New cold war?
Scroll to see replies
A second cold war? As if humanity has not been in the grip of cold war ever since the production of the first nuclear weapon?
Or consider the behind the scenes electronic warfare that has been taking place for decades, the USA released a virus that crashed 3 of Iran's nuclear refinement facilities, the Chinese hacked FBI computers, the Russians spy of the private and work communications of British Soldiers in Cyprus, north and south korea are constantly making provocative patrols/expediations/raids on each other and the large powers still try to influence world politics through funding, sanctions and the odd bombing campaign.
Peace is an illusion, one we readily accept until the truth is held in front of our eyes.
Or consider the behind the scenes electronic warfare that has been taking place for decades, the USA released a virus that crashed 3 of Iran's nuclear refinement facilities, the Chinese hacked FBI computers, the Russians spy of the private and work communications of British Soldiers in Cyprus, north and south korea are constantly making provocative patrols/expediations/raids on each other and the large powers still try to influence world politics through funding, sanctions and the odd bombing campaign.
Peace is an illusion, one we readily accept until the truth is held in front of our eyes.
Original post by skunkboy
Really? US didn't have much trouble with Vietcong during Vietnam War? Why US didn't win the War?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
The political opposition to the war ended it. If the US wished to kill every last Vietnamese civilian, they could have done so, albeit with a complete sacrifice of its principles. But anyway that was in the Cold war period - I'm talking about now, when the US is the world's lone superpower.
Original post by skunkboy
Really? US didn't have much trouble with Vietcong during Vietnam War? Why US didn't win the War?
Took you a whole 2 days to come up with that ****ty argument? Deary me, standards are slipping.
The US:
a- fought with conscript soldiers. These are almost universally rubbish compared to full time volunteers. Hence why the casualty rate was so high and why, consequently, the political will was so low.
b- were fighting against an enemy aided by the US' opposite power bloc in the Cold War.
The US, militarily, had the power - and still has the power - to obliterate any target it sees fit. What it doesn't always have is the political will to allow that to become a reality.
So, back to your original point. We are not about to enter another Cold War. The Cold War came about because you had two vast opposing blocs who were, basically afraid of fighting each other. These days you have one military and economic superpower (USA), one almost economic superpower (China) and one regional power (Russia). These are not equal opponents. Ergo, no Cold War.
Original post by Drewski
Took you a whole 2 days to come up with that ****ty argument? Deary me, standards are slipping.
The US:
a- fought with conscript soldiers. These are almost universally rubbish compared to full time volunteers. Hence why the casualty rate was so high and why, consequently, the political will was so low.
b- were fighting against an enemy aided by the US' opposite power bloc in the Cold War.
The US, militarily, had the power - and still has the power - to obliterate any target it sees fit. What it doesn't always have is the political will to allow that to become a reality.
So, back to your original point. We are not about to enter another Cold War. The Cold War came about because you had two vast opposing blocs who were, basically afraid of fighting each other. These days you have one military and economic superpower (USA), one almost economic superpower (China) and one regional power (Russia). These are not equal opponents. Ergo, no Cold War.
The US:
a- fought with conscript soldiers. These are almost universally rubbish compared to full time volunteers. Hence why the casualty rate was so high and why, consequently, the political will was so low.
b- were fighting against an enemy aided by the US' opposite power bloc in the Cold War.
The US, militarily, had the power - and still has the power - to obliterate any target it sees fit. What it doesn't always have is the political will to allow that to become a reality.
So, back to your original point. We are not about to enter another Cold War. The Cold War came about because you had two vast opposing blocs who were, basically afraid of fighting each other. These days you have one military and economic superpower (USA), one almost economic superpower (China) and one regional power (Russia). These are not equal opponents. Ergo, no Cold War.
While i agree with your assessment i'm not sure i'd be so confident about the lack of a cold war. In Syria for example we are effectively fighting by proxy in the sense that Russia is supplying arms to Assad while we supply the rebels, in the wider Sunni-Shia conflict Russia is supporting Iran in a range of ways while we support Saudi Arabia.
