Recolonizing Africa and Southeast Asia, Indonesia...?

[amicus]

An hypothetical question that has bearing on a novel I am working on...

It used to be Dutch East Indies and the French were heavily invested in Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia, plus all the English colonies around the world to the extent 'the sun never set on the British Empire'.

The background for the novel is the expansion of Islam around the globe and the possible repercussions as Muslim influence begins to challenge indigenous religions as it has in the Philippines, Africa and many nations in Indo China.

The British brought culture and industry to many parts of the world, along with some very heavy criticism, as did the Dutch and the French. In the aftermath of world war two, the age of colonialism came to and end, for all practical purposes...but what next?

There has been a bloodbath in many former African colonies, and it continues even now as Islam is forcefully expanding into the continent. The same holds true for much of southeast Asia and it causes me to ponder on just what the future holds for those former colonies.

I also wonder about the strong Nationalistic tendencies of many current Euro nations as current financial difficulties seem widespread and growing from Spain to Greece and beyond into Eastern European nations once under the control of the Soviet Union.

If widespread conflict begins to spread across the world, as I suspect it might, what will be the plight of those former colonial nations that have been oppressed by Communism and harsh dictatorships and are now faced with militant Islam for control of the region.

Is recolonization by western powers a possible outcome? I would like to hear both sides...especially those against such an idea, to better equip my narrative in the book.

Thank you...

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

No, Amicus, physical recolonisation by European powers, or by the US, is not feasible.

The intention of the British Empire, from the 1890s onwards, was that the countries within it should eventually become independent, self-governing, but remaining within the Commonwealth as equal partners. But for World Wars 1 and 2 that might have been practical even if the governed felt that the rate of progress to self-government was far too slow. In the 1930s there had been movement towards limited franchise and local government in many African and Asian states ruled by the British, and of course Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa were virtually independent by then. India was moving towards independence but far too slowly for the Indians.

The British recognised that it was impossible to subjugate considerable populations once education and modern military technology became available to the governed country. The battle of Omdurman was the last example of a population trying to displace the colonisers without having the necessary military hardware. The Boer War, even though the Boers eventually lost, showed that a population with access to modern weapons could fight a guerrilla war and nearly win.

If a country wanted to recolonise, why would it? What would the benefits be to the coloniser? In the past it was to gain access to raw materials, to labour forces, to a market for manufactured goods. Those benefits can be obtained through trade and influence without colonisation. China is doing just that in many African countries. China's investments in Africa are massive but are for enlightened self-interest - to get the raw materials and the markets they need.

The US and European countries' 'colonisation' is already happening by trade. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, McDonalds - are everywhere even in the remotest countries on Earth. There is no need to physically occupy a country when even Somali pirates drink Coke or Pepsi.

Og

 

[Weird Harold]

...but what next?

There has been a bloodbath in many former African colonies, ...

Is recolonization by western powers a possible outcome?

Attempted recolonization might be political solution, but as a realistic economic or military solution, it's going to be a total non-starter -- or disaster if the politicians are particularly dumb.

I think Vietnam was the last gasp of colonialism and a model for future attempts at old style colonialism/Imperialism. One of the major problems with Iraq and Afghanistan is that they are perceived and presented as both old style colonialism and a crusade against Islam by those opposed to the current military presence. (both in those countries and within the US political establishment.)

Russia tried old style colonialism in Afghanistan. I think that would be your model for any resurgance of old-style colonialism in the middle/near East, Africa or SEA. Grenada and/or Panama would be the models for a moderately successful resurgance of gunboat diplomacy and Banana Republics in the Americas. Nicaruagua and the Contras scandal is a good model for failed colonialism by proxy.

Any new style colonialism is likely to be Corporate Colonialism -- Banana Republics with banks replacing the gunboats and Multi-national Corporations replacing the US government. I don't know of any specific examples, but companies like Nike have purportedly made a practice of taking over the economy of third world countries where they outsource their sweatshops to. Their factories become the driving force in the economy and that gives them political leverage to inhibit passage of taxation, regulation and labor laws.

