Where did that Western attack on Pakistan comment come from? To take out their nuclear capability? It is a little late for that. The danger is a war between Pakistan and India going nuclear. Just yesterday, I read an article in an Indian newspaper that described the latest successful test of a mobile missile by the Indians. And Pakistan is building additional facilities to manufacture plutoniun for small, light nuclear warheads capable of being carried by missiles. These are extremely dangerous developments. Nukes on missiles are as close to extinction machines as you can get. The USA & Soviet Union came precipitously close to obliterating each other 3 times, during the Cuban missile crisis, during a Soviet early warning satellite malfunction, and during a sounding rocket launch from Norway (?) that nobody thought to tell the Russians about before it popped up on their radars. If world leaders were smart, they would set up some kind of mutual agreed to inspection service (get the Swedes to do it, or something) to make sure that neither country attaches nukes to ready- to- fire missiles. It would be in the interest of both India & Pakistan, if for no other reason than to prevent a costly nuclear arms race. (Not getting accidentally roasted in a nuclear fireball would be beneficial too.)
The backing of different countries by the major world powers is nuts. The world will never control the spread of nukes under such circumstances. Even one nuclear explosion could easily cause WW III. Commenting on the September 11 attack, a few days after it happened, I can remember some American officer remarking , “For a minute, I thought the Russians had sneaked one (cruise missile) in on us.” So guess what could happen if a terrorist blows one nuke inside a whole list of countries. One city gone would be bad enough, one planet gone would be a lot worse. Hopefully, the USA, Russia, and China have had discussions on how to prevent misinterpretation of such an occurrence from ending everything.
And speaking of nukes, I developed a scenario which might interest you fossil fuel investors on the eve of a quiet summer weekend. I was thinking of the Japanese nuclear disaster which was caused by the loss of electric power after the gigantic tsunami flooded the generators. Suddenly it hit me. What will happen when we get hit by the next coronal mass ejection from the Sun. If, as most experts expect, it knocks out the power grid in the top half of the USA, or Russia, or northern Europe, or northern China, what will happen to the cooling systems in all those nuclear plants? Are the back up generators powered by diesel or natural gas? How long before they run out of fuel, and scores of reactors overheat? I can guarantee that the damage from a major CME will keep the grid down for weeks on the unfortunate side of the Earth where it hits. Who is planning for that? I would bet money that the answer is nobody. But a CME WILL hit. It could happen in a couple of years during the next solar maximum. Keep your fingers crossed, unless you live down South with all the heat, mildew and hurricanes. The grid near the equator will probably stay up. And you thought those Kiwis and Aussies were anti-nuke because they were so ‘green’. They had me fooled too.
Hollywood needs to get on this one with a remake of the China Syndrome. I liked Klute more.

Since no one else has written in yet, I will! Marc Faber is enjoyable to listen to. There was one thing he said that I don’t hear from other gurus whose videos we see on ArabianMoney.

He said that he was concerned about the geopolitical situation in Pakistan and may have mentioned war or an attack there. However, throughout the rest of his interview, he did not take this idea up any further.

It seems to me to be unwise for financial gurus to ONLY think that the financial world will continue its ups and downs according to financial and political pressures, and to ONLY give advice on the assumption that there cannot be a geopolitical catastrophe up ahead.

Of course, no one should say that there will be war in the short-term but shouldn’t prognostications take this sort of catastrophe into account? When advising people on investing now, should they not say sometimes something like this: “…but if there is global or regional war declared, then it will be best to be in this investment or this or this”?

I don’t know why Marc Faber was concerned about the geopolitical situation in Pakistan because he didn’t tell us. Would that he had! But what’s troubling to the West is/must be the fear that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons will get into the hands of the Taliban or AlQaida. What investments would be best then?

I read today that the IAEA is sending a report to the UN to say that Iran is developing its missiles at a rapid pace including the testing of one that will travel for 2,000 miles as well as new missiles for 200 miles for use against Israel. In addition, Iran has announced that it is moving its 20% enriched uranium to a new site with yet more advanced centrifuges. 20% is way above what is required for domestic power and is a statement about nuclear weapons.

So, there is the geopolitical worry of Iran as well as Pakistan. Why, then, aren’t we advised by Marc Faber and others that “if there is a regional or global war, these are the best investments to be in”?

I hope everyone remembers this is the same Marc Faber that predicted Chinese recession in 2009/2010 to happen in 6-9 months…still going strong.