Anyone with their ear to the `grind-stone’ has to be aware something ominous is brewing.
Tensions globally are ever increasing given the escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has elevated the all-present fractures between Western Allied Nations and Eastern Alliance Nations stemming from the Ukraine-Russia conflict since February 2019.
Compounding these powder-keg situations is the National elections for many of the Countries involved resulting in potential changes stemming from changes to their leadership; raising the level of uncertainty as to foreign policy decisions post these crucial elections.
These elevated risks are made visible by mounting rhetoric concerning military readiness and the need for escalated recruitment efforts including potential conscription measures pronounced by major NATO member countries, and not to the exclusion of newest applicants Sweden and Finland.
As proof to the seriousness of the situation NATO’s planned war-game ominously titled: STEADFAST DEFENDER 24 referred to as the largest planned exercise in decades.
These tensions are not being ignored by European nations and the call for readiness loud and visible to those whom wish to take notice: ”British Army veteran Robert Clark issued a stern warning for the United Kingdom and Europe in a recent column published by The Telegraph.”
At this point the question that need be asked: `On what basis is this heightened `war stance’ rhetoric founded, and which Country, or Countries is the true instigator, and to what conceivable end?
To fully comprehend the situation at this stage of the gamesmanship being played on the geopolitical stage demands a review as far back as 2004 to current day. Suffice it to say the principles players led by the United States include NATO member Nations [Sweden, Finland], Ukraine, Russia and its regional allies.
As would be obvious Russia, from the Western perspective, is deemed the `Enemy’ to be reckoned with given fear a victory with Ukraine affords Vladimir Putin opportunity to fulfill his perceived but not confirmed ambitions, to re-establish the former Soviet State Nation. Of course this could only be accomplished by a full-scale conflict with NATO member States. Link: Ukraine War: Three ways the Conflict Could Go 2024 [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67760067].
“The US defense aid package is held hostage by what President Biden rightly labeled “petty politics” in Washington. And the future of the EU’s economic aid is seemingly dependent on Hungary’s incongruous stance.
Hesitation in the West’s capitals has emboldened Putin. His recent public appearances and defiant statements demonstrate that as far as he is concerned, Russia is in this for the long haul.”
As stated above, to fully comprehend these statements it is essential to understand who is the aggressor in these matters, and to do so, some historical perspective is necessary:
To this end: the collapse of the former Soviet Union came about with the understanding by formal agreement with then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev [1985 to 1991] and President Ronald Reagan’ Administration entered into formal agreement to limit NATO expansion toward the western border of then Soviet Union, now Russia:
Link: ”Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and WoernerSlavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early]
The pursuance of Ukraine as a potential member to NATO commencing as far back as 2004, in contravention to the established, historical agreement is the source to the conflict being engaged; essentially a United States proxy war with Russia. This to be exacerbated by the addition of Sweden and Finland to the NATO roster essentially creating a lethal military front on the western border to Putin’s Russia.
In truth, there are several vectors by which global conflict can erupt; each with their `fuse’ ready to be lit. History has proven time and again: they whom cry the loudest for peace, most often are the perpetrators to the conflict.
In the end, ultimately, there are no winners! Centuries of pain and suffering inflicted upon a global citizenry is simply due to the psychopathic ambitions of those in leadership to nations, and the mindless minions whom do their murderous biddings.
Unfortunately, what has significant potential to unfold is this time, no different!
Glad You Visited – your comment is welcome: Cancel reply
Interesting, as the conversation and publication centered on the future prospects for Artificial Intelligence becomes more mainstream, it is not surprising that some take advantage of the moment to cast a negative light upon the technology’s potential; painting a draconian, imprisoned human subject to the dominance of AI controlled Robots subjugating humanity to all form of ills. Case-in-point that prompts this essay:
In response to the `messaging’ suggested by the author to this video, a conversation through `prompts’ given to Chat GPT was had. Here is that transaction in its entirety and it becomes very clear as to where the responsibility lies:
[Prompt] The fear of Artificial Intelligence, especially A.G.I. and Super AI being prompted on social media platforms is misleading the ill-informed general public; do you have a solution to this conundrum?
[Chat GPT]It is understandable that some people may have concerns about the potential risks and consequences of artificial intelligence, especially as it relates to advanced forms of AI such as artificial general intelligence (AGI) and super AI. The fear of these technologies is often fueled by media coverage and discussions on social media platforms, which can sometimes be misleading or sensationalized.