There's no ominous threat of nuclear attack or direct fighting on the ground but their's certainly a proxy war occurring.
Original post by Rakas21
While i agree with your assessment i'm not sure i'd be so confident about the lack of a cold war. In Syria for example we are effectively fighting by proxy in the sense that Russia is supplying arms to Assad while we supply the rebels, in the wider Sunni-Shia conflict Russia is supporting Iran in a range of ways while we support Saudi Arabia.
There's no ominous threat of nuclear attack or direct fighting on the ground but their's certainly a proxy war occurring.
There's no ominous threat of nuclear attack or direct fighting on the ground but their's certainly a proxy war occurring.
Proxy war's do not a Cold War make.
A Cold War is a massive stand off that could, at any minute, erupt into an all out war. We are nowhere remotely near such an event, and are unlikely ever to be again, what with the way global economics wraps everything up now and with the certainty that opposing forces would have that the US would destroy them in such an event.
Original post by Drewski
Modern day Russia or China are no match for the US militarily, the US is so far ahead that both would bankrupt themselves before getting close.
The thing I think you have failed to consider is that Russia and China are both superior economically and socially. The US is some 15 trillion dollars in debt, Russia is some 200 billion dollars in debt and China is almost 2 trillion dollars in debt. The US owes these BRICS vast amounts of wealth and the US Petrodollar standard is greatly failing. The US economy is beyond repair and soon enough it will entirely collapse, it is just a matter of when. Imagine it like an ever expanding balloon ready to blow up in your face. In comparison, China's economy is developing and the two countries trade well. An example of this is the 400 billion gas trade recently announced. Even if the US military is advanced, it is useless when the authorities lack the means of funding it and they have a populace that dislikes it. Onto the social factors, Russia is a more happy nation in which in some years Putin has had an 80% approval rating, Putin is a very strong and charismatic leader and China is extremely consolidated. On the other hand, half of America is starving and the best part of the population despises the rulers (dictators better describes it) in office. The population is agitated and more and more people are awakening from this corporate conditioning which has been in practice for so long. People are starting to become disobedient, this is rather contagious and is creating a snowball effect. People are more isolationist and Obama's imperialist actions are heavily criticised. The people are ready to revolt. It is just a matter of when the last straw is taken, soon enough, when the economy has collapsed, the people will turn on their Governments and it will go into a full blown civil war with the authorities trying to suppress the people.
Then you say that these BRICS would never stand a chance? We are in Chinas cross hairs, if they wanted too, they can pull the last straw and claim their pot of gold. Which would turn America into a free-for-all. Russia could also cripple the US in a war, they have the funds, technology and the will of the nation. Although, neither of them will both as America is digging its own grave already.
Original post by Kibox
Some guff missing the point.
A Cold War is about two opposing military blocs of equal strength.
They simply do not exist. End of story.
No country can match the US' global reach. No country can match the US' capabilities on the battlefield.
And, if you'd bothered to read the last post in the thread before wading in, you'd have seen that I alluded to how the global economic situation renders such a scenario meaningless anyway.
Original post by Drewski
Took you a whole 2 days to come up with that ****ty argument? Deary me, standards are slipping.
The US:
a- fought with conscript soldiers. These are almost universally rubbish compared to full time volunteers. Hence why the casualty rate was so high and why, consequently, the political will was so low.
b- were fighting against an enemy aided by the US' opposite power bloc in the Cold War.
The US, militarily, had the power - and still has the power - to obliterate any target it sees fit. What it doesn't always have is the political will to allow that to become a reality.
So, back to your original point. We are not about to enter another Cold War. The Cold War came about because you had two vast opposing blocs who were, basically afraid of fighting each other. These days you have one military and economic superpower (USA), one almost economic superpower (China) and one regional power (Russia). These are not equal opponents. Ergo, no Cold War.