Except for the last option, any attempt at recolonization is doomed to fail and probably fail bloodily.




1

 

[amicus]

Good morning again, Oggbashan, and it was to you whom I basically turned for a rebuttal, as few of my American compatriots have either the knowledge or the interest to contribute.

Although your presentation is logical and reasonable, you must expect me to defend my premise, insomuch as I am able, to elicit even more refutations from yourself.

There was a 'power vacuum' at the end of world war two, and International Communism moved in to fill that vacuum with exploits in Eastern Europe and Asia, denote Korea and Vietnam.

SEATO nations acted to stem the onslaught of Communism with surrogate wars and testing grounds for new military apparati throughout the areas of conflict.

This time around, the threat is Islamic expansion, through the use of force, with the added spice of a conflict between Communist and Muslim in many parts of the world.

To use part of your own argument, Communist China is much better positioned than was the Soviet Union to engage in an all out arm's race between two superpowers. The 'fly in the ointment' as I see it, is a much deeper penetration of free market results in China than was ever permitted in the Soviet Union. The free market consequences are always a greater awareness of the people concerning their own human rights and liberties and, it appears to me, that Communist China will go the way of the Soviet Union but from an internal upheaval, not the tearing down of the Berlin Wall.

If events play out as I fictionally predict they will, then Islam will be contained and even quarantined and cut off from world markets for the only asset they possess, crude oil reserves. At that point, there once agan becomes a vacuum in world politics and those, 'independent' nations you referred to, will be fair game for any power hungry nation in the region.

Western Democracies either move in to fill the vacuum or we will begin another generational conflict with internecine conflict throughout Africa and Southeast Asia that will disrupt world trade just as the Somali pirates are doing.

Another aspect is that Europe simply does not have the natural resources to maintain either an industrial or post industrial society, but through recolonization, would have access to the vast resources of undeveloped areas with markets just waiting to be tapped.

I read all of the Tom Clancy fanciful projections of world conflict and what I offer is no more far fetched than some of his, but I, as he, I am sure, solicited opposing commentary as he crafted his novels.

I suspect the Dutch would readily re-engage in the Dutch East Indies, given half a chance, perhaps the French would like to be back in Algiers and Morocco and deeper into the continent, perhaps the Germans and the English as well.

I would have the US and Israel control the Suez Canal and the US regain control over the Panama Canal, and the drug cartel takeover of the Mexican government could happen any day now, so the US might well expand all the way south to Panama. Thus militant Muslim influence in Canada may well infilitrate both the political arena and the military ranks and an inward assault of the Capitol city of Canada, a destruction of the Port facilities in Vancouver, BC, Canada, might well force the downfall of the Candian government.

An ideal opportunity for the US to annex Canada, as the Brits will be bogged down with the sabotage of your power plants, transportation centers and a 'dirty bomb' in London.

None of what I mention is impossible....improbable, no doubt, but still, stranger scenarios have come to life.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus, your suggestions above are a nightmare that could lead to a third world war between the West and Africa/S E Asia.

France, Germany, Britain already have commercial links in their former African colonies to the mutual benefit of the countries involved. France takes a more pro-active role in military assistance in Africa than other European countries but in cooperation with the local governments.

Why would anyone want to control the Suez and Panama canals? They are available for all international shipping now, but too small for the larger vessels to use and uneconomic to enlarge. It is cheaper to send a supertanker around the South of Africa than to use smaller vessels that could transit Suez.

As for Canada, your fears are nonsense. The US's economic interests in Canada are well served already. If part of any country is vulnerable to an internal takeover, it isn't Canada, but parts of the US by the massive Hispanic population. But why should they? They came to the US to improve themselves, not to start a revolution.

The UK's power plants, transportation centres and other facilities were heavily attacked by the full force of Germany's Nazi regime. They are far more resilient than you believe, and far better protected by diversification and duplication than many similar US installations.

