Is WWIII or another cold war around the corner?

[makku]

I am seriously wondering about this.

First, our enemies are even more fanatical than the communists were. They might actually use the nukes they have... and they do have them.

Second, some of our enemies are starting to combine forces. Syria and Iran have formed a collective to "defend" themselves from the U.S.... calling for more countries to join them.

Third, to use a poker reference, we've shown our hand. Our foreign policy has been dictated by our actions in Iraq and Afganistan. We've sent a clear message that we WILL invade your country if we have a problem with you. This puts our enemies on the defensive... readiness-wise. Also, neutral countries know what we're capable of.
Look at China... not exactly an ally, but not an enemy... yet. They are definitely going to take Taiwan back one day... but now they know that the U.S. will definitely try to defend Taiwan... so they're building up their Navy and nuclear arsenal (article to be posted).
Look at Venezuela, we've already made many comments about their president who is really taking on dictatorial powers.
Look at Russia, their president is taking on dictatorial powers.
N. Korea has gone public about their nuclear weapons.
They're all going to put themselves on alert against a possible attack.

Fourth, our alliances are getting really shaky. Sure, Bush is trying to repair them (admit it... he damaged them). But now the Europeans are doing things that the U.S. really doesn't like... planning to sell arms to China. We've even trashed the U.N.

Think of it this way, we only had a world war or cold war when there was no country with "ultimate" power. Not one country dominated them all. For a short time after WWII, the U.S. became that country. Then, the USSR came along and challenged that power... they were immensely powerful and so we had the cold war. When the USSR fell apart, we were again on top.

These days, we are not really the only power-player in the world anymore. The advent of a successful European Union helped to change that. So is the ever present modernization of China. Russia seems to be doing a little better than how it was in the early 90s. We are no longer on the security council of the U.N. What does that say? Of course it's political, but it makes us appear weaker (or them stronger).

Militarily, we've shown that our forces can easily be spread too thin by the operations in Iraq. The army has been stretched to it's limit... and we're occupying ONE country (and a few troops in Afganistan). A concerted assault by several countries could be big trouble for us. This Syria/Iran thing is just the start. We can easily spark a disaster with China during a future invasion of N. Korea. Or by defending Taiwan.

Fuck I'm worried WWIII is seriously in our future.

[makku]

Washington Times
February 18, 2005
Pg. 3

Chinese Military Buildup Assessed As Threat To U.S.

By Bill Gertz, The Washington Times

China's military buildup is "tilting the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait" in ways threatening to the United States, say U.S. intelligence officials, whose blunt comments contrast sharply to past intelligence assessments of the communist country's capabilities.

"Improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region," CIA Director Porter J. Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Wednesday.

"China continues to develop more robust, survivable nuclear-armed missiles, as well as conventional capabilities for use in regional conflict," he said.

Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in prepared testimony to the panel that China is adding numbers and more capable ballistic missiles to its arsenal to "improve their survivability and war-fighting capabilities, enhance their coercion and deterrence value, and overcome ballistic missile defense systems."

"This effort is commensurate with its growing power and more assertive policies, especially with respect to Taiwan," Adm. Jacoby said.

The officials' testimony shows an apparent effort to define the dangers posed by China's rising military power, which critics said have been minimized in the past, in part so as not to offend the country with markets coveted by U.S. businesses. The CIA, in particular, has been criticized in the past for underestimating Chinese military and security developments.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, yesterday asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing about Mr. Goss' testimony that "sounded the alarm about China's modernization of its navy."

Mr. Rumsfeld said China is boosting defense spending by "double-digit" rates and most of the buildup is being carried out in secret.

"They're purchasing a great deal of relatively modern equipment from Russia," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "And as you point out, they have been expanding their navy and expanding the distances from the People's Republic of China that their navy ventures."

Mr. Rumsfeld said "we hope and pray" China enters the civilized world "without the grinding of gears."

"We don't know that, how they're going to shake out," he said.

The communist government faces internal tension caused by "competing pressures between the desire to grow, which takes a free economy as opposed to a command economy, and their dictatorial system, which is not a free system," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

On Wednesday, Mr. Goss said China increased the number of missiles deployed opposite Taiwan last year and deployed several new submarines.

The Washington Times first reported in December that China rolled out the first of its 094-class ballistic missile submarines, and in July China revealed a new class of attack submarine that took U.S. intelligence agencies by surprise.

"If Beijing decides that Taiwan is taking steps toward permanent separation that exceed Beijing's tolerance, we assess China is prepared to respond with varying levels of force," Mr. Goss said.

Adm. Jacoby identified three new missile systems, the DF-31, DF-31A mobile intermediate range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and JL-2 submarine launched missile, noting that by 2015 China will have increased its nuclear warhead arsenal to several times the current level.

The DIA estimated in 2000 that China had a total of 157 nuclear warheads for long- and short-range missiles, and will have 464 warheads for its missiles by 2020.

[makku]

London Times
February 18, 2005

Russia's Nuclear Deal With Iran Raises Middle East Temperature

By Roland Watson and Jeremy Page

RUSSIA defied stern American warnings yesterday to announce that it had agreed to start shipping nuclear fuel to Iran in three months.

