超级军网西方军队开始转型，从对付MSL游击力量开始转向准备打全 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 08:50:59
http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponde ... -war-113159434.html
路透社：乌克兰危机和香格里拉会议后，西方军队开始转型，从对付MSL游击力量开始转向准备打全面战争，准备和俄罗斯、中国之类的大国开战。
West ponders how to stop - or fight - a new Great War
Reuters
By By Peter Apps 23 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After more than a decade focused on combating Islamist militancy, Western military planners are once again contemplating potential war between major powers - and how to prevent one happening by accident.
Although the Cold War rivalry with Moscow has never been forgotten, current and former Western officials say Russia's annexation of Crimea has NATO powers tearing up strategic assumptions and grimly considering both conventional and nuclear fights.
As late as March, most NATO powers - with the exception of eastern members such as the Baltic States long worried by Moscow - had assumed Europe itself faced no imminent military threat.
It is still the case that few believe Russia would attack any NATO state, but, in order to deter, Western officials say they must consider and plan for the contingency.
The threat to U.S. allies in the Pacific from a stronger China has also focused military minds on how to contain the risks there, and ensure any localized conflict does not spill over into global war.
In a major foreign policy speech at the West Point military academy last month, President Barack Obama spoke mostly on counterterrorism and the Afghanistan withdrawal. But while he said the risk from other nations was now much lower than before the Berlin Wall fell, he made clear it still existed.
"Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military," he told graduating cadets.
Tensions with Moscow and Beijing have increased faster than almost anyone in government in Washington expected. They are expected to dominate a meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Normandy for the 70th anniversary of D-Day later this week.
Last weekend's annual Shangri-La Dialogue strategic conference in Singapore, meanwhile, showcased the growing gulf between Washington and Beijing on issues from regional maritime disputes to cyber security.
In recent weeks, current and former officials say, the Obama administration has been insistently reassuring allies and signaling foes where Washington's true red lines are.
Washington might not be prepared to act militarily in Ukraine but an attack on a NATO state such as one of the Baltics or a formal Asian ally like Japan, the Philippines or Australia would commit it irrevocably to war. Those treaty obligations are not new, but U.S. officials say it is important to make clear that they are taken extremely seriously.
They hope that will reduce the risk of an accidental war where a state takes action wrongly assuming other powers will not respond.
"It's not that the leadership in Russia or China is looking for a war - and the United States certainly isn't," says Kathleen Hicks, a U.S. undersecretary for defense until last July who now works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
View gallery
The Cold War
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with U.S. President John F. Kennedy at the U.S. Embassy during their …
"The real worry is miscalculation."
GREAT WAR
One hundred years after the start of World War One, books on the period have become increasingly popular in Washington, Whitehall and NATO headquarters in Brussels, current and former officials say, and not purely for their historical interest.
In June 1914, the killing of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist triggered actions and alliances that brought war in barely a month.
Now, experts say flashpoints could range from a clash over disputed South China Sea islands or ethnic strife in Russia's former Soviet neighbors to a wrongly attributed cyber attack.
Even as Washington reassures allies, Moscow and Beijing have asserted their might against Ukraine and Vietnam which lack such formal alliances. The risk, experts say, is that they become overconfident and misjudge.
"The parallels with 1914 can definitely be overstated," said Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College.
"But they do show us that war can start through unintended consequences and an economically interdependent world does not necessarily stop it from happening."
As in 1914, no one really knows what a modern great war would be like.
While much military thinking assumes conflict would remain conventional, nuclear powers have kept their atomic war planning up to date, maintaining target lists for mutually assured destruction, current and former officials say.
Cyber attacks, some experts say, could be almost as destructive, as could the effects on global trade in an unprecedentedly interconnected world.
Meanwhile, some of the systems supposed to prevent conflict may be starting to weaken.
WEAKENED LINKS
U.S. officials had embarked on a campaign to build formal and informal communications channels with Beijing, mimicking the hotlines and procedures set up with Russia.
Moscow and Washington have used those systems themselves in recent months to notify each other of missile tests and reconnaissance flights over each other's territory.
Links with Russia, however, have weakened this year as NATO states canceled conferences and military exchanges with Moscow in protest at the annexation of Crimea.
Contacts with China have also deteriorated in the last month, particularly since Washington indicted five Chinese officials for cyber espionage, a charge Beijing denies.
A near collision between U.S. and Chinese warships in January, a mock Russian attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea in April and periodic confrontations between long-range bombers and other aircraft show the risks, experts warn.
Last week on Japan and China accused each other of "dangerous" and "over the top" actions after warplanes came within a few dozen meters.
Any additional challenge to the West, some analysts say, is that both Russia and China know Washington would struggle to handle simultaneous confrontations.
U.S. forces are spread around the world while Moscow's and Beijing's, while smaller, are almost exclusively focused on their immediate neighborhood. Since 2008, they have increased military spending 30 and 40 percent respectively, according to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The 2012 Asia "pivot", which saw the U.S. Navy in particular moving to increase its Pacific footprint, aimed to make crisis response easier.
In Europe, in contrast, NATO has little developed thinking beyond its post-Crimea strategy of putting small numbers of U.S. troops and jets on the frontline in eastern member states they fear Moscow might target next.
Until Ukraine, European states had viewed their primary military focus as occasional intervention, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency in the Middle East and Africa.
"We are in uncharted territory," said one senior Western official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It means ... reconstituting high end fighting skills and properly thought through doctrine for both conventional and nuclear deterrence."
(Editing by Robin Pomeroy)http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponde ... -war-113159434.html
路透社：乌克兰危机和香格里拉会议后，西方军队开始转型，从对付MSL游击力量开始转向准备打全面战争，准备和俄罗斯、中国之类的大国开战。
West ponders how to stop - or fight - a new Great War
Reuters
By By Peter Apps 23 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After more than a decade focused on combating Islamist militancy, Western military planners are once again contemplating potential war between major powers - and how to prevent one happening by accident.
Although the Cold War rivalry with Moscow has never been forgotten, current and former Western officials say Russia's annexation of Crimea has NATO powers tearing up strategic assumptions and grimly considering both conventional and nuclear fights.
As late as March, most NATO powers - with the exception of eastern members such as the Baltic States long worried by Moscow - had assumed Europe itself faced no imminent military threat.
It is still the case that few believe Russia would attack any NATO state, but, in order to deter, Western officials say they must consider and plan for the contingency.
The threat to U.S. allies in the Pacific from a stronger China has also focused military minds on how to contain the risks there, and ensure any localized conflict does not spill over into global war.
In a major foreign policy speech at the West Point military academy last month, President Barack Obama spoke mostly on counterterrorism and the Afghanistan withdrawal. But while he said the risk from other nations was now much lower than before the Berlin Wall fell, he made clear it still existed.
"Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military," he told graduating cadets.
Tensions with Moscow and Beijing have increased faster than almost anyone in government in Washington expected. They are expected to dominate a meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Normandy for the 70th anniversary of D-Day later this week.
Last weekend's annual Shangri-La Dialogue strategic conference in Singapore, meanwhile, showcased the growing gulf between Washington and Beijing on issues from regional maritime disputes to cyber security.
In recent weeks, current and former officials say, the Obama administration has been insistently reassuring allies and signaling foes where Washington's true red lines are.
Washington might not be prepared to act militarily in Ukraine but an attack on a NATO state such as one of the Baltics or a formal Asian ally like Japan, the Philippines or Australia would commit it irrevocably to war. Those treaty obligations are not new, but U.S. officials say it is important to make clear that they are taken extremely seriously.
They hope that will reduce the risk of an accidental war where a state takes action wrongly assuming other powers will not respond.
"It's not that the leadership in Russia or China is looking for a war - and the United States certainly isn't," says Kathleen Hicks, a U.S. undersecretary for defense until last July who now works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
View gallery
The Cold War
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with U.S. President John F. Kennedy at the U.S. Embassy during their …
"The real worry is miscalculation."
GREAT WAR
One hundred years after the start of World War One, books on the period have become increasingly popular in Washington, Whitehall and NATO headquarters in Brussels, current and former officials say, and not purely for their historical interest.
