When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct. When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated. -- Confucius


Who Would Win a Nuclear War?

Virtually all people who ask this question answer it the same way: “No one would win! It would mean human extinction! Mutually assured destruction! Nuclear winter! Ad nauseum!”
But I was never one for political correctness. Who would really win? Is it inevitable that the whole planet would die? Why, says who; based upon what?
What first jumps out at me is the huge discrepancy (to put it mildly) in what Western and Eastern scientists have to say about a nuclear war's after effects. America and its ilk all are taken with this “nuclear winter” concept. They think the fallout will blot out the sun for so long that the whole planet will delve into a cold and sunless winter for decades, in which all life will perish. Few if any Westerners ever heard of the fact that Eastern scientists had a completely opposite conclusion. They think there will be a “nuclear summer”! They feel that after the nuclear winter abates, which may be brief, decaying organic matter that froze would thaw and release enough CO2 and methane that a greenhouse effect would occur and bake us. Though I link to them infrequently, wikipedia has a nice listing of theories about both. You will see that there are many ideas, back and forth, but nothing has been proven. So, there would likely be a winter scenario but for how long no one is sure. Then there may be a summer scenario next. Either way unprepared people will at least starve, and probably die of other causes as well. This includes heat, freezing, blast effects, debris, radiation poisoning, lack of water, no medical care (imagine no prescription pills for anyone- how long would most live?), and starvation. So no one knows for sure what may happen.
It is assured though that there will be no transportation, grocery stores or food supplies for extended periods, perhaps decades. Most all survivalists assume there will be armed groups out to steal their supplies, so they stockpile weaponry to kill one another with. We can only hope that the few remaining survivors will reach out to one another and be happy to find other living souls. Strife will not be needed.
Survivalists claim all you need are “the three B's”: bibles, band aids, and bullets. They fail to mention food, clothes, Geiger counters, and so many other things. Virtually all of them are so busy saving up hundreds of guns and millions of bullets that they forget to obtain a foot powered treadle sewing machine to darn clothes as they wear out- no food, no medicine, no clothes factories operating either! The problem with the few concerned citizens being left to their own devices and planning everything themselves is that they never think of important stuff like this. Paranoid people are rarely practical. Clothes wear out, all the wildlife is supposed to die-- what are people supposed to make new clothes from? I guess the leather from the other survivalists they skin??? Too bad the feds wouldn't stock some supplies for us in shelters that we could ride out the worst of it in.
Sadly, the american government decided to abandon its civil defense program and shelters in the '60's because of nuclear war protesters, who said shelters made it too easy to ignore the dangers of having these weapons. So the govt. said, 'it costs us too much anyway'. And that was that- it was dropped. The old shelters haven't been maintained nor resupplied in several decades. Everyone is on their own.{For interesting analysis and proof that nuclear war is survivable, and exactly how to do it, see this site and this video series.}
Of course I was talking about the situation in america. Switzerland has enough shelters for their entire population. So do Russia and China, or at least they are working on it. America only has shelters for its top politicians and the few survivalists that can afford to, and have bothered to, build their own. It is rumored that Beijing has an underground city of sorts built underneath it for a nuclear shelter. Plus China has made its subways nuclear and chemical attack safe. So any citizens out in the city can run to the subways for a massive shelter in case of attack (or natural disaster). Meanwhile, Russia has a supposed underground city as well, underneath Moscow. A multitude of articles on the net link to an RT piece (http://www.rt.com/news/prime-time/moscow-bomb-shelters-outskirts/) about new shelters being built for suburban Moscow, but the article was taken down with no explanation. Surviving alleged quotes from it say this:
Nearly 5,000 new emergency bomb shelters will be built in Moscow by 2012 to save people in case of potential attacks.Moscow authorities say the measure is urgent as the shelters currently available in the city can house no more that half of its population.In the last 20 years, the area of air-raid defense has been developed little, and the existing shelters have become outdated. Moreover, they are located mostly in the city center, which makes densely populated Moscow outskirts especially vulnerable in the event of a nuclear attack.In order to resolve the issue, the city has given architects a task to construct a typical model of an easy-to-build shelter that will be located all over the city 10 to 15 meters underneath apartment blocks, shopping centers, sport complexes and parks, as in case of attack people will need to reach the shelters within a minute.
The original article had an embedded video, which has also been removed. But thanks to someone re-uploading it, we know it was a real news story:

So, despite Western propaganda, Russia does not censor news, at least not nearly as much as the westerners do. How interesting that this article was taken down. Though owned by the private media company of Russia Today, and not an official govt. news site such as Tass, it is still telling that a seemingly innocuous piece would be removed.
So if both Russia and China have shelters emplaced for their populations, what does this mean? That they may know nuclear war would be terrible, but they also intend to try and survive it. In america, the politicians intend to survive and emerge to a dead constituency while the populace simply plans to die without a whimper. The exception will be the survivalist freaks whose plan is- banally- to shoot everyone they encounter and increase the death tolls. This is apparent from their obsessive hoarding of guns and ammunition. (Most american households have at least one gun, and the average survivalist generally has around 200. The standard rule of theirs is to keep at least 1,000 rounds on hand for every gun.)
Assuming that Russia and China have some kind of shelters, we can predict that in the event of a nuclear war they will have people to emerge and try to forge on. America will have nothing really- nothing but a few scattered paranoid republicans armed to the teeth...
The submarines seem to be the wild card in all this, as they can pop up anywhere to shoot off some SLBMs. It is far less known what anti-submarine measures there are- neither side likes to talk about it. Though it is known that Russia and China both have more attack subs- smaller ones designed to hunt down the big ones with nukes in them. They also both have more mine laying ships and patrol boats. Worst of all for america, Russia has special helicopters to destroy subs with called the Mi-14. These massive choppers can drop small nuclear bombs into an area suspected of having an enemy sub lurking in it. The blast can destroy any sub within a large radius. That, plus sea mines, submarine nets, and the new Sea Wolf contraptions will create a death knell for subs worldwide, on both sides. So they can be defended against, though it's more complicated.
An even better question is, who will get nuked at all? Because guess what- america has no real defense against nuclear warheads screaming in from the edges of the atmosphere at incredible speeds. By the time they are detected, and the air raid sirens go off, there would be little time to do anything, even go into a basement. Most would assume the sirens were yet another test or drill like they do monthly for tornadoes. Few would even bat an eye. The radars and electronic fence of NORAD would see them alright, but how soon, and more importantly what could they do about it?? There are no effective anti-missile defense systems operated by the West. All they have is the joke they call the Patriot, which has a very low success rate. It is junk, and it is all they got.(Various estimates rate the Patriot missile systems' performance at 70%, 40%, 10%, and even 0! As opposed to the old S-300s with a rating of 93%..)
So how many nuclear warheads would get to target? Pretty close to 100%.
As opposed to the Russian territory: they have three things that america does not have-
1. Non-targetable nukes. Russia has nuclear missiles mounted on mobile launchers (giant trucks) which can be anywhere anytime. Usually the Siberian forests. How do you target a mobile missile that can go anywhere at a moment's notice? You don't. So retaliation is a guarantee. This is not to mention the missiles they are placing into train cars. Any train on any rail line anywhere could have one or more nukes on it. There is no way to target these.
2. An impenetrable air defense. Russian armed forces recently reshuffled their departments and came up with an aerospace command. It comprises land SAM units, air force, and ICBM capabilities to protect them from any air assaults including drones, jets, missiles, nukes, and satellites. This includes the much vaunted S-300, S-350, S-400, and S-500 systems which are considered to be excellent air defense systems by any measure. Add on the low altitude defense systems called TOR and the coastal systems called Pantsir, not to mention the all around BUK- and you have extreme defense from air assault.
3. Different tactics. The Topol and Yars type missiles have evasion programs, decoys, and low orbit launching, which will make them exceedingly hard to detect, much less destroy. While america boasts of a “triad” of air, sea, and land silo launched missiles, Russia has a "pentagon" of sorts: land, sea, silo, truck, and train launchers.
So how many american nukes would really get through, and, if they did- the Russian population would be relatively safe in their shelters anyway.