The US:
a- fought with conscript soldiers. These are almost universally rubbish compared to full time volunteers. Hence why the casualty rate was so high and why, consequently, the political will was so low.
b- were fighting against an enemy aided by the US' opposite power bloc in the Cold War.
The US, militarily, had the power - and still has the power - to obliterate any target it sees fit. What it doesn't always have is the political will to allow that to become a reality.
So, back to your original point. We are not about to enter another Cold War. The Cold War came about because you had two vast opposing blocs who were, basically afraid of fighting each other. These days you have one military and economic superpower (USA), one almost economic superpower (China) and one regional power (Russia). These are not equal opponents. Ergo, no Cold War.
USA being an economic superpower? *smirk*
America has the power to 'obliterate any target it sees fit?' Are you joking? They have been trying for almost 70 years with little success. Obviously they can nuke a place, but that is a double-edged sword. They are not able to 'obliterate' any target with ease without severe consequences. Just look at the state of it right now. The America of today is due to decades of meddling in the middle east.
Original post by Rakas21
Certainly not but Syria and Iran are also being sponsored by Russia which is why its a somewhat different league. Indeed by supplying weapons to Assad and attacking Crimea they are to be considered extremely provocative. All China is doing is posturing to minor countries.
I certainly don't believe we should leave countries to run riot, there are very few people other than me on this forum who are prepared to put the military where our countries mouth is. TSR is full of right wing isolationists and naive left wing pacifists.
All i'm saying is that China does not oppose our way of life and so beyond minor territorial disputes they are of no significant concern. Russia and some Islamic countries would quite like to see the west burn if they can rule the ashes.
I certainly don't believe we should leave countries to run riot, there are very few people other than me on this forum who are prepared to put the military where our countries mouth is. TSR is full of right wing isolationists and naive left wing pacifists.
All i'm saying is that China does not oppose our way of life and so beyond minor territorial disputes they are of no significant concern. Russia and some Islamic countries would quite like to see the west burn if they can rule the ashes.
That last part is very prejudiced. Although, it is nice to see someone quoting Game of Thrones.
Back onto the topic, if I'm correct, you view America as the world's police right? Very patriotic. Although, I will say, I dislike patriotism. I consider it a disease, actually, more of a vessel of a political disease. It acts as a catalyst for corruption and tyranny and is what gets a nation into war.
For your information, Russia is not the aggressor, America is. If you do research into some of these outrageous claims you'll find that all these what seem to be rather isolated events are a part of a much bigger game. It is all part of a geopolitical game to try isolate both Russia and China. Just like what America has been doing for decades, the US instigated both conflicts as they funded the Syrian rebels to try overthrow Assad (who had over a 70% approval rating) and backed the fascist opposition which ignited the Ukrainian crisis. I'm not bothered writing an essay to support there claims, do 10 minutes of research and you'll understand my point. America is the world's bully here, and it is about time someone is standing up to it.
By the way, I'm more neutral on the left-wing-right-wing spectrum and I follow more of an isolationist policy. I'm not naïve either. I would consider you unwary though. It is none of our business being involved in eastern conflicts, even more so that we have no moral right to fund extremists to try topple democratically elected Governments globally. I suggest you try use some independent media and not be prone to bias, it doesn't help. Some Russians may want to watch the US burn considering all the war crimes we have committed, although, I can assure you the vast majority don't. On the other hand, some other middle eastern countries would probably like too. You would do the same though if a foreign superpower under the auspice of "promoting democracy" came over, started a war, killed millions, funded terrorists, imposed sanctions which caused 500k children to starve to death, stole and crippled your country three or four times over, and you know what: I would think the same as that is exactly what America has done. They just use the corporate media to create a smokescreen and deceive the general populace into support. You should be surprised at America's history and reality, as one activist says: "The truth is extreme, to moderate it is too lie."
I'll ask you one favour: get rid of all these silly notions about these foreigners agenda. They are not out to kill you (in general).