In June 1914, the killing of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist triggered actions and alliances that brought war in barely a month.
Now, experts say flashpoints could range from a clash over disputed South China Sea islands or ethnic strife in Russia's former Soviet neighbors to a wrongly attributed cyber attack.
Even as Washington reassures allies, Moscow and Beijing have asserted their might against Ukraine and Vietnam which lack such formal alliances. The risk, experts say, is that they become overconfident and misjudge.
"The parallels with 1914 can definitely be overstated," said Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College.
"But they do show us that war can start through unintended consequences and an economically interdependent world does not necessarily stop it from happening."
As in 1914, no one really knows what a modern great war would be like.
While much military thinking assumes conflict would remain conventional, nuclear powers have kept their atomic war planning up to date, maintaining target lists for mutually assured destruction, current and former officials say.
Cyber attacks, some experts say, could be almost as destructive, as could the effects on global trade in an unprecedentedly interconnected world.
Meanwhile, some of the systems supposed to prevent conflict may be starting to weaken.
WEAKENED LINKS
U.S. officials had embarked on a campaign to build formal and informal communications channels with Beijing, mimicking the hotlines and procedures set up with Russia.
Moscow and Washington have used those systems themselves in recent months to notify each other of missile tests and reconnaissance flights over each other's territory.
Links with Russia, however, have weakened this year as NATO states canceled conferences and military exchanges with Moscow in protest at the annexation of Crimea.
Contacts with China have also deteriorated in the last month, particularly since Washington indicted five Chinese officials for cyber espionage, a charge Beijing denies.
A near collision between U.S. and Chinese warships in January, a mock Russian attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea in April and periodic confrontations between long-range bombers and other aircraft show the risks, experts warn.
Last week on Japan and China accused each other of "dangerous" and "over the top" actions after warplanes came within a few dozen meters.
Any additional challenge to the West, some analysts say, is that both Russia and China know Washington would struggle to handle simultaneous confrontations.
U.S. forces are spread around the world while Moscow's and Beijing's, while smaller, are almost exclusively focused on their immediate neighborhood. Since 2008, they have increased military spending 30 and 40 percent respectively, according to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The 2012 Asia "pivot", which saw the U.S. Navy in particular moving to increase its Pacific footprint, aimed to make crisis response easier.
In Europe, in contrast, NATO has little developed thinking beyond its post-Crimea strategy of putting small numbers of U.S. troops and jets on the frontline in eastern member states they fear Moscow might target next.
Until Ukraine, European states had viewed their primary military focus as occasional intervention, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency in the Middle East and Africa.
"We are in uncharted territory," said one senior Western official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It means ... reconstituting high end fighting skills and properly thought through doctrine for both conventional and nuclear deterrence."
(Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
路透社：乌克兰危机和香格里拉会议后，西方军队开始转型，从对付MSL游击力量开始转向准备打全面战争，准备和俄罗斯、中国之类的大国开战。
West ponders how to stop - or fight - a new Great War
Reuters
By By Peter Apps 23 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After more than a decade focused on combating Islamist militancy, Western military planners are once again contemplating potential war between major powers - and how to prevent one happening by accident.
Although the Cold War rivalry with Moscow has never been forgotten, current and former Western officials say Russia's annexation of Crimea has NATO powers tearing up strategic assumptions and grimly considering both conventional and nuclear fights.
As late as March, most NATO powers - with the exception of eastern members such as the Baltic States long worried by Moscow - had assumed Europe itself faced no imminent military threat.
It is still the case that few believe Russia would attack any NATO state, but, in order to deter, Western officials say they must consider and plan for the contingency.
The threat to U.S. allies in the Pacific from a stronger China has also focused military minds on how to contain the risks there, and ensure any localized conflict does not spill over into global war.
In a major foreign policy speech at the West Point military academy last month, President Barack Obama spoke mostly on counterterrorism and the Afghanistan withdrawal. But while he said the risk from other nations was now much lower than before the Berlin Wall fell, he made clear it still existed.
"Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military," he told graduating cadets.
Tensions with Moscow and Beijing have increased faster than almost anyone in government in Washington expected. They are expected to dominate a meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Normandy for the 70th anniversary of D-Day later this week.
Last weekend's annual Shangri-La Dialogue strategic conference in Singapore, meanwhile, showcased the growing gulf between Washington and Beijing on issues from regional maritime disputes to cyber security.
In recent weeks, current and former officials say, the Obama administration has been insistently reassuring allies and signaling foes where Washington's true red lines are.
Washington might not be prepared to act militarily in Ukraine but an attack on a NATO state such as one of the Baltics or a formal Asian ally like Japan, the Philippines or Australia would commit it irrevocably to war. Those treaty obligations are not new, but U.S. officials say it is important to make clear that they are taken extremely seriously.
They hope that will reduce the risk of an accidental war where a state takes action wrongly assuming other powers will not respond.
"It's not that the leadership in Russia or China is looking for a war - and the United States certainly isn't," says Kathleen Hicks, a U.S. undersecretary for defense until last July who now works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
View gallery
The Cold War
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with U.S. President John F. Kennedy at the U.S. Embassy during their …
"The real worry is miscalculation."
GREAT WAR
One hundred years after the start of World War One, books on the period have become increasingly popular in Washington, Whitehall and NATO headquarters in Brussels, current and former officials say, and not purely for their historical interest.
In June 1914, the killing of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist triggered actions and alliances that brought war in barely a month.
Now, experts say flashpoints could range from a clash over disputed South China Sea islands or ethnic strife in Russia's former Soviet neighbors to a wrongly attributed cyber attack.
Even as Washington reassures allies, Moscow and Beijing have asserted their might against Ukraine and Vietnam which lack such formal alliances. The risk, experts say, is that they become overconfident and misjudge.
"The parallels with 1914 can definitely be overstated," said Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College.
"But they do show us that war can start through unintended consequences and an economically interdependent world does not necessarily stop it from happening."
As in 1914, no one really knows what a modern great war would be like.
While much military thinking assumes conflict would remain conventional, nuclear powers have kept their atomic war planning up to date, maintaining target lists for mutually assured destruction, current and former officials say.
Cyber attacks, some experts say, could be almost as destructive, as could the effects on global trade in an unprecedentedly interconnected world.
Meanwhile, some of the systems supposed to prevent conflict may be starting to weaken.
WEAKENED LINKS
U.S. officials had embarked on a campaign to build formal and informal communications channels with Beijing, mimicking the hotlines and procedures set up with Russia.
Moscow and Washington have used those systems themselves in recent months to notify each other of missile tests and reconnaissance flights over each other's territory.
Links with Russia, however, have weakened this year as NATO states canceled conferences and military exchanges with Moscow in protest at the annexation of Crimea.
Contacts with China have also deteriorated in the last month, particularly since Washington indicted five Chinese officials for cyber espionage, a charge Beijing denies.
A near collision between U.S. and Chinese warships in January, a mock Russian attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea in April and periodic confrontations between long-range bombers and other aircraft show the risks, experts warn.
Last week on Japan and China accused each other of "dangerous" and "over the top" actions after warplanes came within a few dozen meters.
Any additional challenge to the West, some analysts say, is that both Russia and China know Washington would struggle to handle simultaneous confrontations.
U.S. forces are spread around the world while Moscow's and Beijing's, while smaller, are almost exclusively focused on their immediate neighborhood. Since 2008, they have increased military spending 30 and 40 percent respectively, according to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The 2012 Asia "pivot", which saw the U.S. Navy in particular moving to increase its Pacific footprint, aimed to make crisis response easier.
In Europe, in contrast, NATO has little developed thinking beyond its post-Crimea strategy of putting small numbers of U.S. troops and jets on the frontline in eastern member states they fear Moscow might target next.
Until Ukraine, European states had viewed their primary military focus as occasional intervention, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency in the Middle East and Africa.
"We are in uncharted territory," said one senior Western official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It means ... reconstituting high end fighting skills and properly thought through doctrine for both conventional and nuclear deterrence."
