A Third World War on the cards.

Egginacup

WakeUp wrote: »

I didnt look into that think tank as much as you did I wasnt aware of what you are saying here so thanks for that. I came upon the link and read it. but I still agree with their analysis on this particular issue. Ive been following whats happening over there for a couple of years and its just coming to the fore now. the south China sea is not the sole dominion of China just because it includes there name. same way the Irish sea isnt exclusive to us or the English channel to the English. a number of countries have claims to the islands some based on historical sovereignty of the islands ( China ) and some that claim it part of their territory vis a vis law of the sea. the Chinese for example are basing their claims on long since past dynasties actions sightings and such taken by sailors way back in 1900 and splash way before the westphalian concept of sovereignty. they have reinterpreted their history to make it so. whatever those ancient sailors were doing it had nothing to do with asserting or violating sovereignty that concept didnt exist in Asia back then. France, Japan, China and Vietnam have all at one stage seized the islands they always been hotly disputed and still are. its an interstate conflict aside from the potential economic windfall of the ocean surrounding them its a key strategic trade route for north east Asia. 50% of global oil tanker shipments pass through the South China sea. 6 of the worlds top ten shipping ports are located in and around that sea too. and the Chinese appear to be claiming all of it. this doesnt just affect the countries they are in direct dispute with because its such a strategic trade route it potentially affects many more Japan, US, Europe. this dispute isnt going to go away anytime soon and certainly the south China sea is not the exclusive property of the Chinese.

The Americans view (and refer to) the South China Sea as an "American Lake". If they want to act the bollocks like that they can expect people to push back.

WakeUp

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but the US have no business in the South China sea - certainly no business to be ratcheting up the war propaganda against other nations there, let alone against China.

It's ridiculous that it's being framed as China challenging the US - in their (China's) own sphere of influence.

Open talk of a war between two nuclear powers - as if it is an inevitability - over a handful of islands (and when one of those countries has no business being there), is incredibly reckless and dumb (in much the same way as open talk of war between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, is equally reckless/dumb).

I don't agree with what China is doing, and don't think they should be allowed do it, but I totally reject the US-centric framing of that dispute - which seems to be intended at easing the path towards a war.

I agree with your comments about war I agree strongly with them actually. US past transgressions aside and speaking objectively lets take a look at whats going on. Chinese behavior and claims in the south China sea are not only reckless and dangerous its ridiculous. a state cannot claim sovereignty over an entire ocean which is what the Chinese have done. thats just plain ridiculous. the reason its being framed as a China V America confrontation is because when all is said and done thats what it is. the US navy/military are the only ones capable of doing anything about it. for their own interests and the interests of their allies in the region. by China doing this its US hegemony they are challenging. Im not taking a side here, morals right wrong and other forms of everyday formal logic have no place in international relations. the American official position will be that these are international waters/territories , albeit disputed, though sea lanes and air lanes should be open to all. and this is true in a number of instances but really its more than that for them. thats why the US have pivoted to Asia pacific to check China thats the plan. so the Chinese are steaming ahead while they can. 1/3 of the worlds shipping passes through those waters. untold wealth lie beneath the waves. it isnt just the Americans that have a problem with this. personally Ive only ever heard China refer to a couple of issues as being "core national interests" those being Tibet and Taiwan. core national interest is diplomatic language in most instances for being prepared to go to war over it. the Chinese dont come out with things like that lightly. you mention Russia briefly the last thing the west wants to do is push these two closer together. and thats exactly whats happened and happening. im not sure theres much the Americans can do to stop China falling short of destroying the islands being built. once they are built and the military installations in place China will be able to project power away from their shores and in theory defend what they perceive as their airspace. if the Americans and the other nations in the region want to stop this from happening they need to think fast and act even faster. because the Chinese appear to be going phuck all yall whatever. somehow they have to try get China to the table in multilateral talks. not bilateral which is the Chinese strategy as things stand.

KomradeBishop

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.

Wurzelbert

KomradeBishop wrote: »

[...]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[...]

oh i’d say since long before ww2…

KomradeBishop wrote: »

[...]if China want to do it they can likely get away with it[...]

yes, and as deng xiaoping wrote: “patience, time is on our side”…it is and they know it…

Egginacup

WakeUp wrote: »

