Spark

I'm afraid our future work will have to make some adjustments.

In the imperial capital, in a building with a red exterior wall, an old man wearing a Chinese tunic suit said to the people sitting around him.

For a long time, the reality of rapid technological development has given us an illusion, that is, we believe that in the environment of leap-forward technological explosion, humans will no longer break out large-scale wars, but will quickly Entering a peaceful and stable stage of development.

This is a relatively reasonable inference, but in fact, even throughout the entire history of mankind, we have never experienced the kind of large-scale, large-scale, and long-span technological progress we are experiencing now.

Therefore, the 'trends' we infer based on past experience are actually not credible.

This can be seen from a series of events in Europe and America.

In the final analysis, social science is still an 'empirical science' rather than an absolute 'theoretical science'. We must learn from this lesson in the future.

After hearing his words, everyone in the room nodded.

Then, a man wearing glasses—Chen Feiyun—said:

At this point, the Academy of Social Sciences must indeed take responsibility and bear the infamy.

After all, our vision is too narrow. We think we can control everything, but in fact, things are moving out of control.

If there needs to be accountability.

Don't say anything about seeking accountability.

The man in Chinese tunic suit waved his hand to interrupt him, and then said:

As I said, the inferences we made before are reasonable, but we just can't take into account all the randomness.

“So, the focus is not on seeking responsibility, not on who will take the blame, and who will foot the bill, but on finding ways to adjust our view of the future so that our recommendations are truly usable as a reference.”

So now, a problem is before us.

Should we prepare for war?

Will the war that is just around the corner burn across the world like wildfire, or will it burn out after burning out its fuel?

After the words fell, everyone in the room fell into silence.

The so-called burning out the fuel is actually easy to understand. It means that through one or two local wars, the United States' war motivations are consumed, so that their benefits from launching wars are reduced to less than peace and stability. In this way, the risks of wars are reduced. It naturally disappeared without a trace.

But is this really possible?

On the left side of the room, a man in military uniform raised his hand to speak.

I personally think it's impossible for the fuel to burn out.

The U.S. military has just experienced a severe blow in which they have fully experienced the bitter consequences of losing power, and a common view is brewing among the military.

That is, the future will definitely be a peaceful era, but the more peaceful the era is, the less soldiers will be able to obtain sufficient benefits.

So, if you want to ensure that your position is not challenged, you must continue to wage wars - even meaningless and purposeless wars.

Ideological conflicts will become more intense because this is the best excuse. To put it bluntly, they will continue to add fuel to the fire. Maybe the fire will not burn around the world, but there will always be a fire burning.

After hearing his words, the man in Mao suit nodded slightly.

Raise your hands if you agree with this view.

Only a few people in the room did not raise their hands, and after questioning, the man discovered that the view of the remaining people was that the war would definitely spread around the world.

In other words, it is a common knowledge that fire will ignite.

Okay, it seems that everyone has reached a unified opinion on this issue.

Then we have to push the question one step further - do we let this fire burn, or do we take the initiative and find ways to put it out?

This is another extremely difficult decision, but the difficult point is not the so-called weighing of interests, but uncertainty.

Theoretically speaking, keeping the fire burning and letting small-scale wars continue to consume the power of the United States is the best solution, because this can eliminate a major unstable factor and buy the entire world enough time to develop.

As long as one day a third or fourth country appears in the world that can compete with the United States on its own, then the risk of all-out war will naturally be eliminated.

But the problem is, if the fire is burning, who can guarantee that it will not catch fire?

War is uncontrollable, and neither are the people involved in the war. What if they are really crazy enough to throw a nuclear bomb?

Then all human efforts for development will be wiped out in an instant.

I don't recommend letting it go.

It was the man in military uniform who spoke.

I want to start by saying that my advice is not based on 'profit' considerations, but only for safety.

It is true that if the fire is allowed to continue to burn, as the defense force of the Republic, our military can gain a greater voice, obtain more resources, and even obtain a higher decision-making position.

