Re-read the 3 articles in the OP from SLAG since it's been several months. Great stuff. Well reasoned analysis. However, the big thing that I disagree with, is the painting of these entire event as a "war" or an "invasion" is if with and by a foreign nation, which he suggests was China. Instead, I see this even as a rebellion and insurrection aided by foreign actors, but not necessarily by the official governments of the countries in which said actors reside. For instance, Russians could have been aiding and abetting, but not Russia. Chinese but not China. Ukrainians but not Ukraine. British but not the UK. Etc etc. The real occupying enemy though, is domestic. This is a rebellion, an insurrection, with traitors galore. This circumstance would trigger all of the same fail safes as described in the articles, but think it's an essential distinction for identifying the true enemies and the extent to which they've been supported, by whom and for what purpose, which I agree is far more reaching than just a takeover of the USA, but complete global domination.... RISK. They want the public to ponder that the enemy is China, or Iran, or Russia. Then they get us to push for war against that entire nation and cause global nuclear holocaust... think, WWI on steriods. We've seen this fictionalized in movies like The Sum of All Fears, Hunt For Red October, Crimson Tide, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Wonder Woman and most recently The King's Man. The real dark, secret global armies without true national allegiance, pull the strings around the world to get the powers to blame each other and start hot wars with each other... to create "conventional" world wars... but none of this is conventional, it's unconventional, a new type of warfare and yet one that's been used for the entire history of human civilization.