I agree with your comments about war I agree strongly with them actually. US past transgressions aside and speaking objectively lets take a look at whats going on. Chinese behavior and claims in the south China sea are not only reckless and dangerous its ridiculous. a state cannot claim sovereignty over an entire ocean which is what the Chinese have done. thats just plain ridiculous. the reason its being framed as a China V America confrontation is because when all is said and done thats what it is. the US navy/military are the only ones capable of doing anything about it. for their own interests and the interests of their allies in the region. by China doing this its US hegemony they are challenging. Im not taking a side here, morals right wrong and other forms of everyday formal logic have no place in international relations. the American official position will be that these are international waters/territories , albeit disputed, though sea lanes and air lanes should be open to all. and this is true in a number of instances but really its more than that for them. thats why the US have pivoted to Asia pacific to check China thats the plan. so the Chinese are steaming ahead while they can. 1/3 of the worlds shipping passes through those waters. untold wealth lie beneath the waves. it isnt just the Americans that have a problem with this. personally Ive only ever heard China refer to a couple of issues as being "core national interests" those being Tibet and Taiwan. core national interest is diplomatic language in most instances for being prepared to go to war over it. the Chinese dont come out with things like that lightly. you mention Russia briefly the last thing the west wants to do is push these two closer together. and thats exactly whats happened and happening. im not sure theres much the Americans can do to stop China falling short of destroying the islands being built. once they are built and the military installations in place China will be able to project power away from their shores and in theory defend what they perceive as their airspace. if the Americans and the other nations in the region want to stop this from happening they need to think fast and act even faster. because the Chinese appear to be going phuck all yall whatever. somehow they have to try get China to the table in multilateral talks. not bilateral which is the Chinese strategy as things stand.

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.

Grayson

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.

To be fair Iran has sponsored many proxies. Not to mention sponsoring terrorism in the 80's.

BuilderPlumber

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair Iran has sponsored many proxies. Not to mention sponsoring terrorism in the 80's.

Sponsoring proxies is what is going to lead to a third world war imo. But it is not the minor sponsoring of proxies by poor countries like Iran, etc. but the proxies trained and funded (for short-term reasons) by the big fish (such as US, other West, USSR/Russia).

Terrorist groups are getting more and more powerful as the years go by and what lead to the worst of it is when a group is sponsored for years by some superpower in its proxy fight against another superpower but then are dropped when relations between superpowers improve. The group is already rich, has other channels and decides to wreak revenge. This is where al Qaeda came from, leading to ISIS and a globalised copycat of al Qaedaism.

But what if such a group as ISIS became so powerful it took over control of Iraq and Syria 100% and then launched attacks that cripple Iran and Saudi Arabia's oil thus leaving these vulnerable? Think Mad Max oil war! That's the worrisome scenario. Or what if such a group got a nuclear weapon and targeted major cities?

That's where the threat is biggest. I don't think the US, Russia, China, etc. are foolish enough to go to war against each other. The US has gone to war against weak enemies (Iraq, Serbia, Libya) and has almost gone to war against other weak enemies while wars of words are had with rival superpowers. But an irrational terrorist group into world domination/nation state destruction rather than setting up a country is where the threat lies. US, Russia, etc. = forces that want to influence the existing world the most. ISIS = a force that wants to destroy the existing world by any means possible and set up a new, 'Talibanised' world in its place.

BuilderPlumber

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.

The US will every now and again accuse China and/or Russia of doing something. This is superpower jostling. However, the US never picks on rivals of equal abilities for rather obvious reasons. Russia and China have the ability to hurt the US as much as the US could hurt them in the most unlikely event of a war between them.

Instead, the US will pick on vulnerable, weak countries like Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Libya, etc. that are unable to defend themselves and who pose no threat to the US whatsoever. Iran is the only country that escaped US bully boy tactics in the US's oil-based wars. Presumably, because it poses even less of a threat.

When it comes to US propaganda about threats from poorly armed Middle Eastern nations, it is a case of paper not refusing ink! Look at all the lies from 1990 to date about Saddam and his capability to launch a third world war. Sure, the 2003- Iraq war has edged the world into economic turmoil and out of control terrorism. But the one person who had nothing to do with this was Saddam. Likewise, we hear the same about Iran. Its last president, Ahmadinejad, being the new Hitler and planning to launch a nuclear apocalypse. Anyone with a brain could see that a poor, war weary country like Iraq or Iran with a poorly equipped army (when compared to the US) couldn't stand a chance against the might of the West. 3-4 weeks is the time the regimes of such places have left once the US starts an invasion it has been shown. But 10+ years is more like the timespan of a Mad Max-style dystopia that emerges in these countries afterwards .. where real threats like ISIS emerge.

KomradeBishop

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

That's where the threat is biggest. I don't think the US, Russia, China, etc. are foolish enough to go to war against each other. The US has gone to war against weak enemies (Iraq, Serbia, Libya) and has almost gone to war against other weak enemies while wars of words are had with rival superpowers. But an irrational terrorist group into world domination/nation state destruction rather than setting up a country is where the threat lies. US, Russia, etc. = forces that want to influence the existing world the most. ISIS = a force that wants to destroy the existing world by any means possible and set up a new, 'Talibanised' world in its place.