But these are not what I really want.

As a member of this country, what I really want to see is an ideal bright future - this is a false statement, but it is true.

So, on that basis, I cannot tolerate any risk.

Even if risks can bring benefits, I would rather be slower - besides, we can't be too slow.

Don't we still have Spark? Don't we still have Chen Core?

I agree.

The man in Chinese tunic suit was the first to express his stance, and then others raised their hands.

Then the situation becomes clear.

The next thing we have to do is find a way to extinguish this flame.

At the very least, we have to build a firewall first to trap the fire within the United States.

In other words, the Cuban incident will become our strategic focus for some time to come. The first batch of support is obviously not enough. We have to invest more equipment and personnel - it is still the current proven procedure.

clear.

The man in military uniform nodded immediately.

Then, the man in Chinese tunic suit continued:

Similarly, in terms of economic and technological development, we also have to make some adjustments.

Major equipment projects must be accelerated, and deterrence must be quickly formed.

Speaking of which, when will our aerial platform be able to take off?

Within 18 months, the first demonstration flight can be carried out, but if it is to reach the tactical usability stage, it will take at least three years.

It is enough to be able to fly. Deterrence does not come simply from weapons, but more from the military potential we can show.

At the same time, in Miami, an unprecedented large-scale operation is being planned intensively.

Participants in this operation include the River Force, the CIA, the DEA, and even the ATF, and there is only one thing they have to do, and that is to intercept a gang of drug traffickers from Mexico trying to disembark from Miami.

The organizer of the operation was naturally the DEA, but considering that the enemy may possess a large number of heavy weapons, the River Force also participated in the operation.

In the combat command room, the leaders of several departments sat together, but what they discussed was not the pre-war briefing and action plan at all, but the consequences of this operation.

According to the plan, we will lose at least two assault boats and four combat personnel. This price is considered high, but this is not the point. The point is that we cannot afford the unpredictable consequences of actively entering the other party's territorial waters.

We have to have a valid reason - I mean, it has to be reasonable enough to make sure it's not our problem and to physically erase all evidence.

The man in military uniform on the left side of the long table said.

clear.

The bespectacled man opposite him nodded slightly, and then said:

We are already prepared for this. The other party will use drones to carry out continuous electronic interference against you. As a result, you will lose direction and lose contact with the main force. Is this reason sufficient?

It's not enough. We have the ability to fight in complex electromagnetic environments. This is too far-fetched.

Then what if you reduce the number of people on a single assault boat by more than 50%?

That means the commanders need to sacrifice - I can accept it, but it's difficult to execute. How can you guarantee this?

I repeat, we didn't do it, it was the drug dealers!

The man with glasses sighed and continued:

Leave it to them to solve this problem. If they can't do it, then we will use the backup plan and seize the ship directly.

.Can.

Hearing the answer from the man in military uniform, the man with glasses nodded and looked at the third person who remained silent.

After everything is completed, you must ensure that they can dock near Dimas. In other words, you need to secure the other party's patrol force on the coast and ensure that the assault ships enter the inland river.

Is there any difficulty with this?

There is no difficulty, we are professionals.

The third person replied without hesitation.

Okay, then the implementation issues have been concluded.

Now, there is only one problem left for us: If the other party finds the ship immediately and returns it immediately, what should we do?

Intelligence, people, equipment, or something else?

Everyone who asked this question was stunned. After a short silence, the third person spoke:

Information, the continuity and credibility are relatively high.

However, I will try my best not to get to this point. If we really need to act for this reason, then we will naturally be at a disadvantage.

Yes, so you are the ones who are under the greatest pressure.

Several people nodded, and after a moment, the man with glasses continued:

Last point, there is news that a group of armed men entered Havana recently. They are well-equipped and they are likely to come from a PMC company in Northern Europe.

But I think everyone knows the specific background.

So, we must try to avoid them during this operation.

We must not give them the opportunity to interfere with us.