WWIII or CW2

The news is buzzing with scare-tactics like phrases such as "...could trigger world war three..." and the like. It seems to me that a lot of people, newscasters included, have made statements along the lines of the imminent declaration of World War 3. Does it seem to anyone else, however, that all of the events so far seem to have developed along the lines of a plan that would put us in the middle of another Cold War? Iraq has become the Vietnam of our era, thus feeding the military industrial complex, and with this "new threat" from North Korea, or Iran for that matter, we're poised to begin another arming-up of the world, which would also pour money into the military industrial complex.

Any thoughts?

I think the reason this is different is because Kim Jong Ill, or whatever his name is, is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the Russians were ever quite that "nuts."

I've had similar thoughts to yours Blaznrob that everything seems to be heading towards another cold war.
NK could end up being similar to the Cuban missile crisis after awhile. That's the closest the U.S. ever came to nuclear war. But I hope it does not come to that.

(The Russians were that "nuts" at one time, I believe)

[edit on 11-10-2006 by elaine]

There are always your hardliners in every government, during the Korean War MacArthur wanted to use nukes, and was relieved from command for even mentioning the idea. I'm sure Russia had their share too.

But to my point, NK is not in an economic position to go toe to toe with ANY country in an arms race. Let alone the US, or any of the neighboring countries such as Japan, SK, or Russia. In the event of war with NK, there will be a lot of casualties due to the prepositioned NK artillery targeted on Seoul. I'm not sure what the US and SK's military plan would be in the event NK starts shooting, but I am sure we have something, I mean cmon we even have a plan for invading Canada during peace time. So no this will not escalate to world war, or even another cold war. At most it will be a limited regional conflict with many nations participating. Just my opinion.

The leader of North Korea proposed that America disarm their nuclear arsenal. Actually, when it comes to nuclear missiles, I feel that every country should disarm their weapons.

North Korea has had plenty of time and by going underground, they have the means to develop an advanced nuclear arsenal without being detected.

I can see what the leader of North Korea is saying. I interpret it as: 'I will lay down my arms(nuclear weapons), when you lay down your arms.' Seems fair enough to me; however, what concerns me more than anything is the impact that the tests are having on its' neighbours like : China, South Korea, and even Japan is jumping in. They are still suffering from the blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When I was a AFJROTC cadet; we learned about nuclear weapons and how long the radiation was expected to last, especially in ground zero.

Just look at the effects of Chernobyl; mutations are rampant, along with cancers in ground zero, where the leak took place.

Originally posted by ludaChris
But to my point, NK is not in an economic position to go toe to toe with ANY country in an arms race. Let alone the US, or any of the neighboring countries such as Japan, SK, or Russia.

I agree, however, I doubt very highly if anyone believes that North Korea will be in the thick of an arms race, but that by their actions, they could SPARK an arms race, with cascading consequences.

To my point:

NK Develops nuclear weaponry

SK cries out to their leaders to gear up on the nuclear club

Japan cries out to their leaders to gear up on the nuclear club

Japans leaders listen to their public now China thinks uh-oh and gears up

Iran feel empowered to continue and complete their nuclear ambitions, sparking India to ratchet up

India Ratchets up now Pakistan feels the need to

Could become just one big mess in my opinion.



AB1

Well if the US or someone else does something STUPID there will be a war, if all sides sit back and whine to each other or bicker like they have always done then it will be a "cold war 2" of sorts. So it depends on which way things go: violent or politician.

Here's an interesting take on the Cold War theme.

AT THE Cold War's last bastion, Korea's demilitarised zone, it was tension as usual yesterday after the North announced its nuclear test, except for a bit more middle-finger waving and spit directed south.

As a generation or two did before them, soldiers still face off belligerently across a concrete barrier in this one sector on the 154-mile border.

"They [North Korean soldiers] walk around a bit more proud since the declared nuclear test," said US Major Jose Devarona from inside the 2.5-mile-wide zone that has divided the peninsula for half a century.

"There have been more attempts for them to contact our soldiers in a kind of mocking way.

"We have anything from them yelling at us, spitting across the border, throat-slashing gestures, the typical middle-finger gestures. Things along those lines."

By and large, though, he said little had changed.

thescotsman.scotsman.com...