It is similar for China though they have a different military situation. China has land, sea, and air launchers as well, plus extensive underground railroad tunnels throughout their country to move around missiles in secret. They have less impressive air defenses, though they are about to buy S-400 systems from Russia, which at least will protect their major cities. And they have fewer nukes, but the ones they do have are more powerful than either Russian or american nukes.

This all means that a large portion of their populations would survive- or at least try to. Americans will all die because they simply would not even try. It speaks of their characters: Russia and China consider themselves each to be unique civilizations; america thinks of itself as a new Roman empire- and we all know what happened to them.

(C) james platt  do not copy or repost



First written on 11/23/2010, this article and its info has been extensively updated, and reverified as of 8/8/15;10/18/15

US military is widespread, but not nearly as much as many claim:
complete listing of US foreign bases and alliances

A Project Well Overdue...

I always liked to think I was an anti-war activist, but now I am not so sure: just like I used to be an environmentalist, and used to be an animal rights activist. Those movements have good intentions but bad methodologies, while also resorting to wild exaggerations to lure others into their causes. Then these exaggerations- frequently outright lies- get repeated over and over, and become maxims of the slacktivist brigades. The anti-war people seem to be in on it as well, using the same techniques.

While doing research for a novel, I needed to know about the military presence in Japan. Oh what a mess that led me into! I discovered that every source one could look up had different lists, numbers, and other info on troop presences- not only in Japan but everywhere in the world. The sites with extensive references, some even citing Dept. of Defense documents, also had conflicting figures. While it is possible that even the government does not know this information accurately, especially since it moves troops around so much and opens and closes bases sometimes, I smelled a rat and started looking closer...

The key was the maps. Maps of the world showing US bases had some quite telling discrepancies. Nearly all of them were made by anti-war sites who wanted it to look as if the US has a lot more bases in a lot more places than it really does. Since I am no stranger to geography and politics, I know what countries are what. I noticed a few things.

First, many of these maps mark every country with a military "presence". Most mark China and Russia even. Do you really believe the US has military bases inside Russia or China? The maps say so, so it must be true (sound familiar? like some animal rights claims...). I finally figured out that there is indeed an American military presence in those two countries: a dozen or so marines working as embassy guards. So now every country with a embassy can be marked on these "presence" maps. A few marines at the embassy in Moscow gives them an excuse to mark all of Russia red as an Occupied-With-Bases-State, and a large soldier outline stands on the Taiga, gun in hand. Please.

I also noticed that Hong Kong keeps showing up. One map borrows from another, obviously for years on end. Anyone over ten years old should recall the handover of Hong Kong to China in July of 1997. England leased it from them in 1897 for 99 years. The Chinese informed them that they intended to collect, so it was handed over in a big ceremony. Since it is a Chinese city now, I seriously doubt if there is still an American military base there. Just as ridiculous are the maps listing Venezuela on them. I hardly think so, after an American led coup overthrew President Chavez briefly; and now his former vice-president is in charge- putting up with such poppycock as Obama's declaration of Venezuela as a "military threat" to America.

Even more deceitful are the markings for places that are not countries. Listing Johnston Atoll as a location of an American base in another country is a load of bull, since the UK owns that place as a territory. Other atolls in the Pacific are frequently listed as well, including the American owned islands of Guam. How is that a foreign base? Just the same, another frequent listing is an island called St. Helene. That is not a country, it is a territory of the UK. Same as Diego Garcia- also the UK's. But they are listed as two more countries, besides the UK itself. Deceptive...

Several nations are also marked due to the presence of under a hundred trainers or advisors, especially in numerous African states. In 2009 or so African Union nations universally rebuffed American efforts to form an alliance and set up a military headquarters or base/s in one of their countries. America does maintain Africom, a sparse network of offices trying to infiltrate the hearts and minds of African military leaders- aiding in all manner of minor activities. Though actual US bases in Africa remain scant. African States' loyalties are generally to whomever is currently giving them weapons for their ongoing wars, which are myriad. (When no one sells them guns, they fight with machetes.) Only China invests real money into their economies though, as they are after the minerals there. Future American bases there are not likely, and are not there now. Handfuls of trainers make the maps scarier though, don't they? It is similar to an antenna tower with dishes and relays on it. A building sits near its foot, with three soldiers tending to its maintenance. Is that a “foreign military base”, as commonly thought of- or just an outpost? Several of these scenarios exist in South Korea, and a few other locations.

I also noticed that none of the maps are current. The US installed a puppet regime in the country of Georgia, and heaped them with weapons. Then the little puppet killed civilians of neighboring countries, invaded a neutral zone, and threatened Russia. So it is marked on all the maps as a base country, but was not removed from the maps after Russia invaded in August 2008 and confiscated the American weapons. Though the Russians now insist American scientists have a bioweapons lab there, this is not a military base. This is the same scenario as Krygyzstan, a large former Soviet republic that is now a country. There was a US air force base there, and in Feb. of 2009 the Krygyzis told them they wanted it closed. The Americans had to leave. The maps do not reflect this either. Another honorable mention of BS goes to the constant labeling of Thailand as a site for American bases. The last US base closed there in June of 1976, as the Thais kicked them out. Now they allow refueling of planes for anti-terror missions and that's all.

Soapbox time...
Besides the maps, it is disturbing how many sites grovel to the politically correct people and make a huge point out of "supporting the troops". What does "support" mean exactly? Spouting off how brave they are every chance you get? I am sure most of them are brave, but what does that have to do with it? No one ever said any of them were cowards did they? So does "Support" mean spouting off broken record lines about blind patriotism? If the politicians sent them to a phony murderous genocidal war to make themselves richer, it does not mean that everyone should reel back in awe of how 'just' the war is, just because that is supposed to be "support". Support should mean telling them to be even braver and refuse to kill civilians, ask what evidence there is for the reasons of the conflict, and quit if necessary to leave the theater if the answers are not sensible. Most soldiers are breaking numerous international laws which America is a signatory to, and they do not question it. 'Just following orders' has led to many genocides throughout history, including the current ones now in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. Supporting the troops also should mean demanding that they come home to defend their own country. That is much more moral and less dangerous.

