Thread: A new cold war

I dont know if you guys have followed the G8 talks last week, but Bush told Putin that the shield is for countries like Iran or whatever so that they cannot threaten Europe, so Putin told him that he can arrange for NATO to put the shield in Azerbaijan. Bush said that it may be technically difficult and I guess the missiles are still going in Poland and Bulgaria (maybe we will get some here in Greece too )

The cold war never finished... hmm I am not sure about that. For me the situation now in Europe seems more like the time before WW1 maybe more near Napoleon. Colonialism and Imperialism of Britain and France, big autocratic Russia, quite open borders in the west, nothing much in the east...

Russia is not happy because the EU and the US are trying to take all their allies away from them... The US is even telling Albania they can join the NATO (Albania was isolationist hardcore communists for 50 years or so). Bulgaria and Romania just joined the EU. Poland the same. Ukraine had an EU backed "revolution". They will join the EU soon. The Baltic states are tearing down their "red army liberation" monuments. Georgia is angry, the *stans are not happy at all. And now NATO wants to install missiles in POLAND and BULGARIA. Just think about that in cold war distances. Nobody would feel safe. (Would you americans feel safe if Russia (capitalist russia of putin) installed a "missile shield" in Cuba?)

My take on all of this is (I am not a fun of conspiracy theories, all of this makes sense to me economically): Missiles and Star Wars make more money for gun companies than wars against guerillas in some dessert or other. Cold wars make tons of money and in the end nobody gets hurt. So the US would like its people to fear Russia and so is pushing Putin to respond in anger so they can fuel their military production machine. EU is another story that has to do more with expansion and markets. Russia is more of a cornered beast that everyone is poking at. You never know when the bear is going to attack...

Originally Posted by sogart

Cold wars make tons of money and in the end nobody gets hurt.

What? Vietnam had huge causulties! What about the Korean War? While neither the USA or the USSR were directly attack tens of thousands of civilians around the world were massacred by the USA and the Communists. Many people got hurt! In Vietnam we poisoned their enviroment so that it will take many, many, years for them to get back on their feet. Many, many, people died. While people in the richer countries didn't get killed(except for troops in the Korean war and Vietnam), in third world countries, many people were killed and they were sometimes oppresed by their governments, and they couldn't rebel because the US needed those leaders and aided them. Many people died. Now, our planet is poisoned because of the weapons we made and sold and got rich off of them!

Really, I think, it would be stupid for the US to start shit with anyone else in the world, especially Russia, who we were just starting to pretend were our "friends". Then again, the Bush administration has proven that they are idiots when it comes to foreign relations.

But even if we do say screw it and put the missile shield up, it doesn't really matter. If Putin "aims his missiles at European targets", that doesn't matter either, its not like he is going to actually launch them. He's not stupid, he was a colonel in the KGB.

We need missile defense, and I don't give a damn what any other country thinks about it. We need it big time because of the Islamofascist threat. I am not afraid of being nuked by any government that is not Islamofascist. A nuking of the United States would be a suicide bombing, and no somewhat rational government is going to do it. Putin would never ever ever ever dare to nuke us. He knows how stupid that would be. Ahmadenijad of Iran, on the other hand, has daily sexual fantasies about it and would do it the moment he had the capability, even at the expense of his government and his own life. Those are the people we are really concerned with in these times.

Sounds like your arugment is more based off fear than any logical stand point. No government wishes to destroy itself.

Well, Iran doesn't even have the capability to reach Europe with missiles yet. They outwardly admitted that. However they are working on it. I wouldn't even consider them a threat even if they did start cranking out long-range missiles. Israel wouldn't have to worry either, considering they have the world's best ADA system.

I'm not overly concerned about a missile threat from any country, even Islamic ones, as far as them attacking US soil goes.

And on top of that, I'm pretty sure there are Patriot missile systems already in Germany and Italy, to name a couple, considering the major military installations we have there. So what's the deal? We're going to start something with Russia to protect the EU from Iran? Screw that, let them handle that on their own.

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

What? Vietnam had huge causulties! What about the Korean War? While neither the USA or the USSR were directly attack tens of thousands of civilians around the world were massacred by the USA and the Communists. Many people got hurt! In Vietnam we poisoned their enviroment so that it will take many, many, years for them to get back on their feet. Many, many, people died. While people in the richer countries didn't get killed(except for troops in the Korean war and Vietnam), in third world countries, many people were killed and they were sometimes oppresed by their governments, and they couldn't rebel because the US needed those leaders and aided them. Many people died. Now, our planet is poisoned because of the weapons we made and sold and got rich off of them!

yes this is true. Vietnam and Afghanistan (Soviet) were the two instances where the cold war turned hot (Korea was not really Soviet cold war - more chinese). Why do we still remember the losses of these short wars and not the economical and people losses of the long cold war. All the people killed for their beliefs on both sides and all the money spent for weapons (missiles, bombs etc) and all the lives destroyed by the collapse of eastern europe (millions of people becoming suddenly poor).