Original post by Kibox
USA being an economic superpower? *smirk*
America has the power to 'obliterate any target it sees fit?' Are you joking? They have been trying for almost 70 years with little success. Obviously they can nuke a place, but that is a double-edged sword. They are not able to 'obliterate' any target with ease without severe consequences. Just look at the state of it right now. The America of today is due to decades of meddling in the middle east.
America has the power to 'obliterate any target it sees fit?' Are you joking? They have been trying for almost 70 years with little success. Obviously they can nuke a place, but that is a double-edged sword. They are not able to 'obliterate' any target with ease without severe consequences. Just look at the state of it right now. The America of today is due to decades of meddling in the middle east.
I'm quite sure that at this point you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Original post by Drewski
The US, militarily, had the power - and still has the power - to obliterate any target it sees fit. What it doesn't always have is the political will to allow that to become a reality.
Tell me why you felt the need to contradict me when I had already said exactly that?
There is and can be no question of the US' military strength. It's a simple empirical fact. Any attempts to deny it will just make you look stupid. They are, militarily, in terms of capability, reach and effectiveness the most powerful combat nation on the planet. There is no feasible way anyone with half a brain can argue against that.
And yes, the US is an economic superpower. Not as big as it once was, for sure, but it's still the one everybody else looks to to dictate market terms. It's banks are the biggest banks. It's companies are the biggest companies. Again, pure common sense, not something worth arguing.
Of course, you're now going to try on both counts because you're just that type of person.
Original post by the mezzil
Bottom of the ocean.
I see. Just like that plane MH 370.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by icanseeclearly
A second cold war? As if humanity has not been in the grip of cold war ever since the production of the first nuclear weapon?
Or consider the behind the scenes electronic warfare that has been taking place for decades, the USA released a virus that crashed 3 of Iran's nuclear refinement facilities, the Chinese hacked FBI computers, the Russians spy of the private and work communications of British Soldiers in Cyprus, north and south korea are constantly making provocative patrols/expediations/raids on each other and the large powers still try to influence world politics through funding, sanctions and the odd bombing campaign.
Peace is an illusion, one we readily accept until the truth is held in front of our eyes.
Or consider the behind the scenes electronic warfare that has been taking place for decades, the USA released a virus that crashed 3 of Iran's nuclear refinement facilities, the Chinese hacked FBI computers, the Russians spy of the private and work communications of British Soldiers in Cyprus, north and south korea are constantly making provocative patrols/expediations/raids on each other and the large powers still try to influence world politics through funding, sanctions and the odd bombing campaign.
Peace is an illusion, one we readily accept until the truth is held in front of our eyes.
So what or who is behind the cold war, do you think?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by felamaslen
The political opposition to the war ended it. If the US wished to kill every last Vietnamese civilian, they could have done so, albeit with a complete sacrifice of its principles. But anyway that was in the Cold war period - I'm talking about now, when the US is the world's lone superpower.
Political party ended it? I don't think so. I think most of Americans did end the war because of too many US casualties.
No. Something has been changing . Of course, US is now a great power. But I don't think it's the greatest. US can't invade strong countries like Russia or China. It can only threaten weak countries.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by skunkboy
Political party ended it? I don't think so. I think most of Americans did end the war because of too many US casualties.
No. Something has been changing . Of course, US is now a great power. But I don't think it's the greatest. US can't invade strong countries like Russia or China. It can only threaten weak countries.
Posted from TSR Mobile
No. Something has been changing . Of course, US is now a great power. But I don't think it's the greatest. US can't invade strong countries like Russia or China. It can only threaten weak countries.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I didn't say political party, I said political opposition. By the 70s, many people had become very opposed to the war, and hence the US pulled all the troops out before it was won and left Vietnam to the Viet Cong and their allies.
The reason the US doesn't invade countries like China and Russia is because it would be a great expense and would not be in its own interests. But if the situation arose, the US would certainly win a war against those two countries today. It would be massive and bloody though, like the second world war - a real war between great powers.
