The next Cold War?

[HopliteGlory]

I was just wondering the thoughts of you TWmembers out there. Are we, the U.S., trying to "create" another or similar type of Cold War with someone, such as Iran or North Korea? Or, are we trying to find some "tangible" enemy to kick the crap out of (bomb, of course, bc military is stretched thin) instead of fighting the unseen warriors of terrorism? Or is this just a November vote getter for those who would benefit and will relatively die down after the elections? Or finally, we are completely legit in our stance and there is a need to police countries such as these.

So, please vote and if you are willing throw your supporting arguments in behind your decision.

Thank you

[Rhah]

To have a cold war type scenario, it would have to involve two sides of roughly equal strength. One of the main reasons that the cold war took place in the first place is because the USA and USSR realised that if they were to fight each other it would be very messy and that victory could not be assured. Thus, the only way they could fight was by trying to stop the spread of each other's idealogy (Capitalism and Communism), or by fighting wars by proxy. The only nations that the US could try to initiate some sort of cold war with would be Russia and China (and possibly India or the EU). The Problem with that is that Russia is now pseudo-democratic and capitalist, and China and the US are too close interlinked economically, so there is no clash of idealogys.

Whats happening at the moment regarding Iran and North Korea is all about political isolation and pressure.
The US knows that they cannot realistically threaten North Korea, so they are trying to bring about the collapse of government in that country, possibly to be replaced by a semi-friendly Chinese controlled puppet regime. The problem is that China is the real power here, and Its pretty obvious that China will do whatever suits them best, which may not be exactly what the US wants.

Iran is a different kettle of fish entirely. Iran has been on the target list for US sponsored regime change for decades (after the first attempt worked so well ) Militarily, the US could attack Iran with relatively little consequence (as compared to massive consequences if the US attacked North Korea), but without further provocation from Iran it would be very hard to sell the war to the US public. The conspiracy theorist in me is half expecting some sort of "Gulf of Tonkin" type incident happening in the Persian gulf at some point soon, leading to MASSIVE US air bombardment.

The US public will always respect a strong leader, so threatening other countries that are deemed to be enemies is always going to be a vote winner, however this time around (what with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan) It seems to be a very bad idea. Notice how a fair few Republican candidates are actually distancing themselves from Bush while they are campaigning. The last thing the GOP needs is another unpopular war. Airstrikes however, are perhaps more tangible. After all, everyone loves Airstrikes. Especially those groovy Guncam/night vision shots.

[Rutilius Rufus]

I agree neither country has the capability to match the U.S. in a arms race, so there would be no cold war because the U.S. would not have to worry about a massive counter strike.

Militarily, the US could attack Iran with relatively little consequence (as compared to massive consequences if the US attacked North Korea)

I don't think N. Korea would be likely to inflict great damage on the U.S.
If it came down to an all out invasion it would be another Desert Storm. North Korea has a very large army, but it has no where near the quality of the American army and marines, not to mention the lack to realisticly support their army in a war.

North Korea can't support the populace as it is food wise by itself and the first thing the U.S. would do is blockade the country. If they have no food they will not be able to fight. Plus troops eat alot more in war time than in peace, so I don't think it would be long before North Korea collapsed.

After all, everyone loves Airstrikes. Especially those groovy Guncam/night vision shots.

[Rhah]

I agree neither country has the capability to match the U.S. in a arms race, so there would be no cold war because the U.S. would not have to worry about a massive counter strike.


I don't think N. Korea would be likely to inflict great damage on the U.S.
If it came down to an all out invasion it would be another Desert Storm. North Korea has a very large army, but it has no where near the quality of the American army and marines, not to mention the lack to realisticly support their army in a war.

North Korea can't support the populace as it is food wise by itself and the first thing the U.S. would do is blockade the country. If they have no food they will not be able to fight. Plus troops eat alot more in war time than in peace, so I don't think it would be long before North Korea collapsed.

I wasn't referring to the damage that North Korea could inflict on America (although I would say that American forces would suffer a fair amount of casualties in any ground invasion) I was referring to the damage that would be done to South Korea and Japan (to a lesser extent). The North has thousands of Artillery pieces positioned along the border in range of, and aimed at, Seoul. The City would be levelled in the first day of fighting. Thats the main reason why the North is untouchable. And now that their nuclear arsenal is confirmed it only reinforces that fact.