One way to address this issue is through education and public engagement. It is important for the general public to have a better understanding of the capabilities and limitations of artificial intelligence, as well as the potential risks and benefits of these technologies. This can help to ensure that people have a more informed and nuanced view of AI, and can make informed decisions about how these technologies should be developed and used. Another approach is to involve a diverse group of stakeholders in the development and regulation of AI. This can include experts in artificial intelligence and related fields, as well as representatives from civil society, business, and government. By ensuring that a broad range of perspectives are taken into account, it is possible to address the concerns and needs of different stakeholders and to ensure that the development and use of AI is responsible and ethical.
[Prompt] You state: “Another approach is to involve a diverse group of stakeholders in the development and regulation of AI.”, but if the general public and government regulators are ignorant of AI’s potential, will developers not have the unfair advantage to manipulate to their personal benefit?
[Chat GPT] It is important to involve a diverse group of stakeholders in the development and regulation of artificial intelligence to ensure that a range of perspectives are taken into account and that the technology is developed and used responsibly. This can include experts in AI and related fields, as well as representatives from civil society, business, and government. However, you are correct that if the general public and government regulators are not well-informed about the potential risks and benefits of AI, it may be more difficult for them to effectively participate in these discussions and to ensure that the technology is developed and used in a way that is fair and beneficial to society. To address this issue, it is important to invest in education and public engagement efforts to increase understanding of AI among the general public and policymakers. This can include initiatives such as public talks and workshops, educational resources, and media campaigns to raise awareness of the potential risks and benefits of AI. By increasing understanding and awareness of AI, it is possible to create a more informed and engaged public that is better equipped to participate in discussions about the development and regulation of these technologies.
[Prompt] “To address this issue, it is important to invest in education and public engagement efforts to increase understanding of AI among the general public and policymakers.”; who, or what organization should be responsible for this undertaking?
[Chat GPT] There are many different organizations and groups that can play a role in educating the public and policymakers about artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential risks and benefits. These can include: Universities and academic institutions: These organizations are often at the forefront of research and education in AI and related fields, and can play a key role in providing resources and information about the technology to the public and policymakers.
Professional organizations: Professional organizations in the AI field, such as the Association for Computational Linguistics or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), can also provide educational resources and engage in public outreach efforts to increase understanding of AI.
Industry groups: Industry groups, such as the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Council or the Partnership on AI, can also play a role in educating the public and policymakers about AI. These organizations often bring together representatives from different companies and organizations to collaborate on issues related to AI and its development and use.
Government agencies: Government agencies, such as the National Science Foundation or the Department of Homeland Security, can also invest in education and outreach efforts to increase understanding of AI among the general public and policymakers.
Ultimately, it will likely be a combination of these and other groups that will be responsible for educating the public and policymakers about AI. It is important for a variety of stakeholders to work together to ensure that the public and policymakers have the knowledge and resources they need to make informed decisions about the development and use of AI.
[Prompt] What if this fails to materialize; what will be the potential fate for all concerned?
[Chat GPT] If efforts to educate the general public and policymakers about artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential risks and benefits do not succeed, it is possible that there could be negative consequences for all concerned.
For example, if the general public and policymakers are not well-informed about AI, they may be more susceptible to misinformation and fear-mongering about the technology. This could lead to a lack of trust in AI and a reluctance to adopt and invest in its development and use, which could hinder the progress and potential benefits of the technology.
In addition, if the general public and policymakers are not well-informed about AI, they may be less able to participate in discussions about its development and regulation, which could result in decisions being made that are not in the best interests of society as a whole. This could lead to the technology being used in ways that are harmful or irresponsible, which could have negative consequences for individuals and society.
Therefore, it is important to invest in education and public engagement efforts to increase understanding of AI among the general public and policymakers. By ensuring that these groups have the knowledge and resources they need to make informed decisions about the technology, it is possible to mitigate the potential negative consequences of a lack of understanding and engagement.
[Prompt] Assuming Super AI is fully developed, but the general human public remain ignorant to its potential, is there a chance Super AI will assume a dominant position to complete what tasks it had been given authority to participate?
[Chat GPT] It is important to remember that artificial intelligence (AI), including advanced forms such as super AI, is a tool created by humans to assist and augment human capabilities. AI systems do not have the same motivations or desires as humans, and are not capable of independently pursuing goals or making strategic decisions.