Original post by skunkboy
Political party ended it? I don't think so. I think most of Americans did end the war because of too many US casualties.
No. Something has been changing . Of course, US is now a great power. But I don't think it's the greatest. US can't invade strong countries like Russia or China. It can only threaten weak countries.
Posted from TSR Mobile
No. Something has been changing . Of course, US is now a great power. But I don't think it's the greatest. US can't invade strong countries like Russia or China. It can only threaten weak countries.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If you ignore nukes then the US would be waving the flag over what remained of Moscow within 3 months, the Russian military is actually quite poor in the air and at sea. China again would have no real hope at air and sea but the sheer number of tanks and troops ect.. would be sufficient to prevent any occupation.
Original post by Rakas21
If you ignore nukes then the US would be waving the flag over what remained of Moscow within 3 months, the Russian military is actually quite poor in the air and at sea. China again would have no real hope at air and sea but the sheer number of tanks and troops ect.. would be sufficient to prevent any occupation.
What are you talking about? China is already occupied, by the CCP.
Original post by felamaslen
I didn't say political party, I said political opposition. By the 70s, many people had become very opposed to the war, and hence the US pulled all the troops out before it was won and left Vietnam to the Viet Cong and their allies.
The reason the US doesn't invade countries like China and Russia is because it would be a great expense and would not be in its own interests. But if the situation arose, the US would certainly win a war against those two countries today. It would be massive and bloody though, like the second world war - a real war between great powers.
The reason the US doesn't invade countries like China and Russia is because it would be a great expense and would not be in its own interests. But if the situation arose, the US would certainly win a war against those two countries today. It would be massive and bloody though, like the second world war - a real war between great powers.
The reason America pulled out of Vietnam was because they were incapable of winning. The Viet-Cong were too powerful, too smart and were winning. Public opposition was just a minor factor.
Oh, and by the way, it is in the US authorities interests to invade both China and Russia. Why do you think they are so keen on playing this geopolitical chess gams of encircling Russia? America has been toppling Governments worldwide to encircle these countries. Syria and Ukraine are the most modern examples. America cannot win direct wars, all they are good at are proxy wars in the middle east. I do not see why people are so confident in America, it has an advanced military, but it doesn't have the will, the funds or the consolidation to carry out a war. The US would lose against even China alone, America doesn't have the regional, economic or social power to invade these countries. China could send America into a free-for-all just by cutting off the trade and demanding their cash. All in all, even if the US authorities wanted too, they couldn't invade them in a direct consultation. Even indirectly is proving hard enough.
Original post by Kibox
The reason America pulled out of Vietnam was because they were incapable of winning. The Viet-Cong were too powerful, too smart and were winning. Public opposition was just a minor factor.
Oh, and by the way, it is in the US authorities interests to invade both China and Russia. Why do you think they are so keen on playing this geopolitical chess gams of encircling Russia? America has been toppling Governments worldwide to encircle these countries. Syria and Ukraine are the most modern examples. America cannot win direct wars, all they are good at are proxy wars in the middle east. I do not see why people are so confident in America, it has an advanced military, but it doesn't have the will, the funds or the consolidation to carry out a war. The US would lose against even China alone, America doesn't have the regional, economic or social power to invade these countries. China could send America into a free-for-all just by cutting off the trade and demanding their cash. All in all, even if the US authorities wanted too, they couldn't invade them in a direct consultation. Even indirectly is proving hard enough.
Oh, and by the way, it is in the US authorities interests to invade both China and Russia. Why do you think they are so keen on playing this geopolitical chess gams of encircling Russia? America has been toppling Governments worldwide to encircle these countries. Syria and Ukraine are the most modern examples. America cannot win direct wars, all they are good at are proxy wars in the middle east. I do not see why people are so confident in America, it has an advanced military, but it doesn't have the will, the funds or the consolidation to carry out a war. The US would lose against even China alone, America doesn't have the regional, economic or social power to invade these countries. China could send America into a free-for-all just by cutting off the trade and demanding their cash. All in all, even if the US authorities wanted too, they couldn't invade them in a direct consultation. Even indirectly is proving hard enough.
