The Modern Day Cold War

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by loon3y, Oct 28, 2016.

  1. loon3y macrumors 65816

    loon3y

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    #1
    We're competing with two nations on two fronts.


    China is a bit more worrisome than a broke and broken down military, but the sheer number of Russian forces will cause casualties in conventional warfare.


    With the annexation of Crimea and the on going civil war in Ukraine, from the tensions in South China Sea with the Chinese Communist Party claiming the all shipping lanes, resources, and sovereign waters up to the beaches of nearly 7 nations, one of which is their own classical communist ally (Vietnam).

    Whats your take on this? Warmongering is an all time high on every news outlet.
     
  2. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #2
    China is stepping on everyone's toes lately and are doubly down. This will not be pretty!
     
  3. loon3y thread starter macrumors 65816

    loon3y

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    #3

    For someone that goes to Shanghai once a year for the past 6-7 years, no citizen wants war. This is the pure doing of the communist party that rules with tyranny.

    But again, theres over 1 Billion people there. They need the resources, but why not try diplomacy first rather than claiming the whole sea and essentially declaring war on these nations.
     
  4. unlinked, Oct 28, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2016

    unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    The alternative shouldn't be diplomacy it should be commerce. That is how you are supposed to acquire resources you don't own these days.
     
  5. loon3y thread starter macrumors 65816

    loon3y

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    #5

    Thats what i meant by diplomacy, create some reasonable trading agreements to address the resource issue with china's huge population and with that giving something in return to said sovereign nations.

    But we're talking about an extremely corrupt political party, not to mention the current president is eliminating all opposing factions so its becoming more like a Putin type dictatorship. this guy is eliminating all the guys pushing for a more peaceful solution with the west and its allies rather than a weapons race.

    In which China will still lose, their military is not integrated at all (Navy, Army, Air Force don't really communicate, but then again we have this issue with some of our allies as well aka Japanese defense force).

    Not to mention they have absolutely no experience, but thats not an excuse to take them lightly and just go to war. The cost of human lives should be the last resort, regardless if its their profession to do so.
     
  6. Huntn, Nov 5, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2016

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    I'm surprised your topic has received such a tepid response in this forum. Thought for sure someone would mention the enept Obama, the war mongering Hillary, or what's wrong with using nukes Trump.

    I think we have a really issue on our hands with Russia. We had a lot of agreement at the turn of the century that as a standard the existence of a large number of nuclear weapons scattered among multiple countries is a bad thing and the less the better. Now that Russia has gotten over their last Cold War defeat, Putin appears to have decided that a modernized, expanded nuclear force is his Trump card along with a Trump presidency to counter a militarily superior U.S.

    The question is how should the U.S. and NATO handle this?
    • Use organized trade sanctions and restrictions against Arusha to get them to play ball with nuclear disarmament.
    • Jump in both feat with a new Cold War arms race.
    • Use a little of both of the above.
    I have to include my political perspective, but as it's been beaten to death already, and the focus of my discussion will be directed at what to do about militaristic, agressive Russia. If the West does not counter them, under Putin they will grow, not into a good neighbor partner nation, but another militaristic threat at least that is my read of Russia.

    The politics...
    And who would be better to lead the U.S. In these efforts? This is one example of where really Hillary shines compared to Trust. The man who can't keep anything close to his vest, engages in endless Twitter and character attacks whenever he is critized, depends on bellicose, hyperbole, and a continuous stream of lies to fool us, and is just not fit to look out for the interests of the U.S. and our NATO allies in what could be a very tough situation. Republicans usually fall all over a tough candidate, yet it's odd they have chosen such an erratic ignorant individual to place their Trust in as the next President of the United States. It's vexing.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 5, 2016 ---
    Why Russia Is Rebuilding It's Nuclear Arsenal

    This was putting it lightly. Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, accordingto the NATO military alliance.
     
  7. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #7
    We are in a state of Permanent War. With Hillary at the top of the War Party we will see more NATO expansion, more foreign adventures and more entangling alliances. All the while, American jobs will move overseas and the American Middle Class will continue it's slow decline until the people can take no more.

    Putsch and revolution.
     
  8. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #8
    Actually, I'm not.

    It is - challenging - to wish to debate international relations with individuals many of whom wish to vent, not debate. (No, @Huntn, I don't mean your post, which, while I don't fully - or even mostly - agree with, is, at least a serious attempt to address, think about and discuss these matters).

    And, reading the usual - somewhat prejudiced and uninformed - hyperbolic stuff - in the stark absence of serious critical analysis - can become rather tiring.
     
  9. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #9
    I think it's more accurate to say we have a Putin problem, rather than a Russia problem.

    People forget that for most of the past ~ 25 years the US and Russia have enjoyed relatively productive, if not exactly friendly, relations. Russia partnered with the US, for instance, on the economic sanctions which effectively put a stop to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Russia provided logistical assistance in our operations in Afghanistan.

    The problems with Russia really only came about as a result of the economic crisis Vladimir Putin's government managed to create. Happy for him and his oligarchs to get rich selling oil and gas; Putin's government failed to develop its broader economy. Russia exports pretty much nothing besides weapons and oil and gas. As a result, when the price of oil collapsed from over $100/barrel to less than $40, both the Russian govt. and broader economy fell into a tailspin. Putin responded to this by stoking up the old Russian nationalism, which included military action to retake Crimea.

    Short takeaway: Russia's military sabre-rattling is a sign of their fundamental weakness. Not strength. (BTW, only one Presidential Candidate is stupid enough to believe otherwise.) Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's. Not to slag on Italy, but that's not really something that poses an existential threat to the US. Putin's meddling in Crimea, in Syria, and his cyber attacks on the US are an annoyance. But not really a long-term threat.