Unfortunately we have experience of bombing of our cities, the massive blitz of WWII, and the IRA bombing campaigns. The IRA's impact was spectacular but less than a pinprick on the nation's activities. The WWII blitz was far more significant yet our industrial output increased despite the bombing. (Aside - Germany's war production during WWII also increased despite British and US bombing until late in 1944 when attacks on Germany's fuel production reduced the available fuel by half to two-thirds after a hard-fought bombing campaign that cost the Allies many gallant air crews.)

Og

PS. Stop reading Tom Clancy except as entertainment. They are fairy tales, just as ridiculous as Henty's Victorian novels of 'British Boy saves the Regiment/Ship/Empire'. They are fiction that would never happen. The closest to Henty in reality were 'the boy who stood on the burning deck' - a French boy Cassabianca who would not quit his post without orders at the naval battle off Egypt, and a British boy Jack Cornwell VC at Jutland who stood at his post by his disabled gun. Their acts were magnificent but not real war.

 

[amicus]

WH, Ogg, thank you...and your commentary will be filed in my 'notes' for the novel in progress.

Let me suggest that we come at this issue from different perspectives, which may account for the diversion in thought.

In my novel, I am postulating a world wide offensive by Islamic terrorists, and those elements in China, Russia, each of whom perceive an opening when America is subject to a coordinated terrorist attack that damages the power grid, closes the Ports of Los Angeles and New Orleans, cripples the oil industry with attacks on refineries and pipelines, and even offshore drilling platforms and underwater pipelines....all of which is theoretically possible in spite of increased security procedures. There is also another complete shutdown of air transportation, not from hi-jacked commercial aircraft, but from surface to air missiles coming across both the southern and northen borders, along with weapons and plastic explosives.

With Iran at the focal point from an underwater nuclear detonation that severely damages a US Carrier battle group in the Gulf, the retaliation sure to follow and the Russians feeling they can occupy oil fields in Iran without the US responding because the military assests have been diminished.

The Chinese also take advantage and launch an invasion force towards Taiwan, also thinking the US is to weak and indecisive to intervene.

Europe is afire from terrorist attacks on electric power sources and grids, air traffic, transportation centers, as they have attacked before, and the well known IED terrorist attacks occur spontaneously in all of Europes major cities.

With all that chaos and an US administration that prefers to talk and negotiate, as has been demonstrated thus far...the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

I do write in both an Hispanic take over of several southwestern US States and a declaration of Indepedence from the US, along with a Black Muslim assault on southern cities along with Black Liberaton theory. One hell of a confusing scenario.

It is not as difficult or far fetched as you may think...terrorist calls to 911 emergency services could draw police and first responders to phoney emergencies where the law enforcement officers are ambushed, kill or captured and there goes the defense of a city, be it Ontario or Chicago.

The loss of electric power during the evening rush hour, not a difficult thing to achieve, would paralyze transportation and the ability of emergency service vehicles to respond.

Homeland Security in every State along with the FBI, are slow to respond because they still lack a National emergency plan to coordinate their efforts in a major event.

With the US under extreme pressure at home and around the world, Europe dead in the water and Islamic forces primed to act; all of which is possible, then the eventual outcome, although a work of theoretical fiction, is surely a possibility.

In the aftermath, as I have crafted it, that power vacuum I mentioned earlier, comes into play and who does what and why?

Europe and the US and much of the world depends upon middle east oil to sustain their societies....if the oil suddenly stops....what happens and why?

It is only a fictional novel, I know, but still, who can predict the future and if my prognosis is founded on real possibilities...well,hell, it should sell a few books, eh?

Ami

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Everyone on planet Earth wants 2 things: Peace & Plenty.

Islam spread because it exempted Muslims from taxes, and left people alone who kept their sins out of sight. Western Colonials always steal whatever isnt on fire, tax everything and everyone, and encourage sin so they can corrupt everyone for blackmail. So there's never peace or plenty for the peasants.