(Editing by Robin Pomeroy)http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponde ... -war-113159434.html
路透社：乌克兰危机和香格里拉会议后，西方军队开始转型，从对付MSL游击力量开始转向准备打全面战争，准备和俄罗斯、中国之类的大国开战。
West ponders how to stop - or fight - a new Great War
Reuters
By By Peter Apps 23 hours ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After more than a decade focused on combating Islamist militancy, Western military planners are once again contemplating potential war between major powers - and how to prevent one happening by accident.
Although the Cold War rivalry with Moscow has never been forgotten, current and former Western officials say Russia's annexation of Crimea has NATO powers tearing up strategic assumptions and grimly considering both conventional and nuclear fights.
As late as March, most NATO powers - with the exception of eastern members such as the Baltic States long worried by Moscow - had assumed Europe itself faced no imminent military threat.
It is still the case that few believe Russia would attack any NATO state, but, in order to deter, Western officials say they must consider and plan for the contingency.
The threat to U.S. allies in the Pacific from a stronger China has also focused military minds on how to contain the risks there, and ensure any localized conflict does not spill over into global war.
In a major foreign policy speech at the West Point military academy last month, President Barack Obama spoke mostly on counterterrorism and the Afghanistan withdrawal. But while he said the risk from other nations was now much lower than before the Berlin Wall fell, he made clear it still existed.
"Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military," he told graduating cadets.
Tensions with Moscow and Beijing have increased faster than almost anyone in government in Washington expected. They are expected to dominate a meeting between Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Normandy for the 70th anniversary of D-Day later this week.
Last weekend's annual Shangri-La Dialogue strategic conference in Singapore, meanwhile, showcased the growing gulf between Washington and Beijing on issues from regional maritime disputes to cyber security.
In recent weeks, current and former officials say, the Obama administration has been insistently reassuring allies and signaling foes where Washington's true red lines are.
Washington might not be prepared to act militarily in Ukraine but an attack on a NATO state such as one of the Baltics or a formal Asian ally like Japan, the Philippines or Australia would commit it irrevocably to war. Those treaty obligations are not new, but U.S. officials say it is important to make clear that they are taken extremely seriously.
They hope that will reduce the risk of an accidental war where a state takes action wrongly assuming other powers will not respond.
"It's not that the leadership in Russia or China is looking for a war - and the United States certainly isn't," says Kathleen Hicks, a U.S. undersecretary for defense until last July who now works for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
View gallery
The Cold War
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev with U.S. President John F. Kennedy at the U.S. Embassy during their …
"The real worry is miscalculation."
GREAT WAR
One hundred years after the start of World War One, books on the period have become increasingly popular in Washington, Whitehall and NATO headquarters in Brussels, current and former officials say, and not purely for their historical interest.
In June 1914, the killing of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist triggered actions and alliances that brought war in barely a month.
Now, experts say flashpoints could range from a clash over disputed South China Sea islands or ethnic strife in Russia's former Soviet neighbors to a wrongly attributed cyber attack.
Even as Washington reassures allies, Moscow and Beijing have asserted their might against Ukraine and Vietnam which lack such formal alliances. The risk, experts say, is that they become overconfident and misjudge.
"The parallels with 1914 can definitely be overstated," said Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College.
"But they do show us that war can start through unintended consequences and an economically interdependent world does not necessarily stop it from happening."
As in 1914, no one really knows what a modern great war would be like.
While much military thinking assumes conflict would remain conventional, nuclear powers have kept their atomic war planning up to date, maintaining target lists for mutually assured destruction, current and former officials say.
Cyber attacks, some experts say, could be almost as destructive, as could the effects on global trade in an unprecedentedly interconnected world.
Meanwhile, some of the systems supposed to prevent conflict may be starting to weaken.
WEAKENED LINKS
U.S. officials had embarked on a campaign to build formal and informal communications channels with Beijing, mimicking the hotlines and procedures set up with Russia.
Moscow and Washington have used those systems themselves in recent months to notify each other of missile tests and reconnaissance flights over each other's territory.
Links with Russia, however, have weakened this year as NATO states canceled conferences and military exchanges with Moscow in protest at the annexation of Crimea.
Contacts with China have also deteriorated in the last month, particularly since Washington indicted five Chinese officials for cyber espionage, a charge Beijing denies.
A near collision between U.S. and Chinese warships in January, a mock Russian attack on a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea in April and periodic confrontations between long-range bombers and other aircraft show the risks, experts warn.
Last week on Japan and China accused each other of "dangerous" and "over the top" actions after warplanes came within a few dozen meters.
Any additional challenge to the West, some analysts say, is that both Russia and China know Washington would struggle to handle simultaneous confrontations.
U.S. forces are spread around the world while Moscow's and Beijing's, while smaller, are almost exclusively focused on their immediate neighborhood. Since 2008, they have increased military spending 30 and 40 percent respectively, according to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
The 2012 Asia "pivot", which saw the U.S. Navy in particular moving to increase its Pacific footprint, aimed to make crisis response easier.
In Europe, in contrast, NATO has little developed thinking beyond its post-Crimea strategy of putting small numbers of U.S. troops and jets on the frontline in eastern member states they fear Moscow might target next.
Until Ukraine, European states had viewed their primary military focus as occasional intervention, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency in the Middle East and Africa.
"We are in uncharted territory," said one senior Western official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It means ... reconstituting high end fighting skills and properly thought through doctrine for both conventional and nuclear deterrence."
(Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
评论：
TZM_TVP_RBE 1 hour ago
0
13
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." -- Hermann Göring
Once the people realize that it is only leaders that want war and decide to no longer follow others, than there will be no more war.
More
Expand Replies (4) Reply
[Oscar Meyer]
Oscar Meyer 1 minute ago
0
0
It is ironic that the people of the US embrace growing government intrusion and diminishing freedom. Government of all types are recognized and understood to be potential threats internally and externally, both to its own citizens and to other countries. Less government- a good thing.
More
[ST]
ST 19 minutes ago
0
0
It took long enough for someone to write this article... I was expecting an article on this subject to pop up just any time. Reflecting on this, it really reinforces what I already had known.
If you look at the back story players of any conflict there is always defense contractors that are the real winners with opposing ideologies. From an economic gains perspective really both sides are coming out winners with the workforce being employed to produce the machines of destruction. That is as long as they don't use them against each other.
What amazes me is how so many global politicians play into this and use the threat of force as a tool to get what they want. What is also proven is this method has worked time and time again thorough history.
This move by military planners was almost a foregone conclusion too. They want and even need conflict in the world to justify their existence. My money is absolutely on the defense budget becoming an area of heated discussion during the next presidential election campaign agendas.
I can just see the days of Reagan defense spending right around the corner. I'm not saying this is bad if the efforts are just on making equipment and not actually using it against each other. Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself. Even if not today, at some point in the not so far future another major conflict is highly probable. The odds are just stacked against humanity. Don't take my word for it just look at human history over the last millennia.
More
Expand Replies (1) Reply
[Brian]
Brian 43 minutes ago
0
4
War or Peace? If you ask your average citizen of most countries, I'll bet the answer is Peace. I'm tired of hearing about terrorism, unseen wars, hostages and torture. We are spending billions of dollars researching the galaxy, oceans, glaciers and history for what? A hope to extend human life so we can see who wins the war?
The big question is "What can we do?" We can bring our troops home. The positives: No more tortured prisoners. Less lives lost. Less money spent on offense which can be put toward a more local defense. Happier citizens. The negatives: We let them sort it out themselves. We had our civil wars. Let them have theirs. We are so deep into this war that letting them sort it out sounds inhumane. Let's face it, humanity left the building a long time ago.
I don't have all the answers, but you have to start somewhere. Finding new ways to destroy ourselves hasn't been working so far. A different approach is needed.
More
Reply
[Clark]
Clark 16 minutes ago
0
0
Russia's economy has been weak for a long time, and their tech lags behind ours. War would be very difficult for them to maintain. China would be in even bigger trouble, as their economy is so entrenched in the US, a war would break them very quickly. Not to mention they'd lose their naval assets within a week, and be landlocked in China, and not a threat to the US. What each nation is a threat to is US allies close to their borders. War with China would also pave the way for a North Korean attack on South Korea. If hostilities broke out, the world would burn.