Within hours President Bush vowed to stand by Israel if its security was threatened by Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. He said that it would be unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

The twin announcements look certain to generate some frank exchanges when Mr Bush meets President Putin in Slovakia next week. They also raised the already high stakes in the Middle East, and Mr Bush made clear that the region would dominate his discussions with European leaders in Brussels next week.

In a press conference in Washington, Mr Bush made plain that Syria was also in US sights. He said that it was out of step with its neighbours and should withdraw its 15,000 troops from Lebanon.

Russia announced its deal with Iran despite Washington’s prolonged efforts to dissuade Moscow from supplying fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant, fearing that it could be upgraded to make a dirty bomb or nuclear weapon.

But Iranian state television announced yesterday that a deal would be signed next week during a visit to Iran by Alexander Rumyantsev, head of the Russian Atomic Energy Agency.

The signing will take place on February 26, two days after the Bush-Putin summit. The first shipment of fuel will be delivered three months later, and Russia will provide fuel to Bushehr for the next ten years. Under the deal, Iran is supposed to return spent fuel to Siberian storage units, but that clause is unlikely to allay Washington’s fears that Iran will use it to obtain weapons-grade material.

Asked if he was concerned that Israel may seek to launch a pre-emptive strike against the Bushehr plant and other alleged nuclear facilities around Iran, Mr Bush pointedly failed to restrain America’s pivotal Middle East ally. “Well, of course, first of all, Iran has made it clear it doesn’t like Israel, to put it bluntly,” he said. Iran, like many other countries in the region, has failed to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Mr Bush said that his objective was to use diplomacy to persuade Iran not to develop a nuclear weapon. “There’s more diplomacy, in my judgment, to be done,” he said.

“But clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs about the security of my country, I’d be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon. And in that Israel is our ally, in that we’ve made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if their security is threatened.”

Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s fledgeling nuclear plant at Osiraq in 1981, and Dick Cheney, the US Vice-President, has said he feared that Israel might do the same in Iran.

At the start of Mr Bush’s second term, the Middle East is already dominating his overseas agenda and could yet become the defining issue of the next four years.

In Brussels next week he will rebuff European pleas for the US to join Britain, France and Germany in negotiating economic and political incentives for Iran in return for verifiable guarantees that it will not develop a nuclear weapon. The Europeans do not believe that Tehran will agree to anything unless it involves the US.

He said that he looked forward to “discussing strategies” with European leaders about how best to work together to tell Iran that “it should not have a nuclear weapon”.

But Mr Bush made clear he was planning to tread the same emollient path through Europe as the one taken to wide acclaim by Condoleezza Rice, his Secretary of State, last week.

Mr Bush conceded that transatlantic differences over Iraq had caused traditional allies “to talk past each other”. He added: “I recognise that and I want to make sure the Europeans understand that I know that, and that as we move beyond the differences of the past that we can work a lot together to achieve big objectives.”

He added that he aimed to confound the view of Europeans that he and his Administration cared about nothing but America’s national security. “We also care deeply about hunger and disease,” he said, adding that he would also have proposals on how better to fight climate change with new technologies.

Depending on how far Mr Bush’s climate-change proposals go, they could be a boost for Tony Blair, who has repeatedly tried to persuade the President to take the issue seriously.

Mr Bush twice mentioned Mr Blair, the only foreign leader whom he named.

[mikeD16Z6]

WWIII at the rate we are going.
I think were fucked IMHO

I've ordered my iodide tablets along time ago just in case the unthinkable should happen. You should too. They stop you from getting thyroid cancer.

[makku]

yeah, my old research dealt with perchlorate... which we believe mimics iodide (in size and charge) and interferes with hormone production in the thyroid gland... potentially causing all sorts of problems

[jb2178]

Well I dunno - it's all fucked up I'll give you that but I don't think anybody wants to bring about WW3 and those other world wars happened in times when those countries couldn't be watched 24/7 by satalites.

I'll agree that we've had a hard enough time with Iraq to make me second guess our military might but on the other hand it's only going to get nuts if nukes get involved and we've got enough of those to keep countries from not wanting to directly attack us so they'll have to continue to fund terrorists... which sucks but a couple car bombs a week is way better then nukes...

I think the UN has to do what it set out to do, create a forum for fair and equal diplomatic debate in order to avoid war. I know we didn't allow that to happen but at the time how much longer should we have waited? While scarey shit is happening I also see good things happening - Iraq elections - but not just the elections but the fact that everybody in the transitional government recognizes the need to bring the sunnis into the government - everybody knows the sunnis are causing the problems but they also know that in order for the governement to rule the country they have to have the country represented in the government. Then the isreal and palistine peace movement - sure we've all heard about cease fires before but this time, without arafat and abbas is willing to do what he has to to control the militants I think they could make some major progress. Then you look at Iran - well they are going to be a nuclear power with the help of russia - but Putin stated today he doesn't believe they are after nukes so maybe, just maybe we've got it all wrong... and the north - well sure they have nukes but do they have the balls to use them? I doubt it (hoping/praying) - I hope they just pulled out to attempt to gain some leverage in all this...

but maybe I'mjust being optimistic today...