The author forgets about Cuba, but the perimeter there has never been as potentially hostile as the DMZ in Korea.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I think the reason this is different is because Kim Jong Ill, or whatever his name is, is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the Russians were ever quite that "nuts."

Maybe you have never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis .
Probably one of the closest if not the closest time we have ever come to an all out nuclear war.

I do remember the Cuban missile crisis and I have been to the perimeter at Guantanamo. These are two distinct issues. The Cuban missile crisis was over in a matter of months. The DMZ in Korea has always been more hostile than the perimeter around Guantanamo.

[edit on 2006/10/12 by GradyPhilpott]

BlaznRob, I agree that things seem to be leading us towards another Cold War. We are definitely not leaving Iraq anytime soon, and things seem to be deteriorating in Afghanistan. I think we will be involved in alot more blitzkrieg wars followed by occupations that quickly turn into quagmires in the Middle East, most likely Iran and Syria, as well as a Cold War with North Korea, for some reason the current Administration seems to have a bit of a fear of leading a war into East Asia, perhaps because we fought two horrible wars there already (The Korean and Vietnam wars) and gained nothing for it but more money to feed the Military Industrial Complex as you have said.

It does seem quite weird that a horrible regime in North Korea conducts a Nuclear test and threatens a Nuclear Attack and our government says they will impose sanctions, as if NK has not been sanctioned enough, but if Iran ever conducts a Nuclear test, I am sure will we be there with guns blazin'. Also I'm sure if North Korea was any kind of a threat to Israel or Irsraeli interests, I'm sure our government's response would be a whole lot different

Cold and Hot Wars at the same time, sounds like the Military Industrial Complex will be making some big bucks, Cha-Ching $$$

What surprises me is the fact that North Korea's doing this at all. Ok... lets assume they have nuclear arms... and lets further assume that they can deliver a nuclear payload on a missile. You're right luda, any real conflict would be short and painful. They'd attack, and then subsequently be annihilated. But if North Korea allied itself with Iran (and others) and then sat back and used the threat of nuclear war, I believe another Cold War era could result.

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d
Maybe you have never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis .
Probably one of the closest if not the closest time we have ever come to an all out nuclear war.

Long before my time,but,yeah,I have heard of it. The question is: Would they have actually used it? I seriously doubt it. This Kim Jong Ill or whatever the hell his name is, is not rational at all. The guy thinks he some kind of a"god" or something!!

I would not trust him;no,not for a single solitary moment would I trust him.

I am very surprised that North Korea is doing this too.

It seems very weird to me that they conducted an underground Nuclear test because it would seem to me that Kim Jong Il would rather have done something more shocking, such as a surface or atmospheric test.
Whether they did not do this because they do not have the capabilities or because they thought the World's reaction would be diffferent, I can't say.

I don't think they have the capabilities to strike the United States mainland or even Alaska and Hawaii. My guess would be that if it comes to attack they will strike US forces in South Korea or in Okinawa.

I think if North Korea allies with Iran and/or other nations, and then threatens Nuclear war, we and another 'Coalition of the Willing' will have to attack one of the countries, most likely Iran.

I have a bad feeling we will be involved in another war before Bush's term is up.

What do you guys think?

Originally posted by soundofmurder
I have a bad feeling we will be involved in another war before Bush's term is up.

What do you guys think?

Not so much as "another war" as an extension of the existing. I have made no bones about my belief that we are currently in WW3. I think it's just the beginning of it, but we're in it nonetheless.

It would seem that a war with any nation could become part of the War on Terror.
I just wonder who will be next, if we would attack a country as powerful as Iran or Syria is, even though we are not winning the two wars we are already involved in, or if we will attack someone we presume we can easily get rid of, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Originally posted by soundofmurder
It would seem that a war with any nation could become part of the War on Terror.
I just wonder who will be next, if we would attack a country as powerful as Iran or Syria is, even though we are not winning the two wars we are already involved in, or if we will attack someone we presume we can easily get rid of, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

I am not going to say that we are not "winning"; I will say that we are not meeting our goals with the efficiency that we thought we could. I think a lot of that has to do with the planning, or lack thereof, and the fact that we are not fighting a military,per se. In a conflict with Iran and Syria, we would actually be fighting a military power.

[edit on 12-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]