More
Reply
[Jason]
Jason 7 minutes ago
0
0
The US government and largely it's people have been like a child running through a forest, tripping over everything. It's quite pathetic and I'm sure putin is getting a laugh. A few foreigners spend 100 dollars on a bomb and the US dumps billions on how to prevent that from happening again, ignoring their poor and dumping the value of their money. The real casualties are everyone in a project slum and everyone stuck in a #$%$ trailer park. Pit them against eachother and wave a magic 2000 year old middle eastern religion around (just pick one, it doesn't matter) and the government can literally oppress them as much as it wants for the sake of lining their pockets..
Are we really better than the russians? No. They're more efficient.
More
Reply
[Tweeze]
Tweeze 15 minutes ago
0
0
This is a garbage article in the sense that they try to give the appearance that our war-mongers have been focusing on Islamic extremists and terrorists without a second thought to Russia, China, or (give me a break) North Korea. They ran their 'scenarios' well over a decade ago and determined that we needed a back door to China. Thus we find an excuse to invade Afghanistan and start chopping at Iraq (more or less done), Iran (working on it - but they've done a great PR job conveying 'we really don't want war'), and North Korea (we are still technically at war). Time will tell, I guess. But don't think for one second that the paranoids have let their guard down. It is their default mode. It is what they live for.
More
Reply
[Dutch]
Dutch 17 minutes ago
0
0
Of course the risk of war with either China or Russia still exists as long as there is a nation which sees war as the only solution to a problem, a nation which has pet 95% of its existence being at war, namely the U.S.
The problem in the Ukraine was NOT caused by Russia, but clearly by the West. stupid, stupid, stupid as it will absolutely drive China and Russia together plus the dumping of the dollar. How about this one for how we try to get along : the Wolfowitz Doctrine, any other strong country is defined as a threat and a power hostile to the US regardless of how willing that country is to get along with the US for mutual benefit.
More
Reply
[aircavalry]
aircavalry 28 minutes ago
0
0
The question is the strategy of the US. Do we, as a nation, want to have a military designed for fighting in both the Pacific and in Europe, or the Middle East or ?
The US has long had an unwritten strategy that we would fight our wars abroad, not here in the US. It has been successful in most ways and should continue. The challenge of war is always the logistics and the transport of personnel, equipment and munitions.
Fighting in the Philippines for example means a long and potentially fragile supply chain. That is the challenge for planners and logisticians
The political leadership of the countries mentioned do not want to fight a war against the US, they want to maintain their life of power and privilege.
More
Reply
[anthony]
anthony 16 minutes ago
0
0
There is definitely going to be WAR if the US continue to meddle in the South China Sea. China will not back down. This is for sure! The reason is very clear if we understand what's their mentality. As far as China is concerned the region which they now claim belongs to them. They will not recognize a UN court decision simply because the ADIZ was set up by the US after WW2. It never went to any UN court. Why would China recognize the ADIZ set up by the US giving the Daiyu Island to Japan? When according to China it belonged to them. The Japanese only claim to the Island is in accordance with the ADIZ set up by the US. In 1958 Vietnam (Premier Pham Vandong) sent a letter to China (Zhou En Lai) stating that it respects China's Claim of the Spratly and Paracel Islands. This can be looked up in Google. All along China has the mentality that they have been taken advantage of because they were weak. All these years they have been working on reunification of Hong Kong (taken by the British), Macau (given by them to the Portuguese) and Taiwan. Why would they exclude the South China Sea? Too bad Henry Kissenger isn't around. They are now in a position to claim what they believe is theirs. Try Change this mentality. Or stop it.
More
Reply
[Pale Rider]
Pale Rider 4 hours ago
0
3
Before we even consider new possibilities we should probably find some real strategists who understand the need to know your enemy rather than assume shock and awe will get the job done. It would also be helpful to understand that almost any tech offers at best a short term advantage and can be defeated or neutralized in time as necessity is indeed the mother of invention. Final thoughts would be not to aid any nation whose people are not willing to put their lives on the line in numbers and to stay out of wars that really only benefit the military industrial complex.
More
Expand Replies (3) Reply
[Max]
Max 7 hours ago
0
2
This article ignores other major powers such as India, England, Japan, and Germany. While China and Russia will also have their allies, our allies are by no means without their own strengths. So the calculation is not whether Washington is willing to react, there are a whole host of opposition to any aggression. This will involve the world more than any other war in the past. This could be the big one. And BTW, there infrastructures are just as exposed as ours. Guess who they hire for consultants (hint US government contractors).
More
Expand Replies (10) Reply
[TZM_TVP_RBE]
TZM_TVP_RBE 1 hour ago
1
17
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." -- Hermann Göring
Once the people realize that it is only leaders that want war and decide to no longer follow others, than there will be no more war.
More
Expand Replies (5) Reply
[Franklin]
Franklin 18 hours ago
0
31
. Even though National Sovereignty and protecting our borders and families are the rallying cry to draft young men into war, most war is over the worlds limited resources. This has changed throughout time from water, food, gold, silver, spices, and now oil. Wiser use of these resources and finding alternatives sources is the inevitable outcome as that resource dwindles. Diplomacy and trade has often resulted in a win/win avoiding the huge waste of life, infrastructure, and the very resources fought over. Notwithstanding the billions of dollars wasted that could have been invested to find a permanent solution to the problem.
More
Expand Replies (5) Reply
[Angst]
Angst 1 hour ago
1
11
In the 1950's, USA was the manufacturing capitol in the world, Russia and China devastated by war and had to start all over again and in the process of becoming enemies.with each other . 2014 China is the manufacturing capitol in the world, Russia have developed and have an abundance of natural resources and the two countries are having closer ties, USA have lost manufacturing and is slow in developing resources because of costs, only remnant of power is military. Who has the advantage now ?? Who will be the perceived aggressor now ??
More
Expand Replies (4) Reply
[Global]
Global 33 minutes ago
1
0
Should our bonehead fearless leaders desire to justify their existence ,again, and make another scary monster to keep the children awake at night, again, they are succeeding through failed foreign policy since back in the Kennedy era.
My suggestion to anybody with a brain is to not directly engage anybody anymore but fight the same wars that have been fought against us since Vietnam.
This type of indirect engagement and guerrilla warfare destroys the enemy morale and financial infrastructure of a country through sustained warfare over very long periods of time causing recession and a very unhappy population that in turn causes an internal war as well as growing the ongoing guerrilla war exponentially. (Ref United States of America 1965-1974, 2002-2014, USSR 1979-1989, French occupation Vietnam 1982-1996 and the First Indochina War as the French never learn)
Fight them the same as they fight us or leave them alone.
Either that or we have to unleash a hell and fury unbeknownst to the annals of history and leave the "enemy" in total ruin, thrown back into the dark ages. Not one tree, blade of grass, hut or hill must be left standing.
That seems to be the goal of the Muslim world anyway.
The manner we are attacking and occupying has failed and will continue to do so.
More
Expand Replies (1) Reply
[SAVEOURNATION]
SAVEOURNATION 5 hours ago
1
20
5/22/14 China and Russia just signed a huge natural gas deal that has been in the works for nearly a decade. The 30-year agreement will provide China with over $400 billion dollars’ worth of natural gas. This deal comes at an interesting time considering the situation in Ukraine. As events unfold, the European Union has been trying to find alternative sources of gas in anticipation of the Ukraine crisis causing supply disruptions. Nearly a third of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia, with about half of that traveling through Ukraine.
By signing this agreement and expanding their gas market, Russia is protecting its interests and reducing economic risk. According to Capital Economics, gas exports in Russia account for roughly 10% of total exports and 6% of government revenues. The prospect of energy related sanctions, which the EU has been reluctant to impose so far due to their heavy reliance, has been a concern for Russia.
What is not being outwardly discussed is that this trade agreement is the latest to bypass the US dollar. China and Russia have agreed to pay each other in their domestic currencies, furthering initiatives by the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — to diminish the international role of the dollar.