If they want danger, there is plenty of it in the lawless no-man's land near the Mexican border, where drug cartels, human smugglers, and mafia killers run rampant- frequently escorted by rogue factions of the Mexican Army. Fight them. This country loves to nose into other countries' conflicts, so why not one on our own border? We are fighting the drug cartels in Colombia, so let's give Mexico a direct hand in their drug war, which is spilling over the border anyway. I support fighting them, on US soil or at most a few miles from it, bravely and honorably, not violating the Geneva Accords nor other rules of war (see this guide). Support our troops by bringing them home! We need them here!

But most anti-war sites almost always stop short of saying what I just did. That, besides their deceptive maps and faulty statistics, make them not believable. Anything they say could be a lie, who knows? Something had to be done to find out the truth.

Methodology and Terms

What is a “military base”? It can mean any place the military sets up shop for any reason. But in the common use of the term, it implies a place where an attack could be launched from. These places are the threats to other countries, or I suppose, the defense hubs of host areas. When people refer to “military bases” in a negative light, they generally are implying a base of attack-ready soldiers and equipment, set up in a permanent fashion in an established place.

For this reason, I have chosen to omit many so-called “bases” from my list. Sites that bases use are not 'bases' per se. Ammo storage buildings, firing ranges, outbuildings, etc. are frequently listed by their designated names as “bases”, despite their being attached or in very close proximity to the actual bases that use them. Just the same, several different companies, regiments, or even branches of the US armed forces may be utilizing a base at the same time and place. So an infantry unit with its own camp name is not a separate base from the marine unit across the street in the same facility. It is the same locale. Listing of separate “camps” like this has led to hundreds of redundant “base” listings.

Worse yet, places such as a post office in Germany, a hospital, housing areas for soldiers families, administrative buildings, and even numerous hotels are owned by the military and listed with the Dept. of Defense's assets- interspersed with the base listings. So many people just look at the final figures and say 'see! There are over 1,000 foreign bases!'. Yes, if you include CIA offices, MP stations, and other indirect or outwardly non-military places such as those just listed.

Another ruse to make it appear the US military has many more bases than it does is to include every place where a soldier stands. There are MOB's- Main Operational Bases. These are bases. Then there are FOB's- these are Forward Operations Bases. These are temporary, mobile encampments. The FOB's are outposts for MOB's, as they are front lookout camps. Though some stay put for awhile, any of them can be taken down and bugged out in less than a day. When counted up these can add hundreds of 'bases' to these lists.

A lot of closed bases are also included in lists all over the net as simply “bases”. Yes they are- but they are closed down! A multitude of bases have also been given to their host countries, especially in Iraq. 

Even more annoying is when people list off how many thousands of buildings the federal govt. owns, on so many millions of acres and worth a trillion dollars or so in real estate...So???? Every square foot of US property that is not in the USA is not necessarily a base.

People have incessantly screeched on comment threads that America has 600, even a thousand foreign bases- in virtually every country in the world. Ridiculous. Here is an updated list, and any of these can be looked up by anyone via the source sites listed below, or elsewhere on the net. A few may have been missed, but it couldn't be too many.

Also, a joint base with another nation- especially a military organization- is not exclusively funded, commanded, or otherwise controlled by America just because they contribute troops and equipment to it. Therefore NATO and other pact-based multi-national bases have not been included. NATO, with its unrealistic duties and fees, and overt threats to a certain nation that could overrun Europe in mere days, is waning anyway as the EU ponders forming a European Army in its stead. Though American influence is real in NATO, so if you want to add them, there are 18 NATO bases you can tack on if you wish.

Like I said before- one foreign base is bad enough. Over a hundred- unconscionable. Why exaggerate something so bad? Get real so you have verifiable info to back yourself up instead of sounding like Chicken Little....

US Foreign Military Bases
no info older than fiscal year 2014 (at least 9/30/13)

ARMY - 30

USAG Brussells
USAG Benelux

USAG Ansbach/Katterbach/Shipton Base
USAG Bamberg Airfield
USAG Baumholder/Wetzel
Dexheim Missile Facility
Lucius D. Clay Kaserne
USAG Grafenwoehr
Illesheim Kaserne
USAG Kaiserslautern
USAG Stuttgart- Kelly, Patch, Panzer(marine), Robinson complex
USAG Schweinfurt Training Areas
South Camp Vilseck/East Camp Grafenwoehr
USAG Wiesbaden Army Airfield

Camp Darby
Camp Ederle
Longare Communications Site

Fort Buckner
Camp Zama
Torii Station
Sagami General Depot

USAG Schinnen Emma

Mihail Kogalniceanu Airfield

Camp Casey / Castle / Hovey
Camp Humphreys / High Point/ Richmond
USAG Yongsan / Yongsan South / Camp Market / Camp Coiner / Camp Kim
Camp Red Cloud / Bullseye 01 & 02 / Camp Jackson / Camp Stanley(closing 2016)
Seoul (K-16) Air Base

USAG Daegu / Camps Carrol, Walker, George, Henry / Brooklyn Hill / Dartboard Site / Pier 8
Command Post Tango

NAVY - 33

North Cape- Area A-VLF ; Area C-HFR
Exmouth- NAVCOMMSTA H E Holt

Andros Island- Main Base, Salvador Point,
AUTECs Big Wood Cay ,Golding Cay ,Great Stirrup ,High Point Cay

Sheik Isa
Manama- Nsa-Ii; NSA Bahrain
Al Jufayr- NSA Bahrain - Aviation Unit , Muharraq , NSA Bahrain - Banz Wrhs
Compound , NSA Bahrain - Dependent School , NSA Bahrain - Mina Sulman Pier

Argentia Newfoundland

NS Guantanamo Bay

Camp Lemonier Djibouti

Csl El Salvador

NATO Ordnance Area
NSA Souda Bay , Marathi Pier Area , NAMFI Compound


Augusta Bay- NAS Sigonella, NAS Pensacola Transmitter Site , NATO Ordnance Facility
Naples- NAS 1 Support Area , NAVSUPPACT NAPLES IT

Sasebo- COMFLEACT, Maebata, Sakibe
Okinawa- Kadena Air Base, COMFLEACT
Yokosuka- COMFLEACT, Azuma
Iwo Jima 3181
Kami Seya
Yokohama- Negishi Dh Area, Yokohama No Dock
NAF Atsugi
Tengan Pier-6028
White Beach Naval Inst.