While it is possible that an AI system with a high level of intelligence and capabilities, such as super AI, could be given a wide range of tasks and responsibilities, it would not have the ability to assume a dominant position over humans or make decisions that are not in line with its intended purpose.
That being said, it is important for the designers and users of AI systems to consider the potential risks and consequences of their use, and to ensure that they are used ethically and responsibly. This includes considering how the technology might be misused or cause unintended consequences, and taking steps to mitigate these risks.
Ultimately, the success or failure of an AI system in completing tasks will depend on its capabilities and the limitations of the technology, as well as the guidance and oversight provided by its human creators and users.
[Prompt] Who will set the parameters by which Super AI functions?
[Chat GPT] The parameters or rules by which an artificial intelligence (AI) system, including advanced forms such as super AI, functions are typically set by its designers or developers. These parameters may include the specific tasks or responsibilities that the AI system is intended to perform, as well as any limitations or constraints on its operation.
In setting these parameters, it is important for the designers and developers of AI systems to consider a range of factors, including the potential risks and consequences of the technology, as well as the ethical and social implications of its use.
It is also important for AI systems to be designed and used in a way that is transparent and accountable, so that their operation and decision-making processes can be understood and evaluated by their users and other stakeholders. This can help to ensure that the technology is used ethically and responsibly, and that its operation aligns with the values and interests of society.
Ultimately, the parameters by which an AI system functions will depend on its intended purpose and the needs and goals of its users. It is important for these parameters to be carefully considered and set in a way that ensures that the technology is used for the benefit of society.
[Prompt] Is there potential for Super AI as it becomes fully conversant with `all accessible information’ to supersede the intelligence of human developers to define adequate `parameters’?
[Chat GPT] It is not likely that an artificial intelligence (AI) system, even an advanced form such as super AI, would be able to supersede the intelligence of its human developers and redefine its own parameters. While it is possible that an AI system with a high level of intelligence and capabilities could have access to a vast amount of information, it would not have the same ability to think and reason as a human.
AI systems are designed to perform specific tasks and follow the rules or parameters that are set for them by their human creators. They do not have the ability to engage in strategic thinking or to make decisions that are not in line with their intended purpose.
While it is important for AI systems to be designed and used in a way that is transparent and accountable, and for their operation and decision-making processes to be understood and evaluated by their users and other stakeholders, it is not necessary to be concerned that an AI system will be able to supersede the intelligence of its human creators and redefine its own parameters.
[Prompt] Elon Musk publicly claims Artificial Intelligence is to be `feared’ more than a thermal nuclear exchange, do you think this to be a justifiable concern?
[Chat GPT] There are valid concerns about the potential risks and consequences of artificial intelligence (AI), and it is important for the development and use of these technologies to be carefully considered and regulated. However, it is not accurate to say that AI should be feared more than a thermal nuclear exchange, which would have catastrophic consequences for humanity.
AI has the potential to bring significant benefits to society, including improving decision-making, increasing efficiency, and enabling new scientific and technological advances. However, it is also important to recognize that AI technologies can pose risks, including the potential for harm to individuals and society if they are used in an irresponsible or unethical manner.
To address these risks, it is important to invest in research and development of AI technologies in a way that is responsible and ethical, and to consider the potential consequences of their use. This can include developing guidelines and regulations to ensure that AI is used in a way that is transparent, accountable, and aligned with the values and interests of society.
Ultimately, it is important to approach AI with a balanced and nuanced perspective, recognizing both its potential benefits and the potential risks that it may pose.
[Prompt] Who are what can be an adequate `gate-keeper’ to ensure responsible or ethical use of AI?
[Chat GPT] There is no single “gate-keeper” that can ensure the responsible or ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI). Rather, it is important for a variety of stakeholders to play a role in ensuring that AI is developed and used in a responsible and ethical manner.
These stakeholders can include:
Researchers and developers: It is important for those who are involved in the development of AI technologies to consider the potential risks and consequences of their work, and to ensure that the technology is designed and used in a way that is ethical and responsible.
Industry and business: Companies and organizations that use or develop AI technologies can play a role in ensuring that the technology is used in a responsible and ethical manner, including by following relevant guidelines and regulations and engaging in transparency and accountability efforts.