To be clear, in the grand scale of international trade this agreement is very small. But it is symbolic of the continued foreign desire to reduce dependence on the dollar.
More
Expand Replies (6) Reply
[Jess]
Jess 4 hours ago
1
15
Sadly America is a society built on war. That's why we have the mention of bombs in our national anthem. And the ruling governments of the time realize that Wars end up fixing the economy. Look back in history and you will see that after each war there as been a spike in spending and a baby boom as well. WW2 came to an end and America flourished. America was built on war and sadly will end with war. And sadly its the innocents of the civilians that will suffer, not those that wage the war itself. They all just hide till it is over.
More
Expand Replies (6) Reply
[John E. Burke]
John E. Burke 2 hours ago
1
8
people talk like it's a game ...
World War 3: Is The United States Space Command Planning A Nuclear Weapons First Strike On Russia And China?
WW3
Fears over World War 3 involving nuclear weapons has spawned conspiracy theories that the United States may have plans for a first strike against Russia and China. In addition, some experts are looking to the history of the first Great War to determine if the situation in Ukraine could be the spark that ignites a large scale war.
In a related report by The Inquisitr, much of the talk about World World 3 has focused on Russia’s nuclear weapons. After all, Putin took a hard line on the Ukraine crisis by actually test firing an ICBM as a show of force. Russian state TV also warned that Russia’s nuclear weapons could reduce the United States to “radioactive ash” if NATO allies don’t back down, but this attempt at intimidation only caused NATO to discuss increasing the number of troops on the ground. Some journalists have already declared that World War 3 unofficially started already based upon the fact that pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine began openly fighting with the Ukrainian military. While this civil war already involves combat jets, helicopter gunships, and heavy artillery barrages, the only good news is that Russia’s military has not officially interceded on behalf of eastern Ukraine nor has Russia threatened the usage of WMDs lately. The last major time anything
of that nature occurred was when Russia ran nuclear weapons drills to prepare the country for a potential war.
The bad news is that some people are discussing World War 3 in terms of the United States being the aggressor. For example, a recent Reuters video talked about a United States’ first strike policy on nuclear weapons. The report even claims that other countries are being forced into agreeing with the United States:
“American armed forces are now in over 150 countries. The unofficial figure, including clandestine US forces, is thought to be much higher…. We see that the US through a number of factors – economic bribery, diplomatic blackmail, subversion but also through bilateral, multilateral military programs, has been able to secure the overwhelming compliance or servility of other nations. And that’s one of the reasons why there’s no diplomatic and political independence in nations, because they are beholden to the United States and, frankly speaking, they’re fearful of US economic and ultimately military retaliation should they not go along with the US diktat.”
The Reuters reporters also spoke to Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons in Space, who claimed that the”US Space Command is planning a nuclear first strike on Russia, as well as one on China in 2016.”:
“This is in the planning process today. The US Space Command practicing engaging in a first strike attack and this is the key element here. These are first strike attack planning, these so-called missile defense systems are key elements in US first strike attack planning. The idea is to hit China or Russia first with a first strike, and then when they try to fire their nuclear retaliatory capability, it is then that the so-called missile defense systems would be used to pick off any retaliatory strike, so after a first strike sword is thrust into the heart of China or Russia, then the missile defense shield would be used to pick off any retaliation giving the US the a successful first strike attack. It has nothing at all to do with defense, it has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, or any of those words that are used all the time to disguise the true intentions; it’s all about full spectrum dominance.”
While those accusations sound like a conspiracy theory, Reuters is also reporting that NATO powers are indeed considering the possibility of World War 3 and how to prevent such an eventuality. Kathleen Hicks, who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that World War 3 could start as an accidental war:
“It’s not that the leadership in Russia or China is looking for a war – and the United States certainly isn’t. The real worry is miscalculation.”
The fear is that World War 3 could be triggered similar to World War 1, where the flash point was the killing of Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist. Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College, believes the current Ukraine crisis and the confrontation between the United States and Russia can be compared to the events of history:
“The parallels with 1914 can definitely be overstated. But they do show us that war can start through unintended consequences and an economically interdependent world does not necessarily stop it from happening.”
President Obama even spoke to this possibility when he gave a speech to graduating military cadets:
“Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military.”
Do you think the Ukraine crisis could trigger World War 3?
More
Expand Replies (5) Reply
[Just Looking]
Just Looking 1 hour ago
1
5
As a good ex Marine I stated for America. For my country I will die. Great if it is needed, but since WW2 It was the U..S--- (American big Business, power, Money Greed that has driven the car.) WE used to be popular and respected abroad, now we are hated, attacked, terrorized, looked down on and are losing our allies. Ask yourself why ? political gain, power gains, money gains and driving it all greed, it is not a single political party doing this, it is both parties and we are the sheep driving the car for them under the license named patriotism. and honor. What we have become is neither. Semper Fidelis brothers, we have been duped. If they want a fight lets get it on ! I fight for my real country and it's people, yes you. Help me defend our home and honor, flush the toilet in Washington and lets get this great country going again.. now it's your turn.
More
Expand Replies (2) Reply
[Mach]
Mach 1 hour ago
1
3
"How we would fight the next 'great war'..."? Like we have fought every war since the last one we won. With an incomplete commitment! Our own rules of engagement have crippled us from the word GO, such as Korea, Vietnam! Our own policymakers and politics have been the reason we could not win...not a lack of equipment, not a lack of ability, and certainly not a lack of funding...but the only thing that has tied our hands is our lack of political testicular fortitude.
More
Expand Replies (1) Reply
TZM_TVP_RBE 1 hour ago
0
13
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." -- Hermann Göring
Once the people realize that it is only leaders that want war and decide to no longer follow others, than there will be no more war.
More
Expand Replies (4) Reply
[Oscar Meyer]
Oscar Meyer 1 minute ago
0
0
It is ironic that the people of the US embrace growing government intrusion and diminishing freedom. Government of all types are recognized and understood to be potential threats internally and externally, both to its own citizens and to other countries. Less government- a good thing.
More
[ST]
ST 19 minutes ago
0
0
It took long enough for someone to write this article... I was expecting an article on this subject to pop up just any time. Reflecting on this, it really reinforces what I already had known.
If you look at the back story players of any conflict there is always defense contractors that are the real winners with opposing ideologies. From an economic gains perspective really both sides are coming out winners with the workforce being employed to produce the machines of destruction. That is as long as they don't use them against each other.
What amazes me is how so many global politicians play into this and use the threat of force as a tool to get what they want. What is also proven is this method has worked time and time again thorough history.
This move by military planners was almost a foregone conclusion too. They want and even need conflict in the world to justify their existence. My money is absolutely on the defense budget becoming an area of heated discussion during the next presidential election campaign agendas.
I can just see the days of Reagan defense spending right around the corner. I'm not saying this is bad if the efforts are just on making equipment and not actually using it against each other. Unfortunately history has a way of repeating itself. Even if not today, at some point in the not so far future another major conflict is highly probable. The odds are just stacked against humanity. Don't take my word for it just look at human history over the last millennia.
More
Expand Replies (1) Reply
[Brian]
Brian 43 minutes ago
0
4
War or Peace? If you ask your average citizen of most countries, I'll bet the answer is Peace. I'm tired of hearing about terrorism, unseen wars, hostages and torture. We are spending billions of dollars researching the galaxy, oceans, glaciers and history for what? A hope to extend human life so we can see who wins the war?
The big question is "What can we do?" We can bring our troops home. The positives: No more tortured prisoners. Less lives lost. Less money spent on offense which can be put toward a more local defense. Happier citizens. The negatives: We let them sort it out themselves. We had our civil wars. Let them have theirs. We are so deep into this war that letting them sort it out sounds inhumane. Let's face it, humanity left the building a long time ago.
I don't have all the answers, but you have to start somewhere. Finding new ways to destroy ourselves hasn't been working so far. A different approach is needed.
More
Reply
[Clark]
Clark 16 minutes ago
0
0
Russia's economy has been weak for a long time, and their tech lags behind ours. War would be very difficult for them to maintain. China would be in even bigger trouble, as their economy is so entrenched in the US, a war would break them very quickly. Not to mention they'd lose their naval assets within a week, and be landlocked in China, and not a threat to the US. What each nation is a threat to is US allies close to their borders. War with China would also pave the way for a North Korean attack on South Korea. If hostilities broke out, the world would burn.