I never said they had the political will to do it. All I said is that they have the military capability if they so choose.
Original post by skunkboy
Really? US didn't have much trouble with Vietcong during Vietnam War? Why US didn't win the War?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
The US won all of the pitched battles of the war. Look at the casualty difference in the Tet offensive, over 40,000 VC/NVA killed in action compared with 2000 American dead.
It's a real shame no one really replied to your valid points here, many people are ignorant and will only consider conventional warfare... failing to see the bigger picture.
The US economy has been in very bad shape recently, hence you are seeing all these "uprisings" all of a sudden since 2009... they fund terrorists very well to topple governments and implement regime change.
The US knows that the days of the Petro-dollar are coming to an end, but do you honestly think they will just sit back and let geopolitical power shift dramatically to the East? I am certain that the neo-conservatives over in Washington would go thermonuclear if they have to, lol.
Take Libya as a recent example, Gaddafi wanted to settle trade only in the 'gold dinar' along with the rest of Africa (who were very keen on this)... this would have shifted geopolitical power dramatically to the likes Africa and destroyed the Western financial system (also consider that Libya's gold reserves were over 100 tonnnes!). Of course after 42 years Libyan people apparently conveniently required "democracy" courtesy of NATO... so democracy they have today as you can see, their gold is no more. And their oil & water... will be privatised aka looted by the West
Very significant deals... but what makes them so significant exactly? They're by-passing the US dollar! I've heard that Russia is even selling oil to Iran, haha. And the BRICS are even setting up their own electronic payments system to rival SWIFT, as well as strongly considering a "BRICS bank" which would rival the IMF.
I've been seeing this more and more.. It's good to see that people are waking up though to the corruption and propaganda in their media. But I wouldn't say a majority of these people are ready to get off their couch and revolt just yet... the police are definitely getting ready for a police state though, love their new flashy armoured vehicles.
I believe you are being highly optimistic here, the government would find a scapegoat of some sort... whether that be the blame goes on Russia/China or some Islamist terrorists. In history, fascism thrives in these conditions too. They will get the people highly patriotic and set out the path for global warfare, we humans just never learn.
True, China and Russia could totally destroy the US economy overnight... they don't even need to dump dollars on the market. Russia for instance could just ask for oil payments in gold and the dollar would instantly become toilet paper.
This however would be highly disruptive and would also cause major issues in China for instance; they also have a very big debt problem/bubble, the Communist party are very worried about future social unrest in the country.
I think many nations know that the US will self-destruct at some point and will just wait and avoid pulling the trigger... however the US is not just going to let itself implode, it will continue to destabilise the Middle East and attempt to expand & implement military bases near the likes of Russia... as we have seen over in Ukraine, where their country is now destabilised (with democracy?), thank goodness Putin took Crimea back peacefully.
Not to mention the Federal Reserve bank is being very aggressive with it's monetary policies.
So the US is being extremely aggressive and things could get really ugly (globally) sooner than we may like to think.
Original post by Kibox
The thing I think you have failed to consider is that Russia and China are both superior economically and socially. The US is some 15 trillion dollars in debt, Russia is some 200 billion dollars in debt and China is almost 2 trillion dollars in debt. The US owes these BRICS vast amounts of wealth and the US Petrodollar standard is greatly failing. The US economy is beyond repair and soon enough it will entirely collapse, it is just a matter of when.
The US economy has been in very bad shape recently, hence you are seeing all these "uprisings" all of a sudden since 2009... they fund terrorists very well to topple governments and implement regime change.
The US knows that the days of the Petro-dollar are coming to an end, but do you honestly think they will just sit back and let geopolitical power shift dramatically to the East? I am certain that the neo-conservatives over in Washington would go thermonuclear if they have to, lol.