 

[oggbashan]

...terrorist calls to 911 emergency services could draw police and first responders to phoney emergencies where the law enforcement officers are ambushed, kill or captured and there goes the defense of a city, be it Ontario or Chicago.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the emergency services and the knowledge they and the military have gained from the IRA bombing campaign, the IEDs and suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan, planting multiple IEDs to catch medic-evacs, and snipers zeroed in waiting for rescuers are unfortunately commonplace, and tactics to deal with such methods are constantly being revised.

The IRA often planted multiple bombs to target first responders. Again, the authorities learned how to react.

There may not be a National Emergency Plan in the US, but there are national and supra-national plans in Europe because we unfortunately have experience of terrorist attacks from the IRA, the Red Army Faction, ETA etc.

What has been consistently underrated by almost all terrorist organisations is the resilience and response from the general public. In general, they do not panic, do not markedly change their normal way of life, and terrorist attacks invoke determination to defeat the terrorists.

Og

 

[amicus]

Oggbashan...This is the first time, I think, that I have ever expressed a concept for a novel and opened the idea for discussion. I did it for the very reason that is emerging, to get a sense of the amount and quality of resistance to the concept.

Many inspirations contribute to such an idea; one was the film about a 'Dirty Bomb', detonating in London and the exposure of just how difficult true preparedness can be in such a situation.

When a writer, and I am certain many have experienced this, gets ahold of an idea that is something like grabbing a tiger by the tail and refusing to let go, as the critter leaps and bounds all over the place. This is such an obsession with me; one that I have taken to sleep with me for well over a year and one that keeps finding supporting information as events around the world contribute to the concept.

You speak of underestimating the resiliency of a population, I speak of a terror movement that continues to evolve and do damage regardless of the technology and fire power directed against it.

I am knowledgable concerning the Strategic bombing tactics of both the US and British Air ministers during ww2, and you are correct in both cases, that the heavily bombed industrial areas of both England and Germany survived by farming out industry to smaller areas across each country and neither population was cowered into surrender or apathy.

But we are seventy years removed from the early days of ww2and our dependence upon technology is much more critical now than it was then.

Doing research on the effect of intense solar flares, CME's, that have previously blacked out portions of Canada, I discovered that the large transformers involved in the transmission of electrical energy can be destroyed by a surge or overload of electricity generated by the sun having a hick-up. It follows that sabotage internally or attacks externally could damage or destroy those transformers as well. Only a few industries in the world manufacture this equipment and replacement on a large scale, according to my research, could take years.

Without electricity, society begins to crumbled in just days and if attacks are also made simultaneously on gas and oil pipelines, refineries and Port facilities handling crude oil, on Internet ISP's, water treatment plants and critical highway and bridge crossings...well...I think you can follow my thinking.

As in the case of the destruction of the twin towers on 9/11, engineers were involved in determining the effect of crashing to fully fueled commercial aircraft into those buildings at the places indicated, the terrorists 'knew' they could bring those buildings down. I have watched dozens of programs about that day and it appears to me that no one in the US contemplated the failure of the structural integrity of the Towers. But the terrorists did.

There are recent reports that local law enforcement will not enter certain portions of East Los Angeles to combat the drug gangs of both black and Hispanic cartels; the same reports come from Atlanta, Georgia and a handfull of other cities with intense gang violence and drug cartels.

In short, I maintain that I can logically support that part of the plot of my story.

Insofar as 'recolonizing' parts of the world...there are those who are totally opposed to any attempt to impose Democracy on third world nations currently in turmoil. There are others who believe that the world has had enough of war and conflict, enough of the continual reports of atrocities and starvation under the current dictatorships and believe that the only way towards peace in our times...to copy a phrase, is for western ideals of individual freedom and an open market place to be imposed.

Although my plot is hopelessly complex at times, it is the main character that is giving me sleepless nights, as I try to imagine and craft the personality of the key individual in the story. 'He' has become the most challenging aspect of my endeavor.