More
Reply
[Jason]
Jason 7 minutes ago
0
0
The US government and largely it's people have been like a child running through a forest, tripping over everything. It's quite pathetic and I'm sure putin is getting a laugh. A few foreigners spend 100 dollars on a bomb and the US dumps billions on how to prevent that from happening again, ignoring their poor and dumping the value of their money. The real casualties are everyone in a project slum and everyone stuck in a #$%$ trailer park. Pit them against eachother and wave a magic 2000 year old middle eastern religion around (just pick one, it doesn't matter) and the government can literally oppress them as much as it wants for the sake of lining their pockets..
Are we really better than the russians? No. They're more efficient.
More
Reply
[Tweeze]
Tweeze 15 minutes ago
0
0
This is a garbage article in the sense that they try to give the appearance that our war-mongers have been focusing on Islamic extremists and terrorists without a second thought to Russia, China, or (give me a break) North Korea. They ran their 'scenarios' well over a decade ago and determined that we needed a back door to China. Thus we find an excuse to invade Afghanistan and start chopping at Iraq (more or less done), Iran (working on it - but they've done a great PR job conveying 'we really don't want war'), and North Korea (we are still technically at war). Time will tell, I guess. But don't think for one second that the paranoids have let their guard down. It is their default mode. It is what they live for.
More
Reply
[Dutch]
Dutch 17 minutes ago
0
0
Of course the risk of war with either China or Russia still exists as long as there is a nation which sees war as the only solution to a problem, a nation which has pet 95% of its existence being at war, namely the U.S.
The problem in the Ukraine was NOT caused by Russia, but clearly by the West. stupid, stupid, stupid as it will absolutely drive China and Russia together plus the dumping of the dollar. How about this one for how we try to get along : the Wolfowitz Doctrine, any other strong country is defined as a threat and a power hostile to the US regardless of how willing that country is to get along with the US for mutual benefit.
More
Reply
[aircavalry]
aircavalry 28 minutes ago
0
0
The question is the strategy of the US. Do we, as a nation, want to have a military designed for fighting in both the Pacific and in Europe, or the Middle East or ?
The US has long had an unwritten strategy that we would fight our wars abroad, not here in the US. It has been successful in most ways and should continue. The challenge of war is always the logistics and the transport of personnel, equipment and munitions.
Fighting in the Philippines for example means a long and potentially fragile supply chain. That is the challenge for planners and logisticians
The political leadership of the countries mentioned do not want to fight a war against the US, they want to maintain their life of power and privilege.
More
Reply
[anthony]
anthony 16 minutes ago
0
0
There is definitely going to be WAR if the US continue to meddle in the South China Sea. China will not back down. This is for sure! The reason is very clear if we understand what's their mentality. As far as China is concerned the region which they now claim belongs to them. They will not recognize a UN court decision simply because the ADIZ was set up by the US after WW2. It never went to any UN court. Why would China recognize the ADIZ set up by the US giving the Daiyu Island to Japan? When according to China it belonged to them. The Japanese only claim to the Island is in accordance with the ADIZ set up by the US. In 1958 Vietnam (Premier Pham Vandong) sent a letter to China (Zhou En Lai) stating that it respects China's Claim of the Spratly and Paracel Islands. This can be looked up in Google. All along China has the mentality that they have been taken advantage of because they were weak. All these years they have been working on reunification of Hong Kong (taken by the British), Macau (given by them to the Portuguese) and Taiwan. Why would they exclude the South China Sea? Too bad Henry Kissenger isn't around. They are now in a position to claim what they believe is theirs. Try Change this mentality. Or stop it.
More
Reply
[Pale Rider]
Pale Rider 4 hours ago
0
3
Before we even consider new possibilities we should probably find some real strategists who understand the need to know your enemy rather than assume shock and awe will get the job done. It would also be helpful to understand that almost any tech offers at best a short term advantage and can be defeated or neutralized in time as necessity is indeed the mother of invention. Final thoughts would be not to aid any nation whose people are not willing to put their lives on the line in numbers and to stay out of wars that really only benefit the military industrial complex.
More
Expand Replies (3) Reply
[Max]
Max 7 hours ago
0
2
This article ignores other major powers such as India, England, Japan, and Germany. While China and Russia will also have their allies, our allies are by no means without their own strengths. So the calculation is not whether Washington is willing to react, there are a whole host of opposition to any aggression. This will involve the world more than any other war in the past. This could be the big one. And BTW, there infrastructures are just as exposed as ours. Guess who they hire for consultants (hint US government contractors).
More
Expand Replies (10) Reply
[TZM_TVP_RBE]
TZM_TVP_RBE 1 hour ago
1
17
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." -- Hermann Göring
Once the people realize that it is only leaders that want war and decide to no longer follow others, than there will be no more war.
More
Expand Replies (5) Reply
[Franklin]
Franklin 18 hours ago
0
31
. Even though National Sovereignty and protecting our borders and families are the rallying cry to draft young men into war, most war is over the worlds limited resources. This has changed throughout time from water, food, gold, silver, spices, and now oil. Wiser use of these resources and finding alternatives sources is the inevitable outcome as that resource dwindles. Diplomacy and trade has often resulted in a win/win avoiding the huge waste of life, infrastructure, and the very resources fought over. Notwithstanding the billions of dollars wasted that could have been invested to find a permanent solution to the problem.
More
Expand Replies (5) Reply
[Angst]
Angst 1 hour ago
1
11
In the 1950's, USA was the manufacturing capitol in the world, Russia and China devastated by war and had to start all over again and in the process of becoming enemies.with each other . 2014 China is the manufacturing capitol in the world, Russia have developed and have an abundance of natural resources and the two countries are having closer ties, USA have lost manufacturing and is slow in developing resources because of costs, only remnant of power is military. Who has the advantage now ?? Who will be the perceived aggressor now ??
More
Expand Replies (4) Reply
[Global]
Global 33 minutes ago
1
0
Should our bonehead fearless leaders desire to justify their existence ,again, and make another scary monster to keep the children awake at night, again, they are succeeding through failed foreign policy since back in the Kennedy era.
My suggestion to anybody with a brain is to not directly engage anybody anymore but fight the same wars that have been fought against us since Vietnam.
This type of indirect engagement and guerrilla warfare destroys the enemy morale and financial infrastructure of a country through sustained warfare over very long periods of time causing recession and a very unhappy population that in turn causes an internal war as well as growing the ongoing guerrilla war exponentially. (Ref United States of America 1965-1974, 2002-2014, USSR 1979-1989, French occupation Vietnam 1982-1996 and the First Indochina War as the French never learn)
Fight them the same as they fight us or leave them alone.
Either that or we have to unleash a hell and fury unbeknownst to the annals of history and leave the "enemy" in total ruin, thrown back into the dark ages. Not one tree, blade of grass, hut or hill must be left standing.
That seems to be the goal of the Muslim world anyway.
The manner we are attacking and occupying has failed and will continue to do so.
More
Expand Replies (1) Reply
[SAVEOURNATION]
SAVEOURNATION 5 hours ago
1
20
5/22/14 China and Russia just signed a huge natural gas deal that has been in the works for nearly a decade. The 30-year agreement will provide China with over $400 billion dollars’ worth of natural gas. This deal comes at an interesting time considering the situation in Ukraine. As events unfold, the European Union has been trying to find alternative sources of gas in anticipation of the Ukraine crisis causing supply disruptions. Nearly a third of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia, with about half of that traveling through Ukraine.
By signing this agreement and expanding their gas market, Russia is protecting its interests and reducing economic risk. According to Capital Economics, gas exports in Russia account for roughly 10% of total exports and 6% of government revenues. The prospect of energy related sanctions, which the EU has been reluctant to impose so far due to their heavy reliance, has been a concern for Russia.
