Originally posted by leonidas
what do you think? is the current mess in the middle east a greater threat to the world than the omni-present tensions of the cold war were?
Well, from our perspective now we can pretty much say that we weren't close to war at all during the cold war, so...now I guess...
Absolutely now. There will be a general war between a coalition of the United States, Europe, and Israel against Iran and Syria within the next 10 years. Once some crackpot blows up the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, or the Hague, Europe will drop it's apathetic stance vis-a-vis the rise of Islamic fascism and support military action with a vengeance.
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Absolutely now. There will be a general war between a coalition of the United States, Europe, and Israel against Iran and Syria within the next 10 years. Once some crackpot blows up the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, or the Hague, Europe will drop it's apathetic stance vis-a-vis the rise of Islamic fascism and support military action with a vengeance.
I doubt it. Really, really doubt it.
And what is "closer to war now"? Nuclear war? Not a chance. WWIII? I doubt it - the Cold war was very cold, but it could have easily escalated with an alarming swiftness, and due to hegemonic influences would have had wide ranging effects. As it was there were proxy wars though, within spheres of influence. A war of tension, a war of constant threat, a war of deterance. A war, really, of the mind - not conventional battles.
Today that tension is gone, as is the flash point that could potentially drag countless nations in. So Iran and N. Korea rattle their sabres. So? How is this different from any number of things in the past that never materialised? So, the US is involved in Iraq - once again, not like the US hasn't been involved in military conflicts before. I see no reason to believe that the modern world is teetering on some on the edge of what could turn out to be a testing war. Sure, there will continue to be wars, like always, but they aren't going to be, in the near future at least, and more or less exceptional then any number that have gone before.
well, we eliminated the iraqi dick-hole dictator saddam, so thats one mark down. but if the iraqi's keep fighting their new government then therell be more problems because theyll blame it on the US which throws a bunch of shit everywhere again. and its prolly not a good thing that the new iraqi leaders are directly connected with terrorist organizations, but what the hell, so is north korea.
meh, whatev.
what do you mean closer to war, there is war and lots of it. Good for the arms sales of the USA, Uk , France, Russia .....oh they arn´t at war, how ironic.
There wont be a major country v country war, it´ll be nasty urban stuff, street battles and anarchy, thus allowing the government to do a big brother and chip and control us all.
Originally posted by Koenig
WW3 or a major conflict is most likely to be in the Middle East, when and what starts it I don't know, it’s a volatile part of the world. On saying that a friend I know thinks there will be nuclear war between America and China in the next 25 years and the reason China’s claim on Taiwan.
I just find the concept of a near future nuclear war unlikely. The US stood toe to toe with the USSR for decades with the finger over the button. If all that tension and fear wasn't enough to push them over the edge, I don't see any nation in the cold hard light choosing the nuclear path. Especially as nothing is to be gained by it. Conquered earth is worth little on the market when it is scorched and radioactive. Besides. the US and China are to linked economically. To try and obliterate the other would have dire consequences for the survivor.
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
*caugh* ...A-BOMB... *caugh*... JAPAN... *caugh caugh*...
True - but there would be differences in thought processes when one takes into account the other side can make a damn good retaliation (unlike Japan at the time.) And the fact that if China/US hurt China/US bad enough they would also be hurting themselves - as bad as I agree the utilisation's of the A-Bomb was, it was bad for humanitarian reasons, not because it would have an adverse effect on the world economy (which nuking China or the US certainly would)
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True - but there would be differences in thought processes when one takes into account the other side can make a damn good retaliation (unlike Japan at the time.) And the fact that if China/US hurt China/US bad enough they would also be hurting themselves - as bad as I agree the utilisation's of the A-Bomb was, it was bad for humanitarian reasons, not because it would have an adverse effect on the world economy (which nuking China or the US certainly would)
excellent posts. i find myself agreeing with you at almost every turn.
😉