I would like to think that England might once again desire to create an Empire of sorts and in my vision, the US has always been destined to become the United States of North America.

It will be a novel unlike any I have ever read, hell, I may send the manuscript to you for an edit! Hah!

Get a smile out of you?



Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

James Burke did this with his CONNECTIONS tv series 30 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSxL8GUn-g

 

[oggbashan]

...It will be a novel unlike any I have ever read, hell, I may send the manuscript to you for an edit! Hah!

Get a smile out of you?



Amicus

As fiction, anything is possible. Tom Clancy's novels are flights of fantasy, and as unrealistic as 1930s Cowboy films when the guy in the white hat has the fastest draw, saves the town/ranch from the baddies, and rides off into the sunset with the girl (or his horse).

I think, even for fiction, that you may be underestimating the resilience of the infrastructure and population, overestimating the capabilities of terrorist organisations and underestimating the intelligence of security services. But since you are writing fiction, you can do all those things - if you can make them believable.

A successful terrorist/guerilla organisation has to have significant support in the population and to be able to operate with consent, even if that consent is enforced by fear. While individuals and small groups might be able to have a significant impact that is newsworthy, a sustained campaign aimed at regime change requires far more. It needs the PBI - Poor Bloody Infantry - troops on the ground to take and hold territory. The Taleban has that in Afghanistan. Al-Queda doesn't. They operate by consent of the Taleban and other tribal groups. That consent is bought with money, money that provides armaments.

Any guerilla organisation that is trying to change the will of the majority of a population will eventually fail, unless they are seen as being a better choice than the current regime. If the current regime was democratically elected in a free and fair election then the guerillas/terrorists can cause bloody mayhem but cannot win.

All the above is comment on your book - even as fiction I think not straying too far from the possible, just twisting the slightly improbable into 'What If?", makes a better plot than suggesting the almost impossible.

Good luck with your hero. Don't forget that he, like all good heroes, has to have a flaw that he must live with/overcome.

Og

 

[Liar]

Africa was colonized because there was easy money there. I don't see the same incentive now. There may be money there, but in no regard easy money.

I predict, and hope for, an agressive commersial colonization of the continent. Any country there that show political stability should be swamped with western (or eastern) investments. An industry base, a financial framework and an emerging middle class would help solidify that stability. Plenty is the the best peace maker.

Would make a pretty dull novel though.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Wont happen till the last banana and monkey are eaten.

 

[amicus]

As fiction, anything is possible. Tom Clancy's novels are flights of fantasy, and as unrealistic as 1930s Cowboy films when the guy in the white hat has the fastest draw, saves the town/ranch from the baddies, and rides off into the sunset with the girl (or his horse).

I think, even for fiction, that you may be underestimating the resilience of the infrastructure and population, overestimating the capabilities of terrorist organisations and underestimating the intelligence of security services. But since you are writing fiction, you can do all those things - if you can make them believable.

A successful terrorist/guerilla organisation has to have significant support in the population and to be able to operate with consent, even if that consent is enforced by fear. While individuals and small groups might be able to have a significant impact that is newsworthy, a sustained campaign aimed at regime change requires far more. It needs the PBI - Poor Bloody Infantry - troops on the ground to take and hold territory. The Taleban has that in Afghanistan. Al-Queda doesn't. They operate by consent of the Taleban and other tribal groups. That consent is bought with money, money that provides armaments.

Any guerilla organisation that is trying to change the will of the majority of a population will eventually fail, unless they are seen as being a better choice than the current regime. If the current regime was democratically elected in a free and fair election then the guerillas/terrorists can cause bloody mayhem but cannot win.

All the above is comment on your book - even as fiction I think not straying too far from the possible, just twisting the slightly improbable into 'What If?", makes a better plot than suggesting the almost impossible.