Mombassa- NSA Bahrain

Yechon- Camp Carrol
Chinhae- Fleet Activities Chinhae, ROK Navy Base
Yongsan- Yongsan Garrison

NS Rota

NSA Bahrain - Fujairah Aviation Unit
NSA Bahrain - Jebel Ali

Diego Garcia


Antigua AS

Kleine Brogel AB
Chievre AB

Karup AB
Thule AB (Greenland)

Bann Communications Stations 1 & 2
Buechel AB
Geilenkirchen AB
Husterhoeh Communication Site
Ramstein AB
Spangdahlem AB

Aviano AB
Ghedi AB

Camp Zama Communications Station
Kadena AB
Misawa AB
Owada Communications Station
Tokorozawa Transmitter Site
Yokota AB

Davis-Monthan AFB (Curacao)


Lajes Field

Camp Red Cloud Communications Site
Kunsan AB
Kwang-Ju AB
Osan AFB
Suwon AB
Taegu AB
Wonju AS

Moron AB

Batman AB
Incirlik AB
Mus AB
Izmir- Izmir As, Cigli AB

(US leases existing UK bases and they are co-used, hence the US bases being designated RAF)
Blenheim Crescent
Cambridge- RAF Molesworth, RAF Alconbury
RAF Bicester
RAF Croughton
RAF Fairford
RAF Feltwell
RAF Lakenheath
RAF Menwith Hill
RAF Mildenhall
RAF Barford St John Transmitter Annex
Ascension Auxiliary Airfield (St. Helena)


Tengan- Camp McTureous, Camp Courtney
Camp Foster
Camp Fuji
MCAS Iwakuni
MCB Camp S D Butler ASP
Okinawa- Camp Gonsalves , Camp Hansen , Camp Kinser , Camp Lester , Camp Schwab , Ie Jima Aux
Airfield , Kin Blue Beach – 6020 , MCAS Futenma

Camp Mu Juk

--excludes forward operating bases, firebases, combat outposts--

KAIA- Kabul Intl. Airport
Camp Black Horse
Camp Phoenix
Camp Clark
Camp Blessing
Camp Wright
Bagram Airfield
Camp Marmal
Camp Pratt
Camp Spann
Kandahar Airfield
Camp Arena

--excludes forward operating bases, firebases, combat outposts--

About 165 locations listed on some sites, however most are FOB's and small encampments. Many well known bases have been closed or given to Iraq. In the end, the main bases/base complexes are simply:

1. Victory Base Complex, Joint Operations- Baghdad- ten bases in one place
2. Camp Baharia Marine Corps Base- Fallujah

Belgium, Italy, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, South Korea, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Canada, Cuba, Djibouti, El Salvador, Greece, Iceland, Spain, UAE, UK, Antigua, Denmark, Netherlands Antilles, Oman, Portugal, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iraq
[remember- this is not including nato; with them add 18 bases]


US/Foreign Military Pacts:
{7 pacts with 27 nations}
-Canada/US Pacts: Ogdensburg Agreement, NORAD, NATO
-NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, USA.
-ANZUS: New Zealand, Australia,USA
-Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan
-Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America
-Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
(OAS- Organization of American States: 35 nations of the Western Hemisphere. Non-functional, conflicting, and never implemented.)

Countries with other military ties, besides bases or treaties:
-Allows US use of their military facilities or otherwise has close military ties:
the Gambia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Somalia, Liberia
-Plays both sides:
Armenia, Azerbaijan
-Stores stockpiles of US free-fall atomic bombs at their bases:
Germany, Greece, Turkey
-Stores stockpiles of US nuclear free-fall/guided bombs: 
Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Turkey
Australia -joint US/Australian military space and spying facility
Israel -radar facility; 2 military depots

For Comparison:
Russian Foreign Military Bases:
(11 bases in 8 countries)
Armenia- 1 army, 1 air force
Belarus- 1 radar/ air force
Abkhazia- 1 army
South Ossetia- 2 army
Kazakhstan- 1 radar
Kyrgyzstan- 1 air
Tajikistan- 1 army
Syria- 1 naval, 1 air force
Vietnam and Cyprus- use of naval ports
Military Pacts: One- CSTO, which is Russia and 5 border states

{noteworthy: many maps that try to make Russia look bad add on a "Russian     military presence" in Transdniestra, which is merely a very small peacekeeping force that has been there since 1994}

Imperial Crimes : detailed listing of all US military interventions
wikimedia commons : map of all domestic bases 
Nuclear proliferation- disturbing details of nukes everywhere

The end result of my research has given me the answers I sought to begin with and then some. The oft repeated claims of 250-1,500 bases in 150 or more countries turned out to be a load of bull. It is more like 128 bases in 27 countries (note: there are about 195 countries, plus several more with contested status). That leaves 168 countries (and several near-nations) without US bases, and 158 with no official military ties at all. There are arms sales and economic alliances, but these change frequently and are not military collusions or pacts by any means.

That is still a lot- too many if you ask me. I wish all the foreign bases would be closed and all the troops would be sent home and stationed on American borders. If North Korea wants to invade South Korea, or China wants to take back Taiwan, or the Iraqis want to shoot each other- I don't care. Their problem- let's worry about our country- only. Regardless, the info listed above is the closest to the truth you will find, probably with errors or a few omissions, but much closer than the other outdated, biased hype. 


---also numerous pages on wikipedia, wikimedia, and other sites, as well as numerous organic google searches- all painstakingly cross-referenced.

© james platt 2015 jamesplatt88@gmail.com ask to repost all or part


What is Really Going on In Ukraine?

Though this blogger has written before about the Ukraine, it was concentrated on how dangerous it is to meddle in their conflict. However there is extremely little, if any, truthful information available to the average Westerner - especially Americans- about what is really going on there. The mainstream media's "world news" is extremely one sided and outright biased. The other media in the West parrots itself in a nonsensical loop, similar to the media balderdash leading up to the pointless, genocidal lie now known as the Iraq war. While I may not have every detail correct, you will get the gist of it that there is another side to this- never before mentioned on Western news.

As far as most Americans "know", Russia has invaded a defenseless country and is taking territory at whim, oppressing the poor Ukrainian people. So Obama started economic sanctions on them, and their economy is now "in tatters". The evil Russians persist though, so the West continues to punish the mean Russians. Trying not to laugh as I write this, it is actually the fairy tale the news here presents to us- and most believe it. And that is not funny.

Here is what really happened- less all the endless dates, hard to pronounce names, and a minimum of intrusive links that make political pieces so boring to most. In the piece four posts down, many links and maps are provided which will lead to the verification of all points here. Please look it all up yourselves if you wish..

Ukraine has historically always been its own culture and state, and was part of the USSR. After the Soviet Union broke up, it became an independent nation.

That country was good friends with Russia for a long time. Possibly since it owed the vast majority of its territorial existence to Russians, including Kiev.