[mrjesushat]

Great question, and I see your point. Particularly if your intent in saying, "New Cold War" is not that the U.S. seeks to duplicate Cold War conditions, but rather that the U.S. needs an enemy to focus the popular attention on in order to justify the continued existence and supremacy of a "military-industrial complex" in American economic policy.

Terrorism is a superior fake enemy, however, because terrorism presents no valid threat to nation-states, and can be made to appear anywhere at any time.

And, of course, persons not believing in terrorism may be terrorists themselves.

[Ummon]

A new cold war. Larger than the previous one, and with more than one enemy at time.

[Rhah]

A new cold war. Larger than the previous one, and with more than one enemy at time.

Please define that enemy. Do you refer to the concept of "terrorism"? Do you refer to so called Rogue nations? or Do you refer to Islam?

As MrJesushat points out, Terrorism is the ultimate enemy. Its the enemy that just keeps on giving, and due to the fact that Terrorism is a concept and is basically a way of waging war, it can not and will not ever be defeated.

[Ummon]

Please define that enemy. Do you refer to the concept of "terrorism"? Do you refer to so called Rogue nations? or Do you refer to Islam?

As MrJesushat points out, Terrorism is the ultimate enemy. Its the enemy that just keeps on giving, and due to the fact that Terrorism is a concept and is basically a way of waging war, it can not and will not ever be defeated.

Terrorism is not in itself tangible, but Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela (Chavez has spent 3 billions in weapons, and plans to spend 30 to 60 more in the next decade), Cuba, and all other countries which actively join up to advocate what they call a revolution against western oppression, but which is in truth an attempt to expand their own power and subjugate neighbours, are.

[mrjesushat]

Terrorism is not in itself tangible, but Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela (Chavez has spent 3 billions in weapons, and plans to spend 30 to 60 more in the next decade), Cuba, and all other countries which actively join up to advocate what they call a revolution against western oppression, but which is in truth an attempt to expand their own power and subjugate neighbours, are.

If the nations you mention do not have the right to expand their own power base, then the same is true of Western states. If, on the other hand, you would contend that Western states have the right to a seek a monopoly on military and economic power, then it is within the rights of the states you mentioned to attempt to develop their own means of defense against such a monopoly.

What any of this has to do with terrorism, I would be fascinated to learn. Do you consider the West to be at war with, for instance, Venezuela? Surely you do not, as there is no state of war conceived to exist between the Western powers and Venezuela. Do you then consider that there is antagonism between the West (or at least, the U.S.) and Venezuela? That I would buy, but why contend that Venezuela (or PDRK or Cuba or Iran) does not have the sovereign right to counter what it views as an imperialistic power?

[Ummon]

If the nations you mention do not have the right to expand their own power base, then the same is true of Western states. If, on the other hand, you would contend that Western states have the right to a seek a monopoly on military and economic power, then it is within the rights of the states you mentioned to attempt to develop their own means of defense against such a monopoly.

What any of this has to do with terrorism, I would be fascinated to learn. Do you consider the West to be at war with, for instance, Venezuela? Surely you do not, as there is no state of war conceived to exist between the Western powers and Venezuela. Do you then consider that there is antagonism between the West (or at least, the U.S.) and Venezuela? That I would buy, but why contend that Venezuela (or PDRK or Cuba or Iran) does not have the sovereign right to counter what it views as an imperialistic power?

This is valid if you consider democracy and rule of law the evil power-base of the west.

And it is not the "west" (the definition is obviosuly inclusive) at war with Venezuela, it is Venezuela planning war with the west. Chavez's statements at the UN are the markings of a dangerous madman, just like those of Ahmadinedjad. Many small Hitlers at the price of one!

[Last Roman]

Whilst I certainly believe that terrorism is a threat, it is much exaggerated by our politicians. If we are going by the traditional definition of a cold war, then no; it is not a cold war. I believe it is a mixture of 2&3.

[RusskiSoldat]

I think history is one long series of "Cold Wars" with hot periods.
Romans had their (not so) Cold Wars with the "barbarians" of various sorts, and from then on every civilization did so with one enemy or another.
I see no problem with it, hostility to outsiders is a key characteristic of the average human being, and a very important part of the survival instinct.