Good luck with your hero. Don't forget that he, like all good heroes, has to have a flaw that he must live with/overcome.
Og

~~~

I quoted your entire Post rather than just refer ti a portion of it as I intend.

Everything you said about underestimating and over estimating, is purely subjective and your perceptions are no more valid than mine.

Tom Clancy had access to intelligence and military inner workings that I do not have and yet, his approach has been confirmed, time and time again, and to dismiss him is inconsequential, is, I think, a mistake.

Youe personal perception and interpretation of terrorist/guerilla motives and abilities is also subjective and others disagree with your views.

Time and time again, I hear those who state, with absolute certainty, the only the 'radical' elements in Islam are responsible for the world wide terrorism.

Suppose for the moment, for the sake of conversation, that you are wrong; and that the inner workings of the Koran, portend a Jihad, as has been stated, against all western societies, as the polar concepts are unresolvable in a civil manner.

I suggest that you, as the French, as in the Maginot Line, fail to take into consideration that the goal of the Islamic Terrorists is not to find affinity with the local populace, but is to disrupt the flow and commerce of all the western nations, thus rendering them impotent to extend and go on the offensive.

And my hero, is not flawless, but almost so, as his weakness is not apparent, but arises as he confronts his inner self and questions the guiding forces in his life when events overwhelm him.

There is no, 'Buckaroo", as a scene in "Red October" comedically implies, but there is an individual certainty of his moral and ethical percepts that limit his social engagements, which he must consciously attempt to over come.

As an observation of mine, as I have moved from story to story, and learned as I went, that human sexuality is a given, it is only in the expression of that sexuality, that a characters, 'character' is resolved.

It becomes instrumental in both the characters consequent actions, but also in the interaction of those who perceive and integrate his transformation....I truly love creating his transition from cold logic to emotional awareness.

Thanks yet again, as you compel me to think even more comprehensively in both the plot and the characters in my scribblings.

Amicus

 

[oggbashan]

Amicus, in your own novel you can postulate whatever scenarios you like, as long as the reader can suspend belief while reading. It's your novel. You can write whatever you like.

However, from a purely authorly point of view, I think that you might be undertaking a massive task on too wide a canvas. Either you will end up with a novel as long as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and/or you will have to introduce many sub-plots and subsidiary characters to resolve the situation, or, worst of all, you will fail to complete your enterprise.

Good luck with it, whatever you do.

Og

 

[amicus]

That troubles me too, Ogg; I don't want a 1300 page John Galt saga or epic. But my writing style seems to be minimalist in terms of describing the locality and condensed when it comes to describing peripheral characters.

I want to return to the 'recolonization' bitm and I will try to explain why.

There was a Sarah Palin related event in Haiti today that illustrates in some small way, my interest or concern in Africa.

The ruling Royalty in Dubai, is using dwindling oil income to construct a tourist Mecca to supplement national income. Recent reports state that so called 'friendly' States, such as Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt and of course, Saudi Arabia, are supplying arms and equipment to terrorist organizations involved in the the Israeli/Palestine conflict and Taliban and Al Queda forces around the globe.

I think the predictions of 'Peak Oil', that point at which oil production begins to decline, were way off base in terms of the time frame, but, inevitably, those oil reserves will run out. What then of the Middle East?

I think Liar and JBJ are wrong when they imply that the natural resources on the African continent are no longer relevant, I think they are. True, China is investing heavily and exploiting the resources with little return going to the indigenous population of the infrastructure.

I have internet friends in Zimbabwe, Kenya and South Africa, and Egypt as well who, when they can, paint a somewhat different picture.

The continuing aid to Aids victims, to Malaria victims and the lack of even redimentary medical care in much of sub Sahara Africa, is an undending flow of charity that is mainly consumed by corrupt public officials and 'baksheesh', bribary blackmail.

I mentioned Haiti to emphasize that such suffering is close at hand and I wonder just how long compassionate people around the world can stand by and understand that the misery is never going to be resolved until such an event as recolonization takes place.

I would much rather it be by western nations than by Hugo Chavez type socialist dictators who steal wealth to build armies and weapons to insure their reign of terror.