Its president was suddenly ousted in a coup that came out of nowhere. State mental hospitals and an inpatient drug rehab facility suddenly freed many of their inmates, who conveniently turned up in Kiev protests with ski masks and handguns. Then mystery snipers started shooting people on both sides- protesters and cops. Predictably, mayhem ensued. The Maidan party took over and ran off their president and other officials. This party fought alongside the Nazis in World War Two against the Russians. They, and their support group the Right Sector,  still have swastika-like insignia and salute brownshirt-style. There are a multitude of videos on the net of third reich flags, and racial slurs against Russians all over Western and central Ukraine (even goose-stepping parades by their children--while bystanders don't bat an eye...). The Kiev Parliament recently legalized these fascist brigades and declared them to be heroes, promising pensions and so on.

A sizable portion of Ukraine is inhabited by ethnic Russians. This includes Donetsk and Luhansk, two sizable Eastern districts; they make up most of the Donbass region, an industrial area. Several smaller areas throughout the republic; especially a large swath of the East and South known as Novorossiya(New Russia), are also ethnically Russian.  The Russians, who won the war for us all and lost more troops and civilians than all other nations combined in the war against the nazis, were having none of this. Even if the rest of the people did not like the president, that did not mean the fascists could take over without a fight.

The head of the CIA admits they visited the newly installed president for a day long visit soon after. The Russians smelled a rat. After all, America had attempted regime change by similar insurrections in Georgia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yugoslavia...Later an audio recording was revealed of US Asst. Secretary of State planning the coup and who they would install as the new puppet leader.

Next, Blackwater troops start showing up. They are a private army of American mercenaries. So the former army units of the Russian ethnic regions, combined with the local militias of these areas, formed into new armies to fight the Kiev regime. The two largest ones created names and are now considered "self- proclaimed republics". They are the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR). In response, mercenaries from around the world swarmed there to fight for the West's Kiev regime. Also regular government troops from a few countries showed up, "unofficially". Most notable was the damning find of 1,500 dead NATO troops after the great battle for the Donbass airport- as well as "lots and lots" of American weapons. Two questions must be asked here: 1. mercenaries fight for money; who is paying them when Ukraine's economy is down the tubes?? ; 2. are NATO troops so unorganized, unprofessional, and uncontrolled that so many of them could go on this jaunt as some kind of moonlighting excursion- in uniform no less??  Notably, a similar scenario unfolded later when the DPR surrounded 3,500 Kiev troops. Suspiciously, Germany and France suddenly became very upset, and locals claimed there were many NATO and separate Polish troops in the encircled area. Eventually, Kiev abandoned the impending battle to free them, left the area, and their doomed troops were left to their fate- probably to avoid exposing their nationalities. In the end, over 3,000 dead and enormous amounts of American weapons were found in the battle zone.

At one point several nations from NATO sent troops to Ukraine to hold exercises and war games there. The American congress then passed a law saying any president now or in the future can provide as much military aid as they want to Ukraine at any time. Funny how all this is going on, while the Western media barely mentions it- then screams incessantly about how Russia might be putting troops near its own border! Russia might be supporting the militias! Russia might be doing so many things...

Enter the OSCE. Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe: a mini- UN, for Europe only. They were called in and sent observers to Ukraine. They watch the borders with Russia, even using drones. They investigate battles and stuff. They say there have been no Russian military supplies enter Ukraine or the breakaway republics since at least the middle of last year. That's something, since Western media claims the "porous border" has bus loads of Russian troops and convoys of Russian heavy weaponry crossing all the time. Though they are Europeans which ignored the NATO troops incident at the airport, they are indeed watching the border and have had nothing to report there.

The OSCE also has ignored the discoveries of several mass graves of civilians found in areas the Kiev regime had occupied. War crimes and genocides are okay according to them, apparently.

Further, UK based Amnesty International issued a report lambasting Russia for a slew of vague and minor "human rights violations", saying nothing of the Kiev regime's mass graves, nor the ongoing shelling of civilian neighborhoods, schools, bus stops and hospitals. At least someone is keeping records of the Kiev regime's ongoing tortures, as can be viewed here and here

Whenever any issues related to Ukraine are brought up at the UN, several Western nations parrot the American fairy tale of "Russian meddling" in Ukraine. Last time, they even whined about the alleged Russian takeover of South Ossetia, Georgia, and Abkhazia.

Digressing somewhat, since the West brings up those subjects loggorheacilly, let us go over them briefly:

Georgia's (note to Americans: it is a country in Asia. Not the state in the US South), leader was overthrown by an instigated coup with apparent American meddling.This new president decided to murder the civilians in a breakaway-zone called South Ossetia. This area was under watch by Russian peacekeepers, who witnessed the slaughter, and were being killed as well. Russia invaded Ossetia to save them. Long story short, Georgia had a brief war with Russia. They fell quickly, in about 5 days. Russian troops found warehouses full of American weapons, like a base was being set up to invade them later. Russia as victor of a war, had every right to absorb Georgia, or whatever else it wished. But it chose to withdraw. Two of Georgia's former autonomous districts- South Ossetia and Abkhazia, declared independence. Russia chose to recognize them as independent nations. Georgia is fortunate it exists at all, so its continued complaints about Russia's "takeover" of these two areas is absurd. Maybe they shouldn't have attempted a genocide against the Ossetians to begin with. Now that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as independent nations, have asked for Russian military presence and open borders with them, the West claims they are "occupied" zones belonging to Georgia. Then, they claim this is an example of Russian "land grabs" in Southwest Asia. If they wanted to expand land area, they would have absorbed Georgia, a much larger area.

So now there is the Minsk2 accords. What happened to Minsk1? Kiev refused to show up on several occasions. Now with the Minsk2 agreement, implementation of its stipulations has been like pulling teeth for the Kiev side. They refuse, wait for the last second, violate all they can, then pull back. It took them weeks to move their heavy guns back from the battle line, despite the DPR and LPR having done so long ago. They even shot at OSCE inspectors at the Donetsk airport just the other day with grenade launchers. Actually, Kiev has done the opposite of every aspect of the agreement, as detailed here.Now, they shell residential neighborhoods daily just as they did before. The DPR says the Minsk accords were never begun, and are now meaningless. And recently, the LPR leader was assassinated. They have vowed to march on Kiev...the battle lines are drawn...

Kiev has been begging to join NATO, obviously so Europe will fight its battles for them. They have refused so far, knowing it could start WWIII. Kiev has publicly said that it wants to build the strongest army "in Europe", so they can regain all of their "lost" territories. They said this includes Crimea.

Crimea is an area almost entirely consisting of ethnic Russians which was an autonomous republic of Ukraine when this trouble began. They declared their independence, then held a referendum in which a vast majority of their citizens voted to become part of Russia again, as they used to be. Russia accepted, in accordance with international laws. Precedents were recognized before in Kosovo as well. Now, Crimea is again part of Russia, as it has been historically since 1783. So the Western media continues to parrot the claim that Russia "annexed" and "illegally took over" Crimea. So if Ukraine thinks it is going to take back Crimea from Russia, it will have a war on its hands. Starting a war with Russia is not wise, even if America backs you.

