A Third World War on the cards.

Egginacup

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The US already have the ability to project their military power over the South China Sea, more than China does (i.e. more control over the ocean where 1/3 of the worlds shipping passes, including much of Chinese shipping, than China does) - when they don't even have any business being there - so I don't think the US has any case for being involved at all or to even criticize (the US is, after all, the country that has been rampantly violating dozens of other countries sovereignty/territory through dozens of wars, with multiple war crimes, since WWII - including SE Asia - they are the 'bad guys'/warmongers here, the US have no moral authority in the world).

I agree that this should be resolved diplomatically instead, but well, China are a growing power and are growing in arrogance/influence in the region (not even close to the heights of US arrogance though), and since the US is in decline China will eventually overtake them in power, and probably nobody is going to stop them in this case.

I don't agree with what they are doing, but well frankly, if China want to do it they can likely get away with it, and going to war over it would be incredibly reckless.

From what I remember they weren't able to do that in 1975.
They haven't been able to do it in the deserts in 2006 and they can't possibly seem to be able to do it in the mountains in 2015.

Saying you can "kick anyone's ass" is a retarded and childish as Mike Tyson flailing around trying to beat up a swift-footed and clever 80 lb female black-belt who nips in once and a while, lashes him in the balls or cracks his knee with a well-aimed "sokuto fumikumi" and then sprints off again. And all the while the excuses are that he could "kick her ass" because he has a gun.

:pac:

BuilderPlumber

Egginacup wrote: »

From what I remember they weren't able to do that in 1975.
They haven't been able to do it in the deserts in 2006 and they can't possibly seem to be able to do it in the mountains in 2015.

Saying you can "kick anyone's ass" is a retarded and childish as Mike Tyson flailing around trying to beat up a swift-footed and clever 80 lb female black-belt who nips in once and a while, lashes him in the balls or cracks his knee with a well-aimed "sokuto fumikumi" and then sprints off again. And all the while the excuses are that he could "kick her ass" because he has a gun.

:pac:

The US can destroy any weak country it chooses to do within a month. But what they can't do is establish peace and postwar influence. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. are proof of this. When a resilient army decide to wage a guerilla war on the US, they cannot defeat this either. They put up with it for a while, lose interest and leave. Vietnam. And possibly what will play out in Iraq and Afghanistan too. So, Iraq could get a regime much WORSE than Saddam and Afghanistan could get back the Taliban. After all that!

Egginacup

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

The US can destroy any weak country it chooses to do within a month. But what they can't do is establish peace and postwar influence. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. are proof of this. When a resilient army decide to wage a guerilla war on the US, they cannot defeat this either. They put up with it for a while, lose interest and leave. Vietnam. And possibly what will play out in Iraq and Afghanistan too. So, Iraq could get a regime much WORSE than Saddam and Afghanistan could get back the Taliban. After all that!

Most empires can. If you measure greatness by the ability to kill weaklings then you'll always be wrong. Who are stronger ...the Wehrmacht or the Maltese or Belgrade partisans? The US Marine Corps or the Viet Cong and Pathet Lao? The British Army or the IRA?
This talk of military strength is meaningless. To me military prowess is measured in defeating aggression not vanquishing one you have attacked. The US can attack and slaughter all they want. They can crib about making the world "safe" but they will always be defeated in their endeavours to run the show and control the planet.

Time to resurrect this thread.
Things appear to be hotting (well more like a return to the cold war) up on the eastern front!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33153703
Nato has condemned Russia's move to strengthen its nuclear arsenal, saying it amounted to "nuclear sabre-rattling" and was "unjustified" and "dangerous".

President Vladimir Putin said Russia would put more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles into service this year.

It is part of a wide-reaching programme to modernise the country's military.

The move comes after the US proposed increasing its military presence in Nato states in Eastern Europe.

Tensions are high over Russia's role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that the statement from Mr Putin was "confirming the pattern and behaviour of Russia over a period of time - we have seen Russia is investing more in defence in general and in its nuclear capability in particular".

He said: "This nuclear sabre-rattling of Russia is unjustified, it's destabilising and it's dangerous.

"This is something which we are addressing and it's also one of the reasons why we now are increasing the readiness and the preparedness of our forces."

He added that "what Nato now does in the eastern part of the alliance is something that is proportionate, that is defensive and that is fully in line with our international commitments".

The ultimate solution to the economic crisis that much of the world hasn't recovered from, an arms race!

Donalinger

China is getting its aircraft carriers built. Aircraft carriers are needed to wage war.
China is looking at South East Asia as a cat looks upon a mouse. yum yum.

RobbingBandit

Donald Trump and Jeb Bush have each declared their intentions to run for 2016, Bush will go to war as it is the family business and Trump would go to war as it is best for business.

