US, Russia plunging into new Cold War..

Well as long as the promise to keep it cold...
It raises just one question..
Who will be on Mars with a man/woman/humanoid first??

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Well... We do agree on the potential if unleashed... I'll just say I don't see that happening. If, God Forbid, we found ourselves looking directly at Russian flagged forces? Obama would blink and back down in my opinion..... If he didn't, he'd be destroyed in terms of the battlefield being engaged. I feel that way for two reasons. First, Russia and China don't have the overpowering, sheer arrogance we've developed since 9/11. They wouldn't allow an engagement to "just happen" and it would happen under terms as close to 100% favorable to them as possible.

They can't do this. Neither country has any ability to project their forces. They are limited to their mainland, which means the war will necessarily be fought where and when we decide.

.....say....while we're in Northern Iran and just a hundred miles or so from the soil of the Russian Federation. I mean it's incredible to imagine but if we do this thing against Iran (nothing there changed...it's worse if anything. The media just focused on something else for reporting is all) we'll actually have U.S.combat aircraft INSIDE the engagement range of domestic Russian air defense systems. That'll be a first and if nothing else, should give Russians an education like never before possible of watching..in extreme detail..what we do and how we do it. I mean, Far Northern Iran is precisely like Cuba for distance to Russian territory. Interesting indeed...

The only craft they would be interested in watching are the ones they can't see anyways. We would not be using any latest technology aircraft in Iran.

Now the other reason? Well.... To add to what I said on the other one? What worries me is simply this.... Sure, we SHOULD be able to defeat Russia ...sure, we SHOULD be able to defeat China ... IF it ever came to that. However, we SHOULD have been able to handle a big street fight in Somalia in 1993 too. We should have been able to fight, win and see a GOOD end result for Iraq. Afghanistan never should have even BEEN a war sinceCIA and Northern Alliance forces had Bin Laden cornered and running like a madman for his life in December of 2011....... Bush told the CIA "Thanks....now leave ...Marines will do this instead" ...and thus turned a HIGHLY successful surgical operation into a war we've all but lost.

None of the engagements you mentioned threatened the US. None of them required even a small portion of our full forces. We handcuffed ourselves to the extreme. A war with Russia and China will be something along the lines of WW2 where we bomb them into oblivion. Large amounts of casualties to their infrastructure and population.

If we can't win Iraq and we can't win Afghanistan....not by lack of ability but by lack of national will, political leadership and intelligence among those giving orders from Washington....just what hope do we EVER have with the same leadership against REAL enemies...Honest to god REAL national powers who CAN and WILL actually fight back? We haven't had an enemy even physically capable of fighting in any sense that matters since 1990...and even then, as it happened, that army was a cake walk. It took political grandstanding for "100 Hour" picture perfect endings to screw it up there.

Good thing you brought up National Will. It is certainly lacking in Iraq/Afghanistan, mostly because most of the population sees no threat. Replace that with a REAL war with Russia and China, and you will see National Will ignite.

Neither Russia or China are a "real" power today, and neither could hold off an intense, coordinated, full-scale assault by the US. Neither have any Naval power.

its the leaders of the free world against a gangster and a bunch of commies

we shall prevail!

If we built a bridge to either country the stampede of people leaving them would alter the earths orbit

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


You are right OC. China has ZERO ability of Force Projection and Russia's Military is in a rundown state. I would also like to point out that there is very little chance that the U.S. will go to war against either of these countries.

All the talk coming out of Russia from Putin and his ex-KGB cronies is just that...TALK. It is for the benefit of exciting Putin's voting block which loves to here Putin go on about how he is resisting the plans of NATO and the U.S.

The United States basically ignores this talk as we know it is just hype. China has already been given a wake up call after it's Military Leadership visited the U.S. and watched U.S. Wargames.

China also has a Leadership that likes to talk for the purpose of showing that the Communist Party is firmly in control...for how long that will be remains to be seen.

Split Infinity

reply to post by daaskapital


China and Russia on the one side
USA and Japan on the other
China, Russia, North Korea on the one side
South Korea, USA and Japan on the other side
Iran, China, Russia, North Korea on the one side
Israel, USA, Japan, South Korea on the other side

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, whole Arab world on the one side
NATO, Japan, Israel, South Korea on the other side

And into WW3 we go.

I was not surprised when I saw the Russian plane crash on the BBC...

I will conserve energy and time by pasting what I posted in another topic pertaining to this here.