    Putin has painted himself into something of a corner. He cannot go any further into Ukraine or the Baltics without bringing down serious repercussions (unless President Trump is too busy typing mean Tweets in the Oval Office bathroom). He has no reasonable end-game in Syria. The best he can hope for is a recovery in energy prices that will return some growth to the Russian economy. But militarily Russia is a joke. The pitiful sight of Russia's single, ancient, and dangerous aircraft carrier chugging through the English Channel, accompanied by tugs to deal with the very real probability of breaking down, ought to tell you that.

    I'm sure that a few minutes of every national security briefing in the White House is devoted to Russia. But it's not the main topic of conversation. Russia is a problem that time, economics, and diplomacy will deal with very nicely.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    The most uninformed declaration ever uttered in PSRI. Russia possesses more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials.

    Russia has huge nuclear arsenal, an antiquated command and control system, and a feeling encirclement by hostile powers. Chew on that the next time Obama, Hillary, or another member of the War Party blusters about Russia or proposes Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.
     
  11. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    Nuclear weapons are pretty much unusable. They cannot be used to project power. They cannot be used to defend trade routes or enforce blockades. They cannot be used to enforce civil or military law.

    They are, from pretty much every perspective, a last-ditch suicide weapon.



    Russia's military is a joke.
     
  12. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    Well, by your standards so is the U.S. military.

     
  13. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
  14. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #14
    If you are comparing the failure of a first test launch of a new weapons system, with an event the Russian navy planned as a publicity stunt, I think you are missing the point. You are supposed to have failures during testing, That's how you build reliable weapons systems, by finding out all the weak points.

    Russia's military equipment is so poorly maintained and designed, and its personnel so deficient on training, that they regularly have epic fails during military parades.




     
  15. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #15
    I really think that the perspective on this form the vantage point of the US - physical, geographic, geo-political - is somewhat blinkered.

    1: @aaronvan: Neither Georgia nor Ukraine will be on the agenda - anytime soon - for a MAP (membership action plan) for either NATO or the EU. It won't happen, because the boundaries of both countries are disputed, and nether NATO nor the EU will accept - or even envisage - membership from such unstable polities.

    The closest they each came was at the Bucharest NATO summit of April 2008, when the possibility of a MAP for NATO membership was discussed as it featured on the agenda for NATO. Russia lobbied furiously against it (Mr Saakashvili was in power at the time in Georgia, and Mr Yushenko and Ms Timoshenko were both in charge in Ukraine, one as President and the other as PM in a dysfunctional government - in other words, both countries were led by western leaning leaderships), and Germany decided to advise that any further discussion be deferred.

    Conditions had changed within a few years, which mean that any overtures re NATO membership are not just extremely unlikely - they are almost guaranteed

    By now, both countries have been offered an unpalatable choice: Territorial integrity (with Russian influence and a very unstable polity), or national Sovereignty - shorn of troublesome parts of your country whose allegiance may well lie elsewhere. However, to accept the latter - while much more stable - involves much swallowing of national pride - and, frankly would most likely amount to political suicide for any political leadership prepared to accept it.

    2: @vrDrew: The Baltics will not be attacked, and it is clutching at the reassuring and familiar feeling of cuddly Cold War intellectual comfort blankets to assume that they will. They are member sod both NATO and the EU: They are protected by international treaties in a way that no other states within the former USSR are.

    Yes, they will be bullied and browbeaten; yes, too, it is perfectly possible that they also will look to find where a nice brawl can occur - precisely because they are protected by international law - Russia is not the only culprit here, and historical memories hang heavy, as does the desire for retribution.

    Secondly, this habit of constantly assuming only the worst possible interpretation of Russian actions is tiresome.

    And, no, militarily, I would argue that Russia is a bit less of a joke than it used to be.
     
  16. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    That is probably true. But it's an improvement from a dismally low starting point.

    Russia's military is transitioning from a model that used to rely on large numbers of conscripted troops to one that is based around professional forces, similar to that of the US and Britain. But at present less than 25% of Russian troops are professionals, the rest being poorly paid and trained conscripts. Even the professional troops are not trained to anywhere near the standard of US or other NATO forces.

    Russia is buying a wide variety of modern combat aircraft, most of them based on the Flanker airframe - but they are being purchased in such small quantities from "boutique" manufacturers that there is little commonality in parts and supplies. Russia has announced plans to buy more than 2000 T-14 Armata tanks - but it will probably be decades before they can afford them. Russia's navy is dreadfully uneven: they have some reasonably capable submarines, its surface fleet is comprised of aging Soviet-era ships that are literally falling apart.

    The biggest indicator of Russia's military's status as a "paper tiger" can be seen in Syria: The Russians have managed to fly a lot of sorties, but the number of strikes carried out with precision-guided weapons (the type that has become the de facto standard for US forces) has been minuscule. And unfortunately the citizens of Aleppo are paying the price.

    Bottom line: Russia's military aspirations considerably exceed its capabilities. Today's Russia simply doesn't have the population base of the Soviet era, nor does it have the industrial plant capacity, nor the high-tech manufacturing and engineering resources to pose a serious military threat to the US. Russia also suffers from a distinct lack of foreign allies and bases. Which is why you see the sad Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke through the Dover Strait, on its way to prop up Bashar al-Assad, in order to keep open Russia's only naval facility in the Mediterranean.
     
  17. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #17
    What do you particularly disagree with in my post?
     
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    What is the "best" interpretation of Russia's annexation of Crimea? The sunny side of its air campaign targeting the doctors and hospitals of Aleppo? The positive spin on Putin's habit of murdering political opponents? The moral case for orchestrating cybercrimes against a wide variety of civilian political and social organizations in the US and Western Europe?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
     
  19. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #19
    When did the right turn into a bunch of Russians cucks?
     

Share This Page