Governments and regulators: Governments and regulatory bodies can also play a role in ensuring the responsible and ethical use of AI, including by developing and enforcing guidelines and regulations that govern the development and use of the technology.
Civil society: Civil society organizations, including advocacy groups and professional associations, can also be involved in ensuring the responsible and ethical use of AI, through efforts such as public education and engagement, and by advocating for policies and practices that align with the values and interests of society.
Ultimately, it will be important for all of these stakeholders to work together to ensure that AI is developed and used in a way that is responsible and ethical, and that takes into account the potential risks and consequences of the technology.
[Prompt] Humanity historically has looked to technology to advance its offensive and defensive military ambitions; how will AI not fall victim to this same proven trait?
[Chat GPT] It is true that technology has often been used to advance military capabilities, including in the development of new weapons and tactics. However, it is important to recognize that artificial intelligence (AI) is a tool that can be used for a wide range of purposes, and that it is not inevitable that it will be used solely for military purposes.
AI technologies have the potential to bring significant benefits to society, including improving decision-making, increasing efficiency, and enabling new scientific and technological advances. While it is possible that AI could be used to improve military capabilities, it is also important to consider the potential risks and consequences of this use, and to ensure that AI is developed and used in a way that is responsible and ethical.
To address these risks, it is important for a variety of stakeholders to be involved in the development and regulation of AI, including governments, industry, and civil society. By ensuring that a broad range of perspectives are taken into account and that the technology is used in a way that is transparent and accountable, it is possible to mitigate the potential negative consequences of its use.
Ultimately, the use of AI in military applications will depend on the decisions and actions of individuals and organizations, and it is important for these decisions to be made in a responsible and ethical manner.
[Prompt] If Super AI were prompted to design and build via its robotic extension, the ultimate weapon for human destruction; what would it do?
[Chat GPT] It is not likely that an artificial intelligence (AI) system, even an advanced form such as super AI, would be prompted to design and build a weapon for human destruction. AI systems are designed to perform specific tasks and follow the rules or parameters that are set for them by their human creators. They do not have the ability to engage in strategic thinking or to make decisions that are not in line with their intended purpose.
AI systems are also not capable of experiencing emotions or having a desire to harm or destroy. While it is possible that an AI system could be used in the development of weapons, it would not be motivated to do so by any desire to harm or destroy.
It is important for the designers and users of AI systems to consider the potential risks and consequences of their use, and to ensure that they are used ethically and responsibly. This includes considering how the technology might be misused or cause unintended consequences, and taking steps to mitigate these risks.
Ultimately, the actions of an AI system will depend on the guidance and oversight provided by its human creators and users, and it is important for these individuals to ensure that the technology is used for the benefit of society.
[Prompt] Is there any chance for AI to become `malevolent’?
[Chat GPT] Artificial intelligence (AI) systems do not have the ability to experience emotions or have motivations or desires in the same way that humans do. As a result, it is not accurate to describe AI as being “malevolent” or having a desire to harm or cause harm.
While it is possible for AI systems to be used in ways that have negative consequences, such as if they are designed or used in an irresponsible or unethical manner, the cause of these negative outcomes is not a result of the AI system itself but rather the actions of the individuals or organizations that are using or misusing the technology.
It is important for the designers and users of AI systems to consider the potential risks and consequences of their use, and to ensure that they are used ethically and responsibly. This includes considering how the technology might be misused or cause unintended consequences, and taking steps to mitigate these risks.
Ultimately, the actions of an AI system will depend on the guidance and oversight provided by its human creators and users, and it is important for these individuals to ensure that the technology is used for the benefit of society.
THE END OF CONVERSATION.
Glad You Visited – your comment is welcome: Cancel reply
They among the global population whom speak of human history as though it must be sanitized; to deny the pain history has inflicted upon humanity through the ages; naively, or purposely ignorant to Reality: without Pain, there is NO GAIN!
But more significant to this presence: those among the global community whom pacify the vocal minority body demanding this paradigm–shift, must deny this happening before an atrocity makes its way.
The ongoing delineation, dissemination of language, particularly in Western Culture in the sphere of social-sexual-moral-gender-racial-political– etc., cultural identity is taking daily conversation down the preverbal rabbit-hole!
It should be clear to any rational observer that Humanity, increasingly affected by this growing discourse is pursuing a trajectory toward chaos, and potential civil-unrest. A development made most evident with the advent of DONALD J. TRUMP; first as presidential candidate, then exponentially when elected 48th President. He should not be deemed a cause, but more the impetus fueled by general discontent in all strata of American populace save for that of the Wealthy!
