[matrixscarface]

i thought of something, before i say this and have the government come after me, i don't like war and i think we should solve our problems another way. that being said, i think the cold war had a very good positive effect on america and russia. Why? because that competition was needed. if you think about it in business, school, anything in life if you have competition you think about your actions and have better motivation, in turn have a better outcome. that war really shaped the future

[mother engine]

but then the future isn't what it used to be.

[sanctus]

Maybe it was good for the Us, because you had enough ressources not to invest all in weapons, while russia had to. The result we see it comparing the standard of living nowadays.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by matrixscarface

i think the cold war had a very good positive effect on america and russia. Why? because that competition was needed. if you think about it in business, school, anything in life if you have competition you think about your actions and have better motivation, in turn have a better outcome. that war really shaped the future

Friendly competition is good and stimulating, so is teamwork. The cold war was neither.

[GAHD]

Somebody gave me the idea that the new cold war is one of flesh between the US an Asia. Sadly I can see the possibility.

[orbsycli]

Looks like it's starting right now actually. not the war itself, but the fade into it. With china boosting their military expenses, and north korea with their taunting acts of rebellion with their nuke talks and what-not.
america won't stay the world power for long, this will make them (i say them, because i don't want a part of it) very very jelous.

[Fishteacher73]

One of the major problems now facing the US is that there is not a specific "enemy." We have various opponents each steppiong into the game ina different angle... You have the emerging nuclear powers (Iran, Pakistan, N. Korea, etc.) and the diffuse threat of terrorism and the economic threats of an unified Europe, India, and China. We are in probably a good dozen "cold wars" unofficially as we speak. The tactics used against communism just will not work in this new theater. (It could even be argued that the tactics in the US/Soviet cold war have not been as successful because of the democratic return of communiost ideals in many former Soviet countries). With a stuggling Us economy, it is hard to start the spending race that crippled the Soviets, with so many various opponents.

Perhaps it is time for the US to realize it may not be on top of the hill forever.

[sanctus]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

Perhaps it is time for the US to realize it may not be on top of the hill forever.

Do you think the last two generations (or at least one) that grow up being the only world power will ever accept that?

I wouldn't define the thing between the US and Iran/North Korea as a cold war, simply because so far the US would be the clear "winners".

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by sanctus

I wouldn't define the thing between the US and Iran/North Korea as a cold war, simply because so far the US would be the clear "winners".

Not to quick now. North Korea is in a poor bargaining position and the issue there is easily dismissed. Enough pressure can be put on China to bring North Korea in line since North Korea is already a burden to China.

Iran is another story though. China has recently become the single largest consumer of energy in the world. China has also negotiated with Iran to meet it energy needs. There has even been discussion of a direct pipeline from Iran to China. China will be quick to defend it's source of energy. It has already suggested that it would veto any attempt to take Iran to the Security Council over it's nuclear ambitions.

As cold wars go the U.S. already has the technology it needs to deal with either so it won't change anything in the U.S. I don't see any arms race getting started to get ahead of or stay in front of Iran or North Korea. Neither could catch up with U.S. defense technology in years.

[Fishteacher73]

Perhaps cold "war" is not the best term. Maybe cold "skirmish". I think you are right to conclude that if the US had to deal with each of these individually that there really should not be any problem with the US dominating. The problem arises is that our focus is spread out across many of these "skirmishes" and the total impact I think is more than the Us can feasibly handle in the long run.

I recently saw the Russia agreed to sell Iran nuclear fuel to power their reactors. It seems that the lines are being drawn....