We don't really know what ISIS is going to be when they solidify their gains and turn into a nation proper - they'll have a lot more to lose then, once they actually start building up a society, rather than tearing the current one down across Iraq/Syria (and potentially elsewhere in the region, over time).

The society they do build is going to be a brutal one, like an even more extreme version of Saudi Arabia, but there is no indication that it will make sense for them to attack any western countries, once they have their own nation - that will just guarantee the entire region will be getting demolished by western nations on a regular basis, for up to a third decade.

In the end, ISIS are made up of the indigenous people who live in and around the area - the ones who have seen many people in their communities and families murdered in pointless and/or illegal wars over the last decade and a half - they are going to want stability in the long run so they actually have lives worth living, rather than seeing only perpetual war.

BuilderPlumber

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We don't really know what ISIS is going to be when they solidify their gains and turn into a nation proper - they'll have a lot more to lose then, once they actually start building up a society, rather than tearing the current one down across Iraq/Syria (and potentially elsewhere in the region, over time).

The society they do build is going to be a brutal one, like an even more extreme version of Saudi Arabia, but there is no indication that it will make sense for them to attack any western countries, once they have their own nation - that will just guarantee the entire region will be getting demolished by western nations on a regular basis, for up to a third decade.

In the end, ISIS are made up of the indigenous people who live in and around the area - the ones who have seen many people in their communities and families murdered in pointless and/or illegal wars over the last decade and a half - they are going to want stability in the long run so they actually have lives worth living, rather than seeing only perpetual war.

Agreed. I think ISIS if they set up a state would subdivide into a pragmatic wing and a fanatic wing. The former would have to make compromises and do deals whereas the latter may not be able to. The latter would be mostly the foreign fighters (the 'Jihad John' types) and a new, more pragmatic leadership may distance themselves from these because the reality of ruling a country is much different.

It must be remembered not everyone in ISIS stand for the same thing. The dominant fanatic wing at present is a wartime based set of people who would not do well running a proper country. A revolution within a revolution could desire change. And if they really want a caliphate, they will also have to genuinely appeal to other Muslims.

Saudi Arabia has unfortunately been the template that all Islamic monarchies, republics and emirates have based themselves on to date. A poor role model and one that is setting Islam backwards rather than forwards. People in other countries, especially used to being freer, are not going to stand for stifling repression far worse than what Saddam or Assad did. Iran's current government is reforming many aspects of Iranian society implemented in the name of Islam, and copied from Saudi Arabia, which was never accepted by the Iranian people and whom most Iranian politicians would admit in private were mistakes. Syria and Iraq are not Afghanistan or Somalia and is more akin to Iran as a once secular society. And even in Saudi Arabia itself, people are now demanding more freedoms. 'Talibanised Islam' has had its day and people everywhere want an end to the cycle of violence that abuse of Islam has caused.

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.

BuilderPlumber

FortySeven wrote: »

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.

The US may see its position slip in years to come. True, if critically wounded, anything can happen. It depends on who is president. Certain options like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz would be scary in such situations.

At present, there are 3 major superpowers: US, China and Russia.

A lot of regional powers exist that could one day become a superpower. The ambition is there and who knows what the future superpowers will be. But it often takes a MAJOR WAR to create a new set of powers. War often destroys the previous predominant powers. WW2 killed off a lot of the old European powers like Germany, France and the UK but provided the US and USSR with their turn to be main world powers. The latter was one of the biggest victims of WW1 and had moved from a very poor country to one of the top 2 powers within 40 years.

Someone as arrogant as Donald Trump being president could inevitably lead to bad feelings between countries and could lead to a major war. That is the big danger. Also, the fact that Trump and his kind only care about their own business interests could mean he could start a war to create business opportunities.

FortySeven

"start a war to create business opportunities. "

There's rarely been any that weren't IMHO.

Trump would be great about now, it might at least derail the dynasties of Bush and Clinton.

BuilderPlumber

FortySeven wrote: »

"start a war to create business opportunities. "

There's rarely been any that weren't IMHO.

Trump would be great about now, it might at least derail the dynasties of Bush and Clinton.

Jeb Bush v Hillary Clinton v Ted Cruz v Donald Trump. 2 members of less than brilliant political dynasties, a chap with a name akin to a Miami Vice coke dealer who lives up to that type of person politically, and a corrupt businessman. What a choice! Makes our crowd look good!