Take Libya as a recent example, Gaddafi wanted to settle trade only in the 'gold dinar' along with the rest of Africa (who were very keen on this)... this would have shifted geopolitical power dramatically to the likes Africa and destroyed the Western financial system (also consider that Libya's gold reserves were over 100 tonnnes!). Of course after 42 years Libyan people apparently conveniently required "democracy" courtesy of NATO... so democracy they have today as you can see, their gold is no more. And their oil & water... will be privatised aka looted by the West
Original post by Kibox
An example of this is the 400 billion gas trade recently announced. Even if the US military is advanced, it is useless when the authorities lack the means of funding it and they have a populace that dislikes it.
Very significant deals... but what makes them so significant exactly? They're by-passing the US dollar! I've heard that Russia is even selling oil to Iran, haha. And the BRICS are even setting up their own electronic payments system to rival SWIFT, as well as strongly considering a "BRICS bank" which would rival the IMF.
Original post by Kibox
On the other hand, half of America is starving and the best part of the population despises the rulers (dictators better describes it) in office. The population is agitated and more and more people are awakening from this corporate conditioning which has been in practice for so long. People are starting to become disobedient, this is rather contagious and is creating a snowball effect. People are more isolationist and Obama's imperialist actions are heavily criticised. The people are ready to revolt.
I've been seeing this more and more.. It's good to see that people are waking up though to the corruption and propaganda in their media. But I wouldn't say a majority of these people are ready to get off their couch and revolt just yet... the police are definitely getting ready for a police state though, love their new flashy armoured vehicles.
Original post by Kibox
It is just a matter of when the last straw is taken, soon enough, when the economy has collapsed, the people will turn on their Governments and it will go into a full blown civil war with the authorities trying to suppress the people.
I believe you are being highly optimistic here, the government would find a scapegoat of some sort... whether that be the blame goes on Russia/China or some Islamist terrorists. In history, fascism thrives in these conditions too. They will get the people highly patriotic and set out the path for global warfare, we humans just never learn.
Original post by Kibox
Then you say that these BRICS would never stand a chance? We are in Chinas cross hairs, if they wanted too, they can pull the last straw and claim their pot of gold. Which would turn America into a free-for-all. Russia could also cripple the US in a war, they have the funds, technology and the will of the nation. Although, neither of them will both as America is digging its own grave already.
Then you say that these BRICS would never stand a chance? We are in Chinas cross hairs, if they wanted too, they can pull the last straw and claim their pot of gold. Which would turn America into a free-for-all. Russia could also cripple the US in a war, they have the funds, technology and the will of the nation. Although, neither of them will both as America is digging its own grave already.
True, China and Russia could totally destroy the US economy overnight... they don't even need to dump dollars on the market. Russia for instance could just ask for oil payments in gold and the dollar would instantly become toilet paper.
This however would be highly disruptive and would also cause major issues in China for instance; they also have a very big debt problem/bubble, the Communist party are very worried about future social unrest in the country.
I think many nations know that the US will self-destruct at some point and will just wait and avoid pulling the trigger... however the US is not just going to let itself implode, it will continue to destabilise the Middle East and attempt to expand & implement military bases near the likes of Russia... as we have seen over in Ukraine, where their country is now destabilised (with democracy?), thank goodness Putin took Crimea back peacefully.
Not to mention the Federal Reserve bank is being very aggressive with it's monetary policies.
So the US is being extremely aggressive and things could get really ugly (globally) sooner than we may like to think.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel A Level History American Dream Essay
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- History A level Essay help
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- history epq
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- cold war a level predictions
- gcse predictions
- OCR A-Level History Unit 2 (Y201-Y224) - 13th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- How much % does each section cover in Edexcel History GCSE?
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- history 2023 predictions gcse questions
- Edexcel HISTORY Cold war AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE P1 Year 10
- How to revise for history?
- A level cold war history exam 2023 predictions
- 2024 gcse predictions
- Can someone please mark my eight marker ?
- Free IB History help
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