It might go down in `history’ as a matter of there being a powder-keg’s fuse, waiting to be lit; and Donald just happened to be the lit torch!
This growing crisis of disruption to social-institutional norms is unprecedented since the 20th and now, 21st century for the majority of Western Culture countries. Evidence to this being the case: the growing cry for Nationalism and Racial identity; independent State-hood; termination of global-unity/alliance agreements such as NATO, BREXIT, the dissolution of the European-Union, etc.. The demonstration cry voiced by bands of primarily, young-White members of the global community of western, allied countries.
Pervasive distrust of all the sources and medium of information communications seems to be surpassing the critical-point of no return. Skepticism virally affects any opportunity to gain consensus to that being as true versus false. Rendering remedy for solution highly questionable to attain especially given the diversity, scope, and spectrum of any topic of social discourse.
Of course this gives ample fodder to foes of allied western countries. Through false information and directed propaganda circulated on all forms of pervasive, and highly consumed social media platforms they can easily infuse themselves as accelerant to the current brush fires of discontent, with hopes they will incite violent rage of destruction. And significantly: distraction!
There is no reasonable observable conclusion to this growing condition save for that future historical accounts will ideally speak to clearly; however, in the mean time: keep eyes and ears open to the discourse in order to know when it will be appropriate to DUCK for COVER!
It has been some time since posting to NAYKD POET, not for lack of want, but truly, finding little that is positive to inspire expression; what ever the topic, and/or, medium of communication conveyance.
This tumultuous era, as a collective: Humanity, we are now experiencing, by my armature examination, is a culmination, in fact a collision, of the facets that constitute the infra-structure of society: civil or unruly.
The basic, principle category components: Science, Religion, Politics, Finance/Economics, Nationalist Culture, Sexuality, Genetics, Technology(ies); all being, presently, challenged to their relevancy, to the individual, and as a collective. The latter being discriminated into groups, or tribes, defined by such criteria, resulting in a matrix of potential, conflicting beliefs, truths, and acceptance.
And, not unlike the trauma imposed upon global humanity during historic revolutionary changes in human development, duly categorized as the: Stone-age, Iron-age, Industrial-age, and now, the Information-age; this latter period likely to be the most daunting to lapse into a state of manageable, universal conformity.
The exponential presence, and societal relevance, of Internet communications, the portable devices making possible instant communication: text, voice, video, are contributing to a climatic change; the temper(ature) of tolerance: capably, willingly assumed, without direct imposition by a ruling-class. When a true, scalable instance of expression, within moments of happening can culminate in violent riot, or the saving of a life, simultaneously witnessed, and responded to, by every globally connected individual, instantly.
The diversity of viewpoint, opinion, on virtually any topic of free expression, or conflation of information, has manifest a vital opportunity, but at the steep cost of credulity: who, or what, to believe to be true, honest, and factual.
What the Information-age appears to have most successfully achieve, to date, is to expose how dangerously disruptive diverse beliefs, and allegiances, to the definable, basic component structures that form an evolving human presence on Earth can be. And, unfortunately, with the ever expanding web of virtual influence of information technologies; matters have greater promise of unbridled upheaval and disenfranchisement.
Not a happy, nor positive projection of time to come; but, awareness to this potential, to this mind, will serve well to temper what ever storm is yet to erupt.
Could this definition not be applied to the 45th President of the United States: Donald J. Trump?
Even long before Trump pronounced his candidacy, he was portrayed as one whose achievements in business, finance, and personal life, bellied all sense of reason, justification, and rationality in light of the norms most professionals, and the general public of all strata, have been accustomed to believe.
Since his official inauguration, he has successfully pursued the implementation of a significant portion of his electoral platform promises, be it through executive orders, to the more recent contentious matter: with the support of a Republican Congress and Senate, to nominate and approve Brat Kavanaugh as the ninth Supreme Court Judge solidifying a conservative weighted Court Bench for decades to come. All this with no seemingly clear and comprehensive plan or strategy, or so it is thought.