Needling Russia for over a year now, Kiev has threatened to erect an actual wall along their 2,000 plus mile border, and has engaged in a genocidal campaign against the ethnic Russians living there. If it were not for Russia sending almost monthly convoys of 2,000 or so tons of humanitarian aid to Donbass and Luhansk, those people would have starved and frozen to death a long time ago. The 16th convoy is being loaded now. They give them food, generators, blankets, clothes, schoolbooks, and so on. They have invited Kiev and the Intl. Red Cross to inspect the cargoes, but none have cared to as yet. Kiev has shut off natural gas supplies to these areas as well, intending to freeze them apparently. Then they refused to pay for their own gas supply, which originates in Russia, and whine to European councils when they are threatened with cutoffs.

While America screams about Russia putting its own troops "near" its own border, and complains incessantly that they are "aiding" the DPR an LPR, they never mention that they have 128 military bases in 27 foreign countries. Compare this to Russia having 9 military bases in 7 other countries, all on or very close to their own borders. The hypocrisy is simply unreal. Not to mention the West's military exercises in countries that border Russia- at times even feet from the border; shipments of lethal weapons to Kiev to murder more Donbass civilians with; and, American 'advisors' embedding themselves in the front line areas.

Now as the Ukrainian populace spirals into poverty, their newly appointed president has so far tripled his wealth.

All of this has led to slews of accusations, which are not verified but parroted as truths. Then, the accusations- which even if were true, would be irrelevant compared to American Imperialistic jaunts and hubris laden meddlings, are held up as an excuse to impose economic sanctions against Russia. Despite
Obama's claim that the sanctions have left Russia's economy "in tatters", they have actually forced them to find other, more stable trade partners which will benefit them long term. They are now setting up trade agreements with several nations which will utilize their own currencies, bypassing the standard US dollar as a trade medium. This makes their transactions more economically secure and devalues the US dollar as a whole...Not to mention the fact that Russia has two "rainy day funds" which have absorbed this nicely. Their economy as a whole is fine. Selling their foreign bonds and buying gold with them has resulted, and was very wise for long term security. They have suffered inflation, and reduced valuation of the ruble, but certainly not the economic disaster the West hoped for. What harmed them most was the Saudi price fixing of oil values, surely because of American goading- knowing oil is Russia's main export. Now that Sa'udi Arabia has a new king (the last one died), the oil market is normalizing again and recovery is already begun for all affected.

France decided to jump on the bandwagon as well, refusing to give Russia two large naval vessels they were contracted to build and are already paid for. These are large ships known as "Mistral" helicopter carriers (like aircraft carriers for attack choppers..). They are also made for amphibious assaults, hospital ships, and command and control centers for naval operations. There is a contract which France clearly violated, and Russia can sue them for it at any time. They have stated many times that they want their ships or their money back, either way. Since the ships are specially designed for Russian weapons systems and computers, they are useless to other navies, so resale is not an option. France has shown its ass on this one- childishly breaching a contract inked long before the Ukraine mess even began. In the meantime, Russia has begun building its own version of the same ships in its own shipyards. French implication that Russia somehow controls the events in Ukraine is a ploy which in the end stuck them with a 1.1 billion Euro bill they had to pay and two useless metal boxes. In the meantime, they pay 5 million Euros a month to maintain the two ships...some are saying it would be cheaper to scuttle the ships- that is, sink them. Now that the deal is settled with Russia, they claim that they hope Vietnam, China, or India will buy them. They hope....Way to go, Hollande!
top-dom say no!

....In order to counter the oft-mentioned "uni-polar world" that the East detests so much, Putin assembled and formulated an alternative to the World Bank. BRICS- Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa- have formed their own international bank. This is still in its infancy but surely scares the hell out of the American run World Bank, a clear threat to its monopoly on state loans and foreign debts. This bank will also aid Russia when it is up and running more, making its economy even less affectable by foreign sanctions. China has also created an alternative to the IMF called the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). To the chagrin of America, several of its allies have already joined. Now China is setting up an alternative to SWIFT (the banking systems of the world rely on it to make electronic intl. transactions) called CHIPS- China Intl. Payment System. It seems with their friends, especially the economic powerhouse China, Russia is finding ways to bypass American control of their economy.

Meanwhile, Russian military upgrades and expansion have continued unabated. They are updating everything from their uniforms and rifles to their subs, bombers, and nukes; as well as expanding their bases and radars in the Arctic.  Greatly increased economic, cultural, and military cooperation has resulted with India, Iran, and China. Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Brazil have also made it known they want to be friends with Russia- not enemies. So much for the Ukraine excursion- another debacle for American imperialism.

Addendum: Poland's scheme...

Since Poland has been an avid cheerleader of American saber-rattling against Russia lately, one has to wonder why they are chomping at the bit to become a battlefield for WWIII? Maybe they have a long term, ulterior motive:
-Their Member of European Parliament Korwin-Mikke states that the Maidan snipers were trained in Poland and sent there to cause riots and 'do America a favor'. Read more here, with sources.
-A look at a map of Poland's former borders shows that Ukraine's current remaining territory is entirely former-Polish lands. If Ukraine self-destructs, or should I say when, then guess who will be swooping in to retain order and then annex their historical lands? 

See map below, and compare to map above...

-see also at russolynx- the non-MSM news site that brings information to you-

  (C) james platt 2015.
do not copy or paste; providing a link does not negate DMCA law.


What is Bigfoot?

There are creatures around the world similar to what is called "bigfoot". They all have one thing in common- they are reclusive, unknown primates. But there is no real proof is there? Just a few blurry pictures and some anecdotal stories of drunken campers, right? That's what most people believe.

Let's start by going over some of the evidence...

DNA and blood/hair/other biological samples

One open-minded group of scientists undertook "The Sasquatch Genome Project", which over five years accumulated "approximately one hundred and
thirteen separate samples of hair, blood, mucus, toenail, bark scrapings, saliva and skin with hair and subcutaneous tissue attached ".
Their samples were sent to various universities for DNA sequencing. Results indicated a hybrid species: human female with unknown primate male combinants. Hard to refute, so several universities that unwittingly verified these results later denied having studied the samples, although their lab results were already on record.
Another group is currently undertaking a similar project, called the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project. Hopefully they will find similarly amazing results. 

And that's just for the North American bigfoots. 

Footprints and dermal ridge patterns

Thousands of footprints have been found and preserved by plaster casting over the decades. Though some were surely hoaxes, many hundreds are considered authentic and are preserved in many museums and scientists' labs and offices.
Of these, there a few that came out so well the creatures' toe-prints showed up. These fine, intricate lines that make our fingerprints, toe prints, palm and foot markings are considered impossible to forge- at least well enough to fool a fingerprint expert. Enter Jimmy Chilcutt, a forensics detective and fingerprint expert who also has a catalog of fingerprints of all known primates. When he was asked to examine these footprints with dermal ridge patterns, he determined they are authentic, but not human nor from a known primate- more of a hybrid.