To oppose them we have Hildog Clinton, Putin and the axis of evil will have their war either way.

Donalinger

Donalinger wrote: »

China is getting its aircraft carriers built. Aircraft carriers are needed to wage war.
China is looking at South East Asia as a cat looks upon a mouse. yum yum.

China is also building a static aircraft carrier in the Spratley islands to "cement" their claim on the whole south china sea.

Donalinger

Deleted User wrote: »

China is also building a static aircraft carrier in the Spratley islands to "cement" their claim on the whole south china sea.

Vietnam will be a tough nut to crack, was on holiday there 2 years ago. The dislike they have for Thailand over the US soliders being based there is still very real.
They are a tough breed, they would give china enough it.

Firefox11

Deleted User wrote: »

Time to resurrect this thread.
Things appear to be hotting (well more like a return to the cold war) up on the eastern front!



The ultimate solution to the economic crisis that much of the world hasn't recovered from, an arms race!

Time for a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

KomradeBishop

There was a good article here, on how Russia is now looking for and cracking down on foreign-influenced NGO's, that are being used as a means of asymmetrical-warfare, to quickly spin-up social support for protest movements (by switching previously apolitical NGO's into taking a political stand), like what happened with the US-influenced organizations in Ukraine:
http://thesaker.is/wanted-ngo-whistleblowers/

A good example of how the US has been very active - but in a discreet way - in politically destabilizing countries; only this time, they screwed up and kicked off a civil war.

BuilderPlumber

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Donald Trump and Jeb Bush have each declared their intentions to run for 2016, Bush will go to war as it is the family business and Trump would go to war as it is best for business.

To oppose them we have Hildog Clinton, Putin and the axis of evil will have their war either way.

Of most of the Republican candidates so far, Jeb Bush is the most preferable .. which pretty much says it all. Trump has consistently shown himself to be a an outspoken idiot liable to say anything up to and including a personal insult of Vladimir Putin. He could cause a major war, not some war against a weak country. But against Russia or China. Trump also has poor views on Mexico. Under him, America would make around 20 unnecessary enemies (the last thing needed). Ted Cruz, with a name like a Miami Vice drug dealer, may not be the Colombian cocaine king his name indicates but he is another gambling capitalist gangster.

Hillary Clinton more than likely will win hands down the Democrat side. Though not an admirer of either, and never thought I'd say it, but Clinton V Bush seems the best case scenario. I can't see anyone challenge Clinton and Bush's rivals are so crazy they make Bush's brother Dubya look good by comparison.

As for The Axis of Evil, the ever-changing set of exagerrated threats to the US previously called The Evil Empire or Rogue States: I wonder what the new term will be and who will make it into this group this time around? North Korea, ISIS, al Qaeda-controlled Libya and the like perhaps? And if the likes of Cruz or Trump had their way Russia would be in there too! But there will, as before, be no mention of terrorist kingpin Saudi Arabia.

Grayson

Egginacup wrote: »

Most empires can. If you measure greatness by the ability to kill weaklings then you'll always be wrong. Who are stronger ...the Wehrmacht or the Maltese or Belgrade partisans? The US Marine Corps or the Viet Cong and Pathet Lao? The British Army or the IRA?
This talk of military strength is meaningless. To me military prowess is measured in defeating aggression not vanquishing one you have attacked. The US can attack and slaughter all they want. They can crib about making the world "safe" but they will always be defeated in their endeavours to run the show and control the planet.

You're assuming you need to occupy a country to defeat it. You don't. One US carrier battle group can destroy a mid sized nation. And they never need to land a troop. Just take out every port, bridge and airport. Destroy all the TV and radio broadcast sites with every major government facility.

darkpagandeath

Grayson wrote: »

You're assuming you need to occupy a country to defeat it. You don't. One US carrier battle group can destroy a mid sized nation. And they never need to land a troop. Just take out every port, bridge and airport. Destroy all the TV and radio broadcast sites with every major government facility.

That's something Russia can't do at the moment. Russia is not a superpower and can't project power really beyond it's sphere.

Sunnyisland

irishlad12345 wrote: »

the chinese are clever the have territorial claims over the spratley islands (i think thats what there called ) so what there doing is literally building islands making the islands the build there territory and according to UN law the automatically get a certain amount of the sea clever c**ts

Plus they have millions of there takeaways dotted around the world,Everyone knows there just spy huts as they don't serve prober food :-)

hardy_buck

Egginacup wrote: »

From what I remember they weren't able to do that in 1975.
They haven't been able to do it in the deserts in 2006 and they can't possibly seem to be able to do it in the mountains in 2015.