Oh... joy. This is just what the world needs. Surely only good can come of this. It was so much fun the last time we did this. This is the ideal path to pursue to eliminate old rivalries and engender a spirit of global cooperation so that we can finally stop wasting time, resources, and lives and start improving the lives of everyone on our planet. Oh boy, I just can't wait.

...

To those who might say that this is a good thing, I respect your opinion but let us not forget: a "Cold" War does not mean that there is no conflict or death. It has the word "war" in the title for a reason. The last Cold War (which some believe never ended) brought us plenty of conflict and death. Including but not limited to Vietnam and Korea. Also of note, among others, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which indirectly led to the current war on terror because it prompted our arming and training of the Afghan Mujahadeen. The Cold War encompassed a lot more than an arms build up between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Proxy wars broke out all over the world, and the echos of those conflicts still reverberate today.

As always, I advocate peace and restraint.

Originally posted by circuitsports
its the leaders of the free world against a gangster and a bunch of commies

You are referring to Obama and Congress?
(Gangster and commies are prettty darned accurate terms for them)

reply to post by watcher3339


You are right, the US is in trouble with climate/ global change, the cost of developing adequate infrastructure may simply be too high.

Let's hope the Russians love their children more than the US do.

Russia's main goal right now is to try to regain power over all the countries in Asia that broke off from them after the USSR collapsed. They're not going to even think of messing with us (if they really want to at all) until after they have got back some of their former empire.

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

I think any war will be economic. China, russia, iran team up. China goes after that island. If the USA steps in the Russians say let china do what it will do. If we disagree they cut us off of oil. The middle east will sell to china to fuel their military efforts since America would have to pull our resources home. We don't produce enough fuel to support our military with our direct ME supply. China will take the island and the USA can do nothing but watch it happen or use missiles which is world war.

Might seem impossible but it is very possible.

Only because you don't know the facts it only seems that way. The USA doesn't really import oil from the ME, the vast majority of oil that is imported from the ME is only imported in-order to be refined and exported. The EU get's most of their oil from the ME and Russia, not America. And due to Europeans sticking their nose in recent American politics(Healthcare, Environment, and Gun Rights), more American's then not would laugh as Europe plunged into another dark age.

That and the US military has been prepping for the last 10 years for such an event. Like most people, you are totally ignorant of what America has been doing in the ME. American actions weren't to "bring home the oil", but to drastically reduce the supply of oil on the market. You see Iraq was beginning to dramatically increase production(combined with doing business in Euro's). That would of caused problems for OPEC, American and European oil companies and Russian oil exports as well.

And Japan isn't as weak as some people make them out to be. I would hazard to guess that it would take them less then half a decade to advance beyond China's reach in terms of military technology and military capabilities. Heck, rebuilding their air-force, navy and army, would give the Japanese the push to recover from their cultural and economic stagnation.

China is a non-player. People only act like China is a player so they don't do something stupid and cause problems. The only danger in a war with China is what it would do to America. America would never be the same again. It would make the transition to a more centralized "Nation" during the early to late 1900's pale in comparison. The risk is, the social engineers have always used war's for two purposes:

To break society, make it more malleable, and to re-freeze changes they made in society. The main changes the social engineers are highly interested in re-freezing is the radical change in racial demographics in America, the forced acceptance of sexual deviants(homosexuals) and the tolerance of atheists/cult of secularism.

That is what makes a war inevitable, because the social engineers still haven't re-frozen the changes(in theory they could use a severe enough depression but that is more likely to backfire and succeed).

Originally posted by 110240
reply to post by watcher3339

 

You are right, the US is in trouble with climate/ global change, the cost of developing adequate infrastructure may simply be too high.

Ridiculous. Most of the problems in regards to "climate change" is inadequate usage of resources. That is why the more primitive societies are more "affected" by it. Because of Western medicine more people are living that shouldn't, and those people are still trying to live the same way their ancestors lived.

The US isn't entirely immune, miss-management of land for farming(using desert areas for farming in California, etc), wasteful rich people who own too large pools and too large homes(if rich people lived in homes that suited their needs not their ego's there would be much greater efficiency). Plus water parks where they aren't water efficient is a huge problem in America.

In the West in general, the concept of "baths" are so ungodly wasteful(plus your laying down in your own filth, disgusting) that they should be outlawed. Aside from that, most problems caused in the primitive parts of the world are self inflicted. If the West is to blame for any of it, it is supplying food and medicine to people who are simply not culturally and socially ready for it yet.

Our Government just likes pissing everyone off it seems. Its own people, two of the bigger players on the worlds chess board, the middle east. Just about everyone you can think of, the Government has pissed of in recent years.