See this show up to 7:21, and more here ending at 37:04.

Body parts

A few body parts are available for study, for those who bother to track them down. An Almas type (Mongolian) bigfoot was once killed in China, and its hands and feet were cut off and preserved in jars of preservative fluid. The hands were later sold to an archaeologist; the feet's location is unknown.

Nepalese Sherpas have over the years obtained a Yeti scalp and other smaller samples of hair, plus a hand. The scalp is kept in a monastery. It was tested once many years ago, and since the scientists at that time could not match it to anything, they said it must be from a goat. A goat with a head that large would be pretty amazing in itself. The sample has never been retested.

An entire body frozen in a block of ice is currently being tested. Though it is largely considered to have been a hoax when it was well known in the 60's, there is a little more to it than this. The so-called "Minnesota Iceman" had been on tour when the government became interested in obtaining it. The Smithsonian has a way of "losing" fascinating artifacts that have anything to do with subjects out of the ordinary, so the owner placed the body into hiding for decades. Now someone has purchased it, and it has been transported for study. Just maybe this will turn out to be real...

Audio recordings 

There are numerous recordings of bigfoot noises, usually howls and grunts; sometimes whistles and strange vocalizations that seem to be their speech. A few samples:

Scariest screams and howls here
Conversational analysis by military crypto-linguist
Site with a wide collection
Kentucky bigfoot sounds

Excellent videos you probably never heard of

The very best footage is in a documentary by Paula Lebrot called The Legend of Bigfoot. It is usually sold as a combo-dvd packaged with a corny movie called Escape from Angola. This is because Digiview Entertainment put them together to sell as one of those one dollar movies in stores. It is on youtube which is embedded below, but can also be bought on Amazon and Ebay. It is the story of Ivan Marx. This career tracker found, tracked, and filmed several bigfoots from Colorado to Alaska. See crippled one up to 26:50; eye reflections at dusk up to 53:40; juvenile in Alaskan river up to 1:01:12; and, two foraging in marsh up to 1:13:00.

There is also the Patterson-Gimlin footage, usually just called the Patterson film. It is an excellent video of a bigfoot walking along a dry riverbed in the  California mountains.It was taken by two men on horseback in 1967. It has never been disproven and professional analysis shows bulging muscles and other interesting events negating the costumed hoaxer theory.

A documentary about bigfoot in Oklahoma called Bigfootville is also very fascinating. Other videos abound- many fake or unclear, but a few seem authentic.

Close Encounters

Numerous attacks by bigfeet have been reported sporadically over the years, most by campers in deep woods cabins. The creatures seem to like throwing rocks, and sometimes wield sticks or even chase people. Injuries are almost unheard of- they just want to scare us away it seems.

There are two unprovable, but very believable, accounts of abductions by bigfoots. One was a Canadian trapper named Albert Ostman in 1924. He knew many anatomical details not known until decades later. It was implied he was expected to or possibly even forced to mate with an adolescent female. Read more here.

Another alleged abduction took place in 1928. Muchalat Harry, a Nutka Indian, was taken to a bigfoot camp in Vancouver. He was scrutinized by around 20 of them before he made a break for it and ran for his life. Read more of that incident here.

So with all of this evidence, what are they then?

That is the question; that is the problem. Most assume all of the creatures are one phenomena- related somehow...one mystery to be solved as a whole. But these are obviously animals, which are distributed across the world-very different animals. It is like comparing European stags to American whitetail deer. A wapiti (North American elk) is not a moose (European elk). So how can we explain them all as one species with one origin? We can't; they are different animals that look similar. So let us break it down then- what large unknown primates are related to what- or whom?

-The Yeti, or "abominable snowman":
A large furry white humanoid-looking creature seen in the Himalayas. Although it has always been assumed to be primate, it may not be. Genetic testing of its hair has yielded bear DNA. Its match to a 90,000 year old prehistoric polar bear indicates that it is a bear that has evolved and now frequently walks upright, which would make sense in steep rocky areas such as the Himalayas.
see this video

-The Nittaewo of Sri Lanka:
A small fierce humanoid creature that fought with the natives for centuries on this island was thought to have been killed off, but may still be lurking in the shadows. Its description clearly indicates the Australopithecus. As recently as 1963 evidence of its presence was found on the island.

-The Yowie of Australia:
A smaller creature that has been at odds with the Aborigines for eons, frequently compared to Homo Erectus.  

-The Almas Wild Men of Central Asia:
caveman-looking people with super human abilities, alleged to be surviving Neanderthals.

-The Chuchuna of far Northeastern Siberia:
similar to the Almas men but with different adaptations- and tastes. Alleged to be "cannibals" of human villagers, these apparently neanderthal offshoots have adapted to the climate of the Arctic circle while lacking a steady food supply. 

-The Urayuli:
An enormous ape like creature in Alaska's Southwest, this animal is obviously the Gigantopithecus. It seems to be scarce and frequents only one small geographical area. This enormous creature is also clearly not the North American bigfoot.

-The Sasquatch or american bigfoot: This animal has been DNA typed and is  proven to be a human/unknown primate hybrid- not a gigantopithecus as many claim. 

Other large primates seem to exist as well, such as the Orang-Pendek, the Yeren, the Nguoi Rung,and the Migyhur, among others. Most can probably be classified as some sort of known primate that was previously considered to be extinct, though several are sure to be as-yet undiscovered- or un-registered - species.

The concept of animals larger than us, especially fellow primates, existing without our prior approval seems to deeply disturb many. Since many humans feel they are on top of the food chain and have elevated themselves to god-like status among the animal kingdom, then they simply cannot accept that large primates may be coexisting with us on Earth. What if they are as smart as us, or are on top of the proverbial food chain over us? Beyond belief; unthinkable to most arrogant people. If the Academy of Sciences does not rubber stamp it, it is not real. This closed-minded blanket denial of evidence is the hallmark of our era. Don't forget, many animals we all know to be real were once thought to be mythical and were scoffed at by scientists. This includes gorillas, pandas, giraffes, tigers, and others. See this piece for more detail.

It is also possible that the claims of conspiracists may have some degree of truth in them. They say that the government is suppressing info on bigfoot just like they do with UFOs. This is plausible, since the wide acceptance of bigfoot (which would be seen by many as proof of evolution) would wreak havoc on religious institutions and upset the status quo of society: something they fear greatly. Not to mention the impact on loggers, miners, and land developers who would suffer from the impact of endangered species protections if the humanoid creatures were officially recognized.

Either way, it is too bad that they have chosen to do our thinking for us on the bigfoot subject as well.The only reason bigfoot type creatures are denied is because the officialdom says so, and so peoples' fear factors set in. Evidence and common sense are ignored.

See also:

Human species, past and present

Sasquatch Genome Project report

Chilcutt- overview

Detailed analysis of Patterson film

Almas shot by troops in 1925

Detailed analysis of bigfoot language 

(C) james platt 2015
may not be copied without permission, even if link is provided.  