Saying you can "kick anyone's ass" is a retarded and childish as Mike Tyson flailing around trying to beat up a swift-footed and clever 80 lb female black-belt who nips in once and a while, lashes him in the balls or cracks his knee with a well-aimed "sokuto fumikumi" and then sprints off again. And all the while the excuses are that he could "kick her ass" because he has a gun.

:pac:

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

darkpagandeath

hardy_buck wrote: »

What on God's green earth are you talking about?

Maybe related to a guy in the forest greased up wrestling ahem bears or showing how macho he is ?

SpaceTime

realies wrote: »

Plus they have millions of there takeaways dotted around the world,Everyone knows there just spy huts as they don't serve prober food :-)

And what do you think the Irish bars are?!
Shhhh! Stop blowing our cover.

darkpagandeath

SpaceTime wrote: »

And what do you think the Irish bars are?!
Shhhh! Stop blowing our cover.

dairy milk ?

darkpagandeath

darkpagandeath wrote: »

dairy milk ?

More likely fruit & nut!

WakeUp

Egginacup wrote: »

WakeUp, have you stopped to actually see what the Chinese are "claiming" as their maritime territory? The Chinese are building artificial island by the Spratlys...and this has provoked outrage in Washington, yet Vietnam and the Philipines have been reclaiming land on reefs and sandspits for decades without any consternation from the US.
It's the same boy crying wolf over and over and over again. And still a sizeable chunk of the human race swallow it. China is not expansionist. They never have been and if anyone wants to bring up Tibet they had better think and read up on their history before tossing that out.
Iran has not so much as sent a soldier across another border in anger in 200 years yet the wolf boy has been screaming about their threat to the world for 15 years. 2005, I believe it was, was the deadline before they had nukes and would waste us all.....the dopes who made that crap up still have their jobs most likely.
Then there's Russia....who have "invaded" Ukraine, yet haven't invaded Ukraine because the invasion is really just retards in the upper echelons of the Pentagon saying Russian battaliions are amassed "at the border"...not IN Ukraine or anywhere. A Russian flight taking off from Gorky and flying 200 km west and landing is now construed by the wolf-crying morons as "Putin's bombers head towards Kiev" or some such pantomime talk and some people still fall for this nonsense.

had forgotten about this thread sry about the late reply. I think you might know my position on the situation with the Russians so if its alright with you lets not go there. so China. who are claiming historic title over the south China sea ( maybe 80% of it) implying full sovereign authority and consent for other states to transit the waters. and all that entails.

The Chinese position contains a fundamental contradiction among a number of others which is this. they are basing their maritime claim/s on , well, history. but back then in history during the time their sailors or whatever supposedly claimed the South China sea for the Chinese the idea of maritime sovereignty didnt exist. nor did the idea of national sovereignty which only came into being in 17th century Europe after the treaty of Westphalia. In pre modern Asia empires were characterized by undefined, unprotected, and often changing frontiers suzerainty prevailed not sovereignty. nation states (westphalian sovereignty) have defined drawn borders which are policed/controlled by the state. the frontiers of Chinese empires in pre Asia were more akin to zones with an undefined periphery. in land disputes when it suits the Chinese state their land borders were never defined, demarcated, and delimited. though when it comes to maritime disputes they claim the opposite a contradiction. according to the Chinese their maritime borders have always been clearly defined. based on history. from a time when the idea of the nation state and sovereignty didnt even exist.

overlapping territorial claims to sovereignty and maritime boundaries are thrashed out through a combination of customary international law tied in with the international court of justice or international tribunal for law of the sea. or arbitration under UNCLOS which the Chinese have ratified. but that treaty by and large rejects claims based on history the precise position the Chinese have taken and periodically asserts through more ways than one now. vast majority of international legal experts have concluded that China’s claim to historic title over the South China Sea is invalid. If China’s claims are justified on the basis of history, then so are the historical claims of the Vietnamese for example. or whoever. but that isnt how it works nor how it should be sorted out. and the Chinese have about as much right to claim 80% of the South China Sea for themselves as we do.

Elmer Blooker

Grayson wrote: »

One US carrier battle group can destroy a mid sized nation. And they never need to land a troop. Just take out every port, bridge and airport. Destroy all the TV and radio broadcast sites with every major government facility.

You forgot to mention the destruction of sewage treatment plants, water pumping stations, power plants - all attacks on civilians and therefore war crimes under the Geneva convention. International law eh?
And then of course theres the "collateral damage"

Reiver

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

You forgot to mention the destruction of sewage treatment plants, water pumping stations, power plants - all attacks on civilians and therefore war crimes under the Geneva convention. International law eh?
And then of course theres the "collateral damage"

Has the US even signed that?

