. Also it produces noxious gas in the first 48 hours after the spill, which has killed animals and could kill humans. Also, there’s already a giant pipeline in place. Why not maintain and upgrade the existing slightly longer route that doesn’t endanger 30%+ of agricultural production? It would almost certainly be less expensive.
How is this not a national security concern?