Farmers are Rich Whiners

Living in the Midwest and especially Iowa for so many years, I have grown weary of the mantric stereotype about the farmers: those poor, hard working folks who toil away to feed the world for a pittance...They are glorified, if not worshiped, in local television ads, radio, and newspaper pieces as the heroic low-paid laborers gluing our communities together! Everything in the Midwest is about the farmers- and anyone who does not kiss their asses is a complete fool with no political future, or friends either, to be sure. But let us examine a few details...Are they really hard working and poor, and what kind of people are they?

Hard working???
Modern technologies make farm work much easier than it once was. My dad, who grew up on a farm in Grant Township in Iowa, told me of stuff like plowing with oxen, cutting up trees with axes, and so on. Now, there are tractors with computers and GPS systems that can tell you exactly what percent of your field is planted as you go. All of the thinking is done for you as land is disced, fertilized, plowed, planted, and harvested. Once planting season is done, about a month of work, the farmer waits while it grows. Sure, he fiddles around in his barn shop, mends fences, and so forth- but little actual work is needed aside from driving. The plants grow themselves. I do not question that the average farmer can find plenty to do during growing season. Though if he were tired, laid up, or otherwise preoccupied, the crop would still be there growing unaided and ready to pick later on. Once it is grown, they get  into this mad rush phase, picking all they can ASAP. They run their combines into the night. Then, whatever. I know one Missouri farmer who makes almost monthly trips to Las Vegas and gambles with the 'whales'.

Farmers are always portrayed as being very poor, wearing ragged overalls and driving beat up old trucks. Which they do. I met one who had broken a shoestring and replaced it with twine. Just because someone is a miser it does not mean they are poor. Farmers make income off of their crops, sold per bushel. They also sell hay, pigs, cows, chickens, sheep and miscellaneous animals, and any other ventures they can use their lands for. They also receive farm subsidies, which means the government pays them to grow certain crops. So basically if wheat is worth less than corn, the feds even it out: they all make bank! Not to mention the reimbursement for crop insurance and disaster relief. Free insurance and getting paid for your crops if weather destroys them are nice touches the government provides. Plus there is the CRP program, which pays farmers to NOT farm. It is called conservation, and any acres set aside will be paid for by the feds as if they would have had crops on them. Why cash crops such as corn, wheat, milo, or beans are not good enough to hold the soil in place like grasses would, is not explained. One farmer I knew made grass paths between his fields to drive his tractors on, and was paid for this.

In the end, they sell their grains to co-ops which pay them by the pound and per purity and dryness. Most farmers end up with about 2 million dollars worth of harvested grains, which is gross pay. After paying for seeds, tractor maintenance, etc.- what do they really make?

To break it down a little: an acre is an area about the size of an American football field. Most farms have at the very least 100 acres, though the majority have about a thousand or up to 5,000 or even more. So when they grow then harvest grains (remembering the feds subsidize so top dollar is obtained for lower priced crops such as wheat and milo), they get up to soybean or corn prices on it all. The goal is yield. They want more grain per acre. This then pays X amount total. Grain is measured in bushels, and sold by the pound. So if corn is at X amount per bushel, and you yield Y pounds per bushel and Z bushels per acre, multiplied by how many acres you have, you usually end up with a mill or two. For example: average value of soybeans is 10. a bushel, yielding 55 bushels per acre. That makes him 550. per acre, times the official average of about 450 acres. This grosses the farmer 247,500. for that season's crop. Of course there are expenses, but estimates generally run at half or so. This includes tractor payments and the like which many farmers paid off long ago and do not still have. Even so, halving the above would net him 123,750. - not bad for a couple months work. See this page's chart for better detail: Operator returns of Different Farmland Productivities. Current grain values here.

The miscellaneous money making activities are hard to estimate as they are so diverse. Livestock, though, has been documented well. With cows, there are heifers (unbred cows), bred heifers, steers, etc. Read this piece for a dizzying array of cow types. In this article, a cow's value is explained well, though pasture rent is uncommon, as most farmers use their own land to keep their cattle on. So adding back that debit, the estimated value after expenses  becomes 3,597.23 per cow. How many cows does the average farm have? Forty.
A farmer with a herd of 40 cows has 144,000. dollars worth of income walking around his backyard. This is to say nothing of dairy operations, veal, bull sperm sales, and other animals such as chickens and sheep. As far as hay, as you can read here from posts by several farmers, it varies alot and is hard to figure. However it seems to go from about 500 to 1,500 per acre.

Do not forget that farms have the space and resources to do a lot of things town dwellers do not. They can keep one cow to butcher themselves and have free meat for the year. They also get almost unlimited space for large gardens, providing more free food. Many farm wives like to do home canning, saving extra for winter. Most farmers also have a pond, and a lot of fishing is done. Almost all farmers are redneck types that love to hunt, bringing home many deer and other game year round. Suffice it to say they have very small grocery bills. Most also have their own water supplies, septic tanks, and wood or pellet heat.

Other random income sources pop up as well. Seasonal crops such as pumpkins, gourds, and maize provide cash each fall, as well as corn mazes, petting zoos, other activities. Many find other projects to make even more money off-season, such as livestock, alternative crops, online bookstores, crafts, welding repair, etc.

Ever seen a wind farm, with the big turbines? The electric company that owns them has to pay the owner of the land they are on royalties, generally 5,000 to 8,000 per year, per turbine. So if you have ten or twenty on your farm...

The vast majority of farmers are red neck types that embellish in hunting, fishing, trapping, mudding, and country music. This is why they do not care one iota that their actions are causing environmental harm and starving children around the world.

When farmers gesticulate that they 'feed the world!', they are just spewing their own hog-washed propaganda. The fact is, most farms grow field corn, which is large, tough, flavorless corn not fit for human consumption. It is all used to feed the cattle. Sweet corn is what humans eat, and not much of it is grown, comparatively. When land is used to feed cattle, instead of growing crops that people could have eaten, it is causing a deficit in potential world food supplies. But like the farcical ethanol industry and its lobbied laws to promote it and force its sales, it is all about profit to farmers. Ethanol can dissolve gaskets in older type vehicles, and causes lower mileage in all. As long as the farmers make even more profits, that's okay...

Any who doubt their wealth need only take a drive in a rural area of the Midwest. Notice that every farm has at least one new house built upon it, or is having one built. Also note how nearly all have semis. Grain can be hauled to town to sell in a grain wagon or straight truck for grain, and is from time to time, but it is so much more convenient to use fancy semis with grain trailers. Farms without at least one semi are becoming rare. (Average cost of a used, bare bones semi tractor not including trailer: more than most of us make in a year. )

To be fair, most farmers are known to be generally kind people. But their quest for profits, like a Star Trek Ferengi, overshadows all else. This 2% of the population owns and controls 51% of American land. No wonder they have so much political power.

(C) james platt 2015. may not be copied or reposted, in whole or part, even if link is included.