I am sure you are aware of the continuing tragedy in Africa and after a full half century of charitable donations of money, supplies and doctors, there is not a single African nation that displays minimal improvement, even in Nigeria with billions in oil dollars pouring in annually.

I include Africa with a broad brush because of the advance of Muslim presence in most if not all African nations and my perception that the steady advance of Islam will have to be stopped at some time in the future.

I am not writing a book of history or political science, so very little of the thoughts expressing the ideas above will be included other than a concise summary intended to justify actions necessary to eliminate the Islamic threat.

Thus, Africa becomes not just an humanitarian effort but a strategic one as well.

amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

African natural resources are relevant, the workforce isnt relevant or reliable or trainable.

 

[colddiesel]

AMICUS

African natural resources are relevant, the workforce isn't relevant or reliable or trainable.

Not entirely true James. One element is trainable, the political class. Political rulers in Africa are quite reliable in that they can be bribed almost to a man. Therefore it is reasonably attractive to invest capital in extractive industries where the material value can be taken away.

Apart from that, almost all of Africa is a disaster area from an investors point of view.

But I suppose that if Africa reverts to jungle the greenies at least will be happy.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not entirely true James. One element is trainable, the political class. Political rulers in Africa are quite reliable in that they can be bribed almost to a man. Therefore it is reasonably attractive to invest capital in extractive industries where the material value can be taken away.

Apart from that, almost all of Africa is a disaster area from an investors point of view.

But I suppose that if Africa reverts to jungle the greenies at least will be happy.

When I'm emporer I plan to invade a few of the better places in Africa, chase off the natives, and create new American states for Americans to colonize. The Rhodesias come to mind.

 

[Handley_Page]

There was a 'power vacuum' at the end of world war two, and International Communism moved in to fill that vacuum with exploits in Eastern Europe and Asia, denote Korea and Vietnam.
Amicus

Amicus, I fear you have used the wrong word.
Communism, which had been lurking for a good while, was pushed as the political force to fill the "what now?" vacuum.
And this got us the Cold War.

Let us now consider this one:-

"Doing research on the effect of intense solar flares, CME's, that have previously blacked out portions of Canada, I discovered that the large transformers involved in the transmission of electrical energy can be destroyed by a surge or overload of electricity generated by the sun having a hick-up. It follows that sabotage internally or attacks externally could damage or destroy those transformers as well. Only a few industries in the world manufacture this equipment and replacement on a large scale, according to my research, could take years."

What happens is not the large transformer going 'Pop', but the control gear being shut down by the reception of a large pulse of solar energy. Bearing in mind that this phenomenon is also a side-effect of a nuclear explosion, a great deal of sensitive electronic equipment now features systems which are resistant to such EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse); it's called "Hardening". Large systems (satellites, telephone exchanges, and so on), are generally hardened to one degree or another.


"Tom Clancy had access to intelligence and military inner workings that I do not have. . . . "

In a note in one of his novels, Tom Clancy remarked how easy it was to get what he'd initially considered to be 'classified' information (it had something to do with cutting Plutonium to make a bomb). There are loads of text books which can furnish you with almost any fact you need or want to incorporate into your book.
I raise this because I fear you might have assumed too much about his reference sources. He'd not be permitted to quote them thus. (Rumour has it that he got into trouble with some technical stuff in Red October, and that was in the public domain, albeit of very limited circulation.)

When thinking of a "dirty bomb" in London (or anywhere else, for that matter), here we may encounter a few problems. There are plans to move the Government out of the capital in the event of a national catastrophe (or so I was told). so the business of "Great Britain, Ltd.", would not be interrupted for long. For those directly involved it would not be funny at all, but the country could manage, as an entity.

As a parallel, consider how long it took a few of the firms dispossessed by 9/11 to get back in the market and do business. Two, three days ? I have no doubt that London, Ltd., would be up and running in a similar time-scale (I'd hate to be in the Insurance business, though)