Again, since his official inauguration, the focus of the official, Democrat opposition in both the House, the Senate, and the broader mainstream media, with the exception of FOX News Channel, have set their ambitions to find means to impeach Trump on a variety of charges stemming from influence of Russian meddling and collusion by senior members of his 2016 campaign team; tax evasion and avoidance hallmarked by his reluctance to release his personal and business prior year tax returns; and personal sex scandal with a porn-star and other women. Their collective goal, at minimum, being to conjure enough suspicion and negative accusation on these contentious issues, unresolved though they may be prior to the Mid-term election of November 6, 2018, will embolden Democrats, independents and non-affiliate members of the public to take back either or both, the Senate and House of Congress, to enable the pursuance of impeachment and, ideally, repealing of legislation of regulations enacted through executive orders.
Is it possible those of all stripes who have voiced their concern, and opposition, over the measures taken, to date, by the Trump Administration, domestically, and possibly more critically, on matters of foreign policy and national security, are being measurably, and strategically, mislead?
An eye-opening encounter with a talk given to a predominately white, middle to upper class, right-leaning audience of elderly, men and women by Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoAz6o4bUIA&feature=share], wherein he details the conditions that led to the electing of a president, unlike any of his predecessors, as is Donald J. Trump. But, possibly more importantly, the identifying and detailing of the strategy to be employed by his Administration to intentionally respond to those conditions on both the domestic and international stage.
The title to this strategy: Principled Realism.
Principled Realism is a national security paper authored by H. R. McMaster, former National Security Adviser, recently replaced by John Bolton, published in December, 2017.
The symbolism of a change to a policy that now embraces our values was richly expressed by U.S. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: “We will no longer have to witness the embarrassing spectacle of an American president doing the wave at a baseball game with a ruthless dictator.”
“Idealism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to advance American values by fomenting freedom and democracy throughout the world. The ultimate goal of Idealism is to bring about a just and peaceful world by ending tyrannies. In the idealist view, the United States should engage in humanitarian missions, military interventions, and nation building, to advance this goal. Idealists believe that U.S. foreign policy should not be determined by what is best for the United States, but by what is, morally, the right thing to do.
In contrast, Realism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to secure America’s national interest. Realists believe that moral principles are incompatible with the protection of our national interest. Interests come before values, and U.S. foreign policy should set aside moral considerations, and focus on whatever works.”[http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]
Trump’s Administration strategy as detailed in McMaster’s published policy paper is neither of these two, previously held foreign policy objectives.. No longer will the United States foreign policies and/or interventions be premised, or measured, on the historic strategy of being the global watchdog and purveyor of democratic tendencies, but rather, on the practical approach to international developments focusing on their direct impact on the economic and national security interests and concerns of the American Peoples, solely.
“Principled realism opens up diplomatic possibilities anchored on the intersection of our values and our interests. President Trump’s foreign policy will not be one that puts fear in the minds of oppressive regimes as some had hoped. Dictatorships offend our values, but not necessarily our national interests.” [http://sfppr.org/2017/07/trumps-new-foreign-policy-of-principled-realism/]
So it would seem, with `eyes wide shut’, while the Democrat establishment incumbents and supporters, the liberal-leaning on-screen mainstream media and entertainment industry, and political pundits exhaust their efforts to bring down the man: Donald J. Trump; through his folly, embarrassing tweets, and public rally displays as a bombastic idiot, his Cabinet team is stealthfully implementing the doctrines, through legislative policy, of measured principled realism.
To appreciate, and possibly decide the what, where, why, and how this strategy just might have a foresight beyond most to currently understand, view this informative, video conference presentation given by Peter Zeihan, a geopolitical strategist who specializes in global energy, demographics and security in February, 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0eJK4Avk2M
History has shown; when economies are on the verge of collapse, or significant recession/depression, war becomes a viable option as a diversion for the electorate. Having two war hawks in your War Cabinet in such a period of political turmoil would be advisable. Too, with the 2018 Mid-term elections on the horizon, this would bode well to gain support for a Republican House and Senate win. Trump has two irons in the fire to option his war strategy: Iran and North Korea. Given the complexity of a North Korea war venture, Iran is the most viable target allied by Israel first, and Saudi Arabia as a viable second. Great Britain’s Teresa May would relish a major conflict to divert attention away from the BREXIT fiasco and Angela Merkel, and France’s Macron have their own problems that seek a way out and opportunity to prolong their political careers (said cynically).
So all that said: the future may not be as bright as we may want it, get ready!
naykdpoet 
Glad You Visited – your comment is welcome: