Are we on the verge of another 'cold war'?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

that is the kind of terror threat Cameron is ushering to our shores with this "game" of his.

Hipster - you're walking home tonight and see a young lady being beaten up in the street by a couple of blokes.

Do you just walk on by because you don't know her and it's none of your business?

What a fantastically irrelevant analogy. Well done.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

What a fantastically irrelevant analogy. Well done.

It's a good analogy.

The Ukraine is the young woman, Russia is the bully boy men. Do we just let them do as they please because it's technically none of our business?

If we're going to go down that road the obvious retort is why do we let the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Zimbabwe and the crisis in Venezuela go without a second thought. 

Why is hague so keen on this "young woman" but not the one 2 meters down the road.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:If we're going to go down that road the obvious retort is why do we let the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Zimbabwe and the crisis in Venezuela go without a second thought. 

Why is hague so keen on this "young woman" but not the one 2 meters down the road.

Exactly, the same was true for Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction so the reason we were there was to save the Iraqi people apparently. Political posturing and trying to be close to America is the real reason we do all these things.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

that is the kind of terror threat Cameron is ushering to our shores with this "game" of his.

Hipster - you're walking home tonight and see a young lady being beaten up in the street by a couple of blokes.

Do you just walk on by because you don't know her and it's none of your business?

Why would they beat her up?

My history teacher, Mr Chandler, always maintained that the Third world War would be between the East and the West. He always felt that the communist countries of China and Russia would eventually flex their muscles and join forces.. China had a growing population and he felt that they had their eye on occupying Australia once the battle for control was over.

He also said that the battle between Christianity and Islam would also intensify and that the lines would again be divided between East and West.

He's probably dead now but he wasn't that far off the mark in the early seventies.

He had been reading Nostradamus RT.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:If we're going to go down that road the obvious retort is why do we let the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Zimbabwe and the crisis in Venezuela go without a second thought. 

Why is hague so keen on this "young woman" but not the one 2 meters down the road.

Exactly, the same was true for Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction so the reason we were there was to save the Iraqi people apparently. Political posturing and trying to be close to America is the real reason we do all these things.

Except this is happening on the European doorstep.

If history has taught us anything then it's... do not ignore a crisis that will directly affect Europe.

Now that Mr Camoron has had a word with him I suspect Putin won't have slept last night!!

Cameron has threatened Putin with a visit from Billy Hague.... that should stop all this nonsense.

Its getting scary this.

I still doubt it will ever become a major (possibly nuclear) conflict, but if china are involved, north Korea will not be too far behind them - im sure China and Korea will see this as a chance to gain power on the world stage at the detriment of the 'capitalist bastards' in the west.

I'm sure (not sure how) that Putin, Obama and Cameron, plus our German and french 'pets' will not even contemplate contemplating the use of even tactical nuclear weapons due to the risk of escalating a conflict beyond imagination. However, China and especially Korea seem hell bent on causing destruction to the western world - I fear these fuckers will be the ones to press the button. We would retaliate against essentially everybody as we would not be able to (quickly) determine were the launch happened so, in sticking with the MAD threat - we would simply launch a retaliatory second-strike against all opposing nuclear armed countries... meaning they would fire back.

Even a conventional war would get messy, im sure we would have to conscript civilians in to the armed forces for a start. Not to mention that our royal navy and air force do not have the resources for a big war right now - we would have to simply leave Afghanistan and Iraq to get on with it while we fought in this war, meaning those countries could also go in to crisis with massive repercussions for all of us.

China won't get involved, exporting to the West is the biggest part of their economy, they wouldn't sacrifice that.

It's surprising how quickly these situations can escalate. The only saving grace is that the Yanks hold the upper hand when it comes to sophisticated advanced technology designed for mass destruction. The Star Wars programme initiated by Ronald Reagan was sanctioned for a reason.

You can bet your bottom dollar they will be eavesdropping on all the major players including their allies.

Nobody wants another Hiroshima or Nagasaki but it may yet come down to such an event to send out a message to the rest of the rabble rousers. I think North Korea will be firmly in their sights because the current leader is not someone that they can do business with.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Its getting scary this.

I still doubt it will ever become a major (possibly nuclear) conflict, but if china are involved, north Korea will not be too far behind them - im sure China and Korea will see this as a chance to gain power on the world stage at the detriment of the 'capitalist bastards' in the west.

I'm sure (not sure how) that Putin, Obama and Cameron, plus our German and french 'pets' will not even contemplate contemplating the use of even tactical nuclear weapons due to the risk of escalating a conflict beyond imagination. However, China and especially Korea seem hell bent on causing destruction to the western world - I fear these fuckers will be the ones to press the button. We would retaliate against essentially everybody as we would not be able to (quickly) determine were the launch happened so, in sticking with the MAD threat - we would simply launch a retaliatory second-strike against all opposing nuclear armed countries... meaning they would fire back.

Even a conventional war would get messy, im sure we would have to conscript civilians in to the armed forces for a start. Not to mention that our royal navy and air force do not have the resources for a big war right now - we would have to simply leave Afghanistan and Iraq to get on with it while we fought in this war, meaning those countries could also go in to crisis with massive repercussions for all of us.

You really are a positive young chap aren't you?

This won't turn into a war, no fucker can afford it. The West will mouth off a bit but none of us have the stomach for a fight with Russia so eventually we'll just let them get on with it.

What possible interest would China or any other other eastern powerhouse have for nuking or even attacking the west or western interests. 

And why on earth would the west nuke anyone? completely fanciful. 

Obviously all these nations would be bound to retaliate to something but I'm at a loss as to why any nation would seek to nuke another.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:What possible interest would China or any other other eastern powerhouse have for nuking or even attacking the west or western interests. 

Exactly, I suspect a huge percentage of their manufacturing industry exports to Europe and America - why would they get involved over something that is nothing to do with them.

I just wish Hague and Cameron would shut the fuck up though, they do no one any favours by spouting their bullshit. Perhaps they should spend money on sorting out the A&E problems rather than more billions on a pointless war.

On the 10oclock news last night Hague was in Ukraine saying that Russia must face consequences for their actions. It them showed a document that a photographer had managed to snap on it's way into Downing Street saying UK won't introduce trade sanctions on Russia or stop trading with Russian businesses - so essentially Hague was just talking complete nonsense.

that kind of statement is reckless, though obviously he means "non military consequences" that kind of message won't be heard on the "front line" in Ukraine. 

rebels in the country will hear that as tacit military support and could escalate violence. 

I'm still at a loss as to why this country is taking the lead, and chairing the meetings on this situation. Where is the EU powerhouses Germany and France? Silent, where is Italy? We are, and have been for a while a US puppet state in the EU and see ourselves as such. Another Israel.

Hague and Cameron are taking this opportunity to cosy up to America after we failed to back them over Syria. A high ranking US official (possibly Kerry) commented after that the UK could no longer be regarded as a key ally to America because of out defence cuts weakened military, Cameron obviously didn't like that. Say what you want about Miliband but I don't think he'd be following the same course here.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:What possible interest would China or any other other eastern powerhouse have for nuking or even attacking the west or western interests. 

And why on earth would the west nuke anyone? completely fanciful. 

Obviously all these nations would be bound to retaliate to something but I'm at a loss as to why any nation would seek to nuke another.

Its not that simple Hipster. I know you like to contradict what everyone is saying with some pretty ambiguous general one-line statement, however - its really not that simple.

There are 2 types of Nuclear Weapons - Tactical and Strategic.

Tactical Weapons are used to counter threats from military invasion - small yields of less than a few kilotons - about 'Hiroshima' strength - destroy around a 3 to 5 mile area. These are liable to be used when a nation 'panics' under pressure - the Russians do not like to lose, they are a proud nation, if they are backed in to a corner for (for example) NATO forces - a small nuclear weapon could be used in a moment of panic killing hundreds if not thousands of troops on the ground.

Once one bomb has exploded - the seal is broken so to speak, NATO would likely retaliate with another tactical warhead destroying the base that launched the first one.

This can have 2 outcomes - we go 'fair enough, that was stupid' or we (or them) commence a strategic attack using ballistic missiles on major centers of military and strategic significance - the main aim will be to take away the 'threat' of retaliation from the other party - known as a 'preemptive strike.' Naturally, all nuclear states have a pretty viable 'second strike' capacity - meaning should the country be destroyed, we can still retaliate (the UK and the US have Submarine launched ballistic missiles that cannot be located accurately and thus destroyed easily by the enemy)

The purpose of holding Nuclear weapons is to enforce a doctrine known as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) essentially, they fire on us - we fire back.

All it takes is an angry man with power, to feel threatened beyond the usual levels and not wanting to surrender.

Hence why its worrying.


A bit.