so what I meant (and mean) is that a "cold" war creates victims but "nobody gets hurt" in the common mind - so no political cost and lots of profits. A hot war (even a regional one like Vietnam, Iraq etc) creates many victims as well but also creates anti-war and anti-goverment feeling. And less profits as money for guns and bullets cannot be compared to money for missiles and nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by sogart

yes this is true. Vietnam and Afghanistan (Soviet) were the two instances where the cold war turned hot (Korea was not really Soviet cold war - more chinese). Why do we still remember the losses of these short wars and not the economical and people losses of the long cold war. All the people killed for their beliefs on both sides and all the money spent for weapons (missiles, bombs etc) and all the lives destroyed by the collapse of eastern europe (millions of people becoming suddenly poor).

so what I meant (and mean) is that a "cold" war creates victims but "nobody gets hurt" in the common mind - so no political cost and lots of profits. A hot war (even a regional one like Vietnam, Iraq etc) creates many victims as well but also creates anti-war and anti-goverment feeling. And less profits as money for guns and bullets cannot be compared to money for missiles and nuclear weapons.

There were other conflict, and many other victims, who lost there lives because the US wanted to make a profit in the cold war. The Korean war was still part of the Cold War, because Korea was aided by China, and the Soviet Union aided both of them. In the end its almost always the Soviet Union or the United States pulling the strings.

Also, Universal Mind, if they don't want defence, why don't we just build defence in America? If they don't want it lets just worry about our selves.

Don't forget Afghanistan, Russia's Vietnam. The last real battle of the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Alric

Sounds like your arugment is more based off fear than any logical stand point. No government wishes to destroy itself.

False. Study suicide bombers. I'll give you two recent examples of governments that were willing to have themselves destroyed in the name of flipping off the United States. The Hussein regime was willing to have itself destroyed in the name of not complying with us. They knew damn well what the consequences of noncompliance would be, and they chose noncompliance any way. Don't assume that Ahmadenijad would not be willing to have himself and his government destroyed for a nuke strike against the U.S. It's the suicide bomber mentality. That is the threat. The Taliban was willing to have itself knocked out of power in Afghanistan for the sake of refusing to comply with us by handing over Bin Laden. They refused while they knew they would be knocked out of power if they did, which is exactly what happened. That is what we are dealing with. The Soviet Union was nowhere near that.

It has always been a race for technology superiority between these two super powers.
Russia can't keep up and dump ALL their resources into military development as the US can and does.
All they have now is a failing economy and a deteriorating stock pile of nukes that they do not have the money to properly disassemble.
I would want to be on the same level too if I were the leader of Russia.
I do not see how they could possibly perceive this as any act towards them. But who knows.
They did claim, Russia, that they have instituted a missile testing program. One that is to work on misslies to not be seen by these defense systems we would like to establish.

As far as the several above posts. I may be wrong but I don't think those are definitions of a "cold war."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

False. Study suicide bombers. I'll give you two recent examples of governments that were willing to have themselves destroyed in the name of flipping off the United States. The Hussein regime was willing to have itself destroyed in the name of not complying with us. They knew damn well what the consequences of noncompliance would be, and they chose noncompliance any way. Don't assume that Ahmadenijad would not be willing to have himself and his government destroyed for a nuke strike against the U.S. It's the suicide bomber mentality. That is the threat. The Taliban was willing to have itself knocked out of power in Afghanistan for the sake of refusing to comply with us by handing over Bin Laden. They refused while they knew they would be knocked out of power if they did, which is exactly what happened. That is what we are dealing with. The Soviet Union was nowhere near that.

Meh... I think its more the martyr mentality. Lure the US or some other Western country into a tricky situation, and then when things turn nasty, blame the US about it. Make other people turn against the US by blaming them for all sorts of things. Iran purposely acts in ways in order to provoke the US, and if the desired reaction occurs, Iran falls back and starts crying "wolf". Iran will never attack us outright, but that's not stopping Ahmadenijad from trying to make the US look like the 'big bully'. Besides, what about Chavez? He seems like he also has a bone to pick with the US, so why not establish a missile defence system in South America as well?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Meh... I think its more the martyr mentality. Lure the US or some other Western country into a tricky situation, and then when things turn nasty, blame the US about it. Make other people turn against the US by blaming them for all sorts of things. Iran purposely acts in ways in order to provoke the US, and if the desired reaction occurs, Iran falls back and starts crying "wolf". Iran will never attack us outright, but that's not stopping Ahmadenijad from trying to make the US look like the 'big bully'. Besides, what about Chavez? He seems like he also has a bone to pick with the US, so why not establish a missile defence system in South America as well?

I think you are right about the way Iran conducts themselves.
Chavez..
He may have a bone to throw at us. But that is about it.
If you are going to put up missile defense systems then you would strategically put them in areas to reach nations of concern AND potential.