What is not being outwardly discussed is that this trade agreement is the latest to bypass the US dollar. China and Russia have agreed to pay each other in their domestic currencies, furthering initiatives by the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — to diminish the international role of the dollar.
To be clear, in the grand scale of international trade this agreement is very small. But it is symbolic of the continued foreign desire to reduce dependence on the dollar.
More
Expand Replies (6) Reply
[Jess]
Jess 4 hours ago
1
15
Sadly America is a society built on war. That's why we have the mention of bombs in our national anthem. And the ruling governments of the time realize that Wars end up fixing the economy. Look back in history and you will see that after each war there as been a spike in spending and a baby boom as well. WW2 came to an end and America flourished. America was built on war and sadly will end with war. And sadly its the innocents of the civilians that will suffer, not those that wage the war itself. They all just hide till it is over.
More
Expand Replies (6) Reply
[John E. Burke]
John E. Burke 2 hours ago
1
8
people talk like it's a game ...
World War 3: Is The United States Space Command Planning A Nuclear Weapons First Strike On Russia And China?
WW3
Fears over World War 3 involving nuclear weapons has spawned conspiracy theories that the United States may have plans for a first strike against Russia and China. In addition, some experts are looking to the history of the first Great War to determine if the situation in Ukraine could be the spark that ignites a large scale war.
In a related report by The Inquisitr, much of the talk about World World 3 has focused on Russia’s nuclear weapons. After all, Putin took a hard line on the Ukraine crisis by actually test firing an ICBM as a show of force. Russian state TV also warned that Russia’s nuclear weapons could reduce the United States to “radioactive ash” if NATO allies don’t back down, but this attempt at intimidation only caused NATO to discuss increasing the number of troops on the ground. Some journalists have already declared that World War 3 unofficially started already based upon the fact that pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine began openly fighting with the Ukrainian military. While this civil war already involves combat jets, helicopter gunships, and heavy artillery barrages, the only good news is that Russia’s military has not officially interceded on behalf of eastern Ukraine nor has Russia threatened the usage of WMDs lately. The last major time anything
of that nature occurred was when Russia ran nuclear weapons drills to prepare the country for a potential war.
The bad news is that some people are discussing World War 3 in terms of the United States being the aggressor. For example, a recent Reuters video talked about a United States’ first strike policy on nuclear weapons. The report even claims that other countries are being forced into agreeing with the United States:
“American armed forces are now in over 150 countries. The unofficial figure, including clandestine US forces, is thought to be much higher…. We see that the US through a number of factors – economic bribery, diplomatic blackmail, subversion but also through bilateral, multilateral military programs, has been able to secure the overwhelming compliance or servility of other nations. And that’s one of the reasons why there’s no diplomatic and political independence in nations, because they are beholden to the United States and, frankly speaking, they’re fearful of US economic and ultimately military retaliation should they not go along with the US diktat.”
The Reuters reporters also spoke to Bruce Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons in Space, who claimed that the”US Space Command is planning a nuclear first strike on Russia, as well as one on China in 2016.”:
“This is in the planning process today. The US Space Command practicing engaging in a first strike attack and this is the key element here. These are first strike attack planning, these so-called missile defense systems are key elements in US first strike attack planning. The idea is to hit China or Russia first with a first strike, and then when they try to fire their nuclear retaliatory capability, it is then that the so-called missile defense systems would be used to pick off any retaliatory strike, so after a first strike sword is thrust into the heart of China or Russia, then the missile defense shield would be used to pick off any retaliation giving the US the a successful first strike attack. It has nothing at all to do with defense, it has nothing to do with freedom or democracy, or any of those words that are used all the time to disguise the true intentions; it’s all about full spectrum dominance.”
While those accusations sound like a conspiracy theory, Reuters is also reporting that NATO powers are indeed considering the possibility of World War 3 and how to prevent such an eventuality. Kathleen Hicks, who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that World War 3 could start as an accidental war:
“It’s not that the leadership in Russia or China is looking for a war – and the United States certainly isn’t. The real worry is miscalculation.”
The fear is that World War 3 could be triggered similar to World War 1, where the flash point was the killing of Austria’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb nationalist. Nikolas Gvosdev, professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College, believes the current Ukraine crisis and the confrontation between the United States and Russia can be compared to the events of history:
“The parallels with 1914 can definitely be overstated. But they do show us that war can start through unintended consequences and an economically interdependent world does not necessarily stop it from happening.”
President Obama even spoke to this possibility when he gave a speech to graduating military cadets:
“Regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern Ukraine or the South China Sea or anywhere else in the world, will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military.”
Do you think the Ukraine crisis could trigger World War 3?
More
Expand Replies (5) Reply
[Just Looking]
Just Looking 1 hour ago
1
5
As a good ex Marine I stated for America. For my country I will die. Great if it is needed, but since WW2 It was the U..S--- (American big Business, power, Money Greed that has driven the car.) WE used to be popular and respected abroad, now we are hated, attacked, terrorized, looked down on and are losing our allies. Ask yourself why ? political gain, power gains, money gains and driving it all greed, it is not a single political party doing this, it is both parties and we are the sheep driving the car for them under the license named patriotism. and honor. What we have become is neither. Semper Fidelis brothers, we have been duped. If they want a fight lets get it on ! I fight for my real country and it's people, yes you. Help me defend our home and honor, flush the toilet in Washington and lets get this great country going again.. now it's your turn.
More
Expand Replies (2) Reply
[Mach]
Mach 1 hour ago
1
3
"How we would fight the next 'great war'..."? Like we have fought every war since the last one we won. With an incomplete commitment! Our own rules of engagement have crippled us from the word GO, such as Korea, Vietnam! Our own policymakers and politics have been the reason we could not win...not a lack of equipment, not a lack of ability, and certainly not a lack of funding...but the only thing that has tied our hands is our lack of political testicular fortitude.
More
Expand Replies (1) Reply
既然经济手段无法解决中国问题，那就用军事手段吧
浪费钱，最后都是核战，苏联难道是被打垮的?
这个，临时抱佛脚也不是这么搞的吧
转型？这个不是玩嘴炮，光一个预算就是大把的钞票
转型？这个不是玩嘴炮，光一个预算就是大把的钞票
实力见真章，废话那么多干嘛
不可能，除非想一起死！世界的方向还是和平的，别被新闻误导，你见哪个国家在扩军？
用十一艘核航母数千核弹对付游击队？然后用嘴炮转型？
wangf9876 发表于 2014-6-4 20:15
用十一艘核航母数千核弹对付游击队？然后用嘴炮转型？
他们就是这么逗比
用十一艘核航母数千核弹对付游击队？然后用嘴炮转型？
他们就是这么逗比
恩，我们要转型与外太空入侵者战斗了。
战忽局特派员 发表于 2014-6-4 20:09
这个，临时抱佛脚也不是这么搞的吧
转型？这个不是玩嘴炮，光一个预算就是大把的钞票
大概后面的推手是军火商。
这个，临时抱佛脚也不是这么搞的吧
转型？这个不是玩嘴炮，光一个预算就是大把的钞票
大概后面的推手是军火商。
snowconey 发表于 2014-6-4 20:14
不可能，除非想一起死！世界的方向还是和平的，别被新闻误导，你见哪个国家在扩军？
目前还在ponder阶段。
不可能，除非想一起死！世界的方向还是和平的，别被新闻误导，你见哪个国家在扩军？
目前还在ponder阶段。
现在越来越觉得核武不但不是世界和平的威胁，而是世界和平的保障，就目前国际社会剑拔弩张的态势，如果没有这种能让地球重启的东西存在的话，恐怕早就大打出手了。
从幕后跳到台前美爹不是等于已经输了吗。。。。
养这么多盟友干啥吃的
养这么多盟友干啥吃的
西欧的盟友钱扔高福利里去了，要扩军就减福利；东亚日本的负债率，要扩军就动养老金。然后西欧吃福利的懒汉上街闹事，日本把70岁的老人送山里神隐。就指望美国的盟友们这么干，坐看他们社会崩溃吧。
nuclear fights.
这些将军们连核战都开始考虑了，真变态。
这些将军们连核战都开始考虑了，真变态。
mrutama 发表于 2014-6-4 20:29
西欧的盟友钱扔高福利里去了，要扩军就减福利；东亚日本的负债率，要扩军就动养老金。然后西欧吃福利的懒汉 ...
北约头子拉斯姆森昨天已经要求成员国大幅增加军费扩军备战了，战争的火药味开始升起了。
西欧的盟友钱扔高福利里去了，要扩军就减福利；东亚日本的负债率，要扩军就动养老金。然后西欧吃福利的懒汉 ...
北约头子拉斯姆森昨天已经要求成员国大幅增加军费扩军备战了，战争的火药味开始升起了。
呵呵，军火商推动的吧，不折腾怎么卖军火呢。我们的原则，只研究相关技术。
他们要靠这个拉动gdp。来自: Android客户端
ling6666 发表于 2014-6-4 20:48
他们要靠这个拉动gdp。
刚去看了一下雅虎的原文，都4000回复了，针对中国和俄罗斯的主战派和主和派争吵不休。
http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponde ... -war-113159434.html
ling6666 发表于 2014-6-4 20:48
他们要靠这个拉动gdp。
刚去看了一下雅虎的原文，都4000回复了，针对中国和俄罗斯的主战派和主和派争吵不休。
http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponde ... -war-113159434.html
既然经济手段无法解决中国问题，那就用军事手段吧
非军事手段远未用尽呢，再等等看
非军事手段远未用尽呢，再等等看
还是那句话，光脚的不怕穿鞋的，呵呵。
渔家衙内 发表于 2014-6-4 20:21
大概后面的推手是军火商。
正解，还有利益财团
大概后面的推手是军火商。
正解，还有利益财团
幸好我们从来没转型过，一直为了打大战
说明西方非常渴望被核武洗地，除外读不出其他内容介个你们不先暴个兵啥的？
白人智商其实就这么多，比脑残稍微好一点。西方集团同时和中俄两国开战，任何时候都不会占上风。
所以最好的方法是拉一个打一个，一个一个吃掉，不过可能吗？兔子和大熊会这么傻？
这篇报道根本就是在放野火，想让中俄判断失误，穷兵黩武搞军备竞赛，消耗国力。
所以最好的方法是拉一个打一个，一个一个吃掉，不过可能吗？兔子和大熊会这么傻？
这篇报道根本就是在放野火，想让中俄判断失误，穷兵黩武搞军备竞赛，消耗国力。
美国近亲繁殖的纳粹传媒集团可以继续恐吓，再加把劲，最好每天一百篇专题，真以为中国是吓大的。这些纳粹传媒集团战争舆论动员做得再多，核弹来时，一样的所有编辑妓者烂成气体。最终是靠拼实弹弹的。真以为他们这些纳粹传媒集团的编辑妓者们全是可以换装的超人和蜘蛛人。
欢迎继续恐吓，越恐吓，中国会越强大。
美国近亲繁殖的纳粹传媒集团可以继续恐吓，再加把劲，最好每天一百篇专题，真以为中国是吓大的。这些纳粹传媒集团战争舆论动员做得再多，核弹来时，一样的所有编辑妓者烂成气体。最终是靠拼实弹弹的。真以为他们这些纳粹传媒集团的编辑妓者们全是可以换装的超人和蜘蛛人。
欢迎继续恐吓，越恐吓，中国会越强大。
superloong 发表于 2014-6-4 22:07
**** 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽 ****
不是纳粹，是军工复合体，Military–industrial complex（艾森豪威尔）。
**** 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽 ****
不是纳粹，是军工复合体，Military–industrial complex（艾森豪威尔）。
敢平推毛子的，希特勒服毒死了，拿破仑被服毒死了，就问一句：还有谁？至于中国，历史上倒是多次被平推，但凡不怕被同化的，尽管来
han-chun 发表于 2014-6-4 21:28
白人智商其实就这么多，比脑残稍微好一点。西方集团同时和中俄两国开战，任何时候都不会占上风。
所以最好 ...
这不是脑残，是老黄历。
几百年来，战争一直是工业化国家摆脱危机的方法，两次世界大战都和经济危机有关。如果不是核武镇国，2008年西方就跟中国开战了。
军备竞赛不一定是穷兵黩武，看钱怎么花了？一个国家要发展，往往会在没有直接经济效益的地方大把投资，比如军事、基础科技、体育、艺术这样的领域，投资的好，发展起来会更有后劲。
现在国家外部环境急剧恶化，国防也必须跟着加强，其目的不是说要灭了谁谁，而是说保证没人敢把战火引向我国本土（已经实现），没人敢切断我贸易线路（正在努力），没人敢阻止我和被欧美制裁的国家的贸易（部分实现）。长远来看，还需要为我海外投资提供安全安定的环境，比如东盟、中东和非洲这些地方。
han-chun 发表于 2014-6-4 21:28
白人智商其实就这么多，比脑残稍微好一点。西方集团同时和中俄两国开战，任何时候都不会占上风。
所以最好 ...
这不是脑残，是老黄历。
几百年来，战争一直是工业化国家摆脱危机的方法，两次世界大战都和经济危机有关。如果不是核武镇国，2008年西方就跟中国开战了。
军备竞赛不一定是穷兵黩武，看钱怎么花了？一个国家要发展，往往会在没有直接经济效益的地方大把投资，比如军事、基础科技、体育、艺术这样的领域，投资的好，发展起来会更有后劲。
现在国家外部环境急剧恶化，国防也必须跟着加强，其目的不是说要灭了谁谁，而是说保证没人敢把战火引向我国本土（已经实现），没人敢切断我贸易线路（正在努力），没人敢阻止我和被欧美制裁的国家的贸易（部分实现）。长远来看，还需要为我海外投资提供安全安定的环境，比如东盟、中东和非洲这些地方。
难道是要重回60年代太祖的口号，早打、大打、打核战争？
这是另一个嘴炮
美国为了适应新形式的战争模式，从军事理论上就着手改革，从伊拉克战争到现在反恐战争用了20多年，想再转回到大规模灭国战不重新革新其军事理论是不可能的，有了明确的理论下面就是武器研制，军队编制的调整，然后就是大把的预算出来，然后就是漫长的改变，没有决心，没有金钱和足够的意志是不可能完成这些的
好像我们一直就没准备和游击队作战
这美元又要贬值了？
尼玛核战打到最后，人类残留最多的不还是中国么？！！
那时候就真的是世界上只有一个中国了！
那时候就真的是世界上只有一个中国了！
yobwang 发表于 2014-6-5 08:57
美国为了适应新形式的战争模式，从军事理论上就着手改革，从伊拉克战争到现在反恐战争用了20多年，想再转回 ...
美军这次乌克兰危机明显是确实有危机感了，军队的大量装备，比如防雷车之类的，都浪费在和游击队的路边炸弹作战上，对大国开战时没用。奥巴马现在是弱势政府，就看国会给不给钱了。
美国为了适应新形式的战争模式，从军事理论上就着手改革，从伊拉克战争到现在反恐战争用了20多年，想再转回 ...
美军这次乌克兰危机明显是确实有危机感了，军队的大量装备，比如防雷车之类的，都浪费在和游击队的路边炸弹作战上，对大国开战时没用。奥巴马现在是弱势政府，就看国会给不给钱了。
waffenss1939 发表于 2014-6-4 20:02
既然经济手段无法解决中国问题，那就用军事手段吧
用军事手段解决中国问题，没有钱是不行的，打仗要花钱的。呵呵。
既然经济手段无法解决中国问题，那就用军事手段吧
用军事手段解决中国问题，没有钱是不行的，打仗要花钱的。呵呵。
智动铅笔 发表于 2014-6-5 08:35
这不是脑残，是老黄历。
几百年来，战争一直是工业化国家摆脱危机的方法，两次世界大战都和经济危机 ...
就是因为有核武，所以与中国开战不现实。有限干预，不划算。呵呵。
这不是脑残，是老黄历。
几百年来，战争一直是工业化国家摆脱危机的方法，两次世界大战都和经济危机 ...
就是因为有核武，所以与中国开战不现实。有限干预，不划算。呵呵。