Elmer Blooker

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

You forgot to mention the destruction of sewage treatment plants, water pumping stations, power plants - all attacks on civilians and therefore war crimes under the Geneva convention. International law eh?
And then of course theres the "collateral damage"

You would need to prove that they were targeted first, not all bombs are "smart" and are just lobbed in the general direction of the enemy.

FortySeven

A third world war on the cards?

I'd say the cards have been dealt. If we were reading a Beevor book about the third world war we would just be getting into chapter 5.

About the only thing now that could postpone the third world war would be a rising of the masses globally, something akin to the French revolution where the corrupt would be hoisted on lamposts and the politicans reminded of who they work for.

Not likely really but I can live in hope while I dig my shelter...

BuilderPlumber

A third world war in the conventional sense always appears remote. Because EVERYONE knows the outcome of this (a world akin to Mad Max Fury Road at best). But who knows what could happen if a terrorist organisation like al Qaeda or ISIS acquired WMD.

The US will always be involved in sabre rattling with Russia and sometimes China. But they all know enough not to take things too far.

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly

blatantrereg wrote: »

Poland was on the winning side and they had a nett territory loss in addition to the catastrophic consequence of being assimilated into the iron curtain. .

Always thought the Poland had a slight territorial GAIN after WW2

True they lost a lot of territory in the east (which was mostly inhabited by non-Poles anyway) to the USSR but compensated by a gain in the West (from Germany) which the Red Army had quite helpfully ethnically cleansed for them. Motivated by outdated prejudices about "Prussian Militarism" The West largely acquiesced in this.

Wurzelbert

Enjoy Heroin Responsibly wrote: »

Always thought the Poland had a slight territorial GAIN after WW2

True they lost a lot of territory in the east (which was mostly inhabited by non-Poles anyway) to the USSR but compensated by a gain in the West (from Germany) which the Red Army had quite helpfully ethnically cleansed for them. Motivated by outdated prejudices about "Prussian Militarism" The West largely acquiesced in this.

yes, poland was basically shifted westwards in 45 and about half of it is now on historically german territory…they lost a lot of territory to the ussr in the east…sort of ironic as the english and french in 39 used poland as a pretense to declare war on germany, and then in the end let poland down completely…not like they ever gave a **** about poland anyway…shows how ****ed-up and fake history is and how it is always written by the winners…

Wurzelbert

blatantrereg wrote: »

Sometimes. The UK's involvement in WW2 left them fairly devastated economically and indirectly led to loss of territory.[...]

yes, britain could have stayed out of ww1 and ww2…and had they stayed out of ww1, ww2 would never have happened anyway…the brits arranged two world wars – as opposed to brief continental european conflicts – and screwed up their own economy for decades and lost their empire in the process…

BuilderPlumber

FortySeven wrote: »

About the only thing now that could postpone the third world war would be a rising of the masses globally, something akin to the French revolution where the corrupt would be hoisted on lamposts and the politicans reminded of who they work for.

I cannot see a third world war develop at least in the conventional sense. There is no major power mad enough to take on a rival of the same status. US, China and Russia are not going to fight each other directly for obvious reasons.

The ONLY thing that could bring it about is what you said above. If a major revolution took place and brought into power a radical madman in a nuclear armed state. Or if a nuclear civil war took place.

Perhaps the biggest threat is if a group like ISIS got a nuclear bomb and/or took over a nuclear power like Pakistan. I think nuclear terrorism will inevitably happen but it will probably be more like the 'dirty bomb' type than an apocalyptic use of high grade warheads.

FortySeven

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I cannot see a third world war develop at least in the conventional sense. There is no major power mad enough to take on a rival of the same status. US, China and Russia are not going to fight each other directly for obvious reasons.

The ONLY thing that could bring it about is what you said above. If a major revolution took place and brought into power a radical madman in a nuclear armed state. Or if a nuclear civil war took place.

Perhaps the biggest threat is if a group like ISIS got a nuclear bomb and/or took over a nuclear power like Pakistan. I think nuclear terrorism will inevitably happen but it will probably be more like the 'dirty bomb' type than an apocalyptic use of high grade warheads.

I'm not so sure, America is rapidly being replaced as the worlds superpower, largely due the their need for cheap tat, they allowed their industrial base to be offshored and the Chinese are rapidly catching up on development. China can cripple the US anytime it sees fit just by dumping its dollar holdings on the bond market. That day is when the US will realise its day is done. A critically wounded superpower with nukes(and still the only nation to have used them in anger) is a dangerous beast indeed. Especially when it realises it may have the knowledge to support an arms manufacturing base but not the materials, skills or tooling to support it, never mind the funds.