New Cold War Arm's Race??

[jthieme]

No. By nature the EU is unable to deal with the Russians. It's as useless as the UN is in dealing with any type of aggression. I would go as far as to say that the UN should be dissolved. All it is, is cesspool for corruption and a great venue for money laundering.

That kind of agression? Seems to me that all that fear of Russia is more artificial.
UN is only one really international organisation what we have. I agree that it's compleatly uneffective. But what is alternative? - NATO ? WTO? I really doubt. Nato is just a shadow and compleatly depends on US.[/QUOTE]

I didn't mean to imply Russian aggression with that statement, rather aggression in general. Let's not forget that this is the second time the world has tried to have a UN type organization. The league of Nations was the exact same thing, the only difference being that the world leaders had enough sense to realize it didn't work. It didn't really prevent any serious conflict (which later turned into wars such as WW2), and prevented the rearmament of the Axis powers. The UN was set up in much the same way, to prevent arms buildups to prevent wars/conflicts. In the last 10 years especially, and some could argue since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the UN has really done nothing.

The UN did virtually nothing to curb the cold war arms race, it was between Russia and US that came to agreements on those topics. It did nothing when North Korea detonated it's nuclear weapon, and IS NOT DOING anything in regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Sadly, there is no alternative.

 

[Chrom]

I didn't mean to imply Russian aggression with that statement, rather aggression in general. Let's not forget that this is the second time the world has tried to have a UN type organization. The league of Nations was the exact same thing, the only difference being that the world leaders had enough sense to realize it didn't work. It didn't really prevent any serious conflict (which later turned into wars such as WW2), and prevented the rearmament of the Axis powers. The UN was set up in much the same way, to prevent arms buildups to prevent wars/conflicts. In the last 10 years especially, and some could argue since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the UN has really done nothing.

The UN did virtually nothing to curb the cold war arms race, it was between Russia and US that came to agreements on those topics. It did nothing when North Korea detonated it's nuclear weapon, and IS NOT DOING anything in regards to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Sadly, there is no alternative.

By its very nature UN cant do anything against any major power. For example, it cant do much against USA, Russia or China. However, USA or whoever else is free to impose any sanctions against anyone - but these sanctions will only affect OWN country and OWN citizens.

UN can act pretty effectevely IF most countries agree what something is need to be done. All your examples of how "ineffective" UN have one major mistake - it is ineffective from YOUR point of view.

For some reason most UN critics are sure what UN must act acording to they needs - and if it doesnt, they declare UN "useless" , "impotent", and "ineffective".

Iran is also pretty good example - it seems, only West (and especeally USA) is concerned about Iran nuclear program. As such, i dont see why UN should do anything in that case except stopping USA from aggressive moves.

 

[eckherl]

By its very nature UN cant do anything against any major power. For example, it cant do much against USA, Russia or China. However, USA or whoever else is free to impose any sanctions against anyone - but these sanctions will only affect OWN country and OWN citizens.

UN can act pretty effectevely IF most countries agree what something is need to be done. All your examples of how "ineffective" UN have one major mistake - it is ineffective from YOUR point of view.

For some reason most UN critics are sure what UN must act acording to they needs - and if it doesnt, they declare UN "useless" , "impotent", and "ineffective".

Iran is also pretty good example - it seems, only West (and especeally USA) is concerned about Iran nuclear program. As such, i dont see why UN should do anything in that case except stopping USA from aggressive moves.

There are alot of countries that have a deep concern that Iran has the potential of building nuclear devices, countries from the West and in the Middle East, Russia down plays it due to more possible weapons sales and technology transfers, China down plays it due to weapons sales and because of oil. And yes the UN does seem useless when it comes to getting things done in a timely fashion, North Korea is a good example of this with China and Russia holding veto powers they were able to stall any major action that could of been taken against North Korea thus they have the bomb for possible use by a very unstable dying country. The future will hold nothing but mistrust between Russia and Western Europe, mistrust will run rampant against China and the rest of Asia. I have always believed in a very strong military to help ensure peace for your country, I guess I can thank both Russia and China for ensuring this for the U.S. The arms race is on and we can all sit back and see what new technologies will be developed and implemented for the future, we have been down this road before and it looks like new major players have been added and new partners have been added.

 

[jthieme]

By its very nature UN cant do anything against any major power. For example, it cant do much against USA, Russia or China. However, USA or whoever else is free to impose any sanctions against anyone - but these sanctions will only affect OWN country and OWN citizens.

UN can act pretty effectevely IF most countries agree what something is need to be done. All your examples of how "ineffective" UN have one major mistake - it is ineffective from YOUR point of view.

For some reason most UN critics are sure what UN must act acording to they needs - and if it doesnt, they declare UN "useless" , "impotent", and "ineffective".

Iran is also pretty good example - it seems, only West (and especeally USA) is concerned about Iran nuclear program. As such, i dont see why UN should do anything in that case except stopping USA from aggressive moves.

If anything, Europe should be more worried than anyone else, especially since they are becoming more and more scared to act militarily on any occasion. Iran has time and time again said how they want to destroy other nations that pose a strategic or religious threat to it. And when that country develops nuclear weapons how can you just sit back and wait for them to use them. When a country makes threats to another's ally, why wouldn't you step in and take aggressive measures to keep them safe and opposition within their own borders. If a strange person says he is going to kill your friend, are you just going to sit there and wait to see if he was telling the truth? Especially if you observe him buying weapons and making postures that show he is actually going to kill your friend. That is why the USA is being aggressive in the area, and also that it holds strategic importance to a world commodity.

The UN is too scared of its own shadow to pose any kind of significant threat to Iran or North Korea for that matter. For example, the last few "economic sanctions" that the UN imposed on Iran, they just laughed and went on threatening their neighbors. When an organization refuses act on serious issues dealing with nuclear weapons, it in essence is proving how impotent it really is.

I will agree that the USA has a point of view, since it is holds the majority of the world economy in it's financial system, I would say it deserves to have a point of view that should respected in a way that respects its power. Look at the recent credit crisis that hit the US financial system 2 months ago. With the inability of US investment banks and commercial banks to loan out money, due to already over-extended outstanding loans; the major economies of the world crashed. That is, there was over a 10% decline in economic values of said countries markets. I over-simplified the credit crisis, I know, but I am making a point don't want to get into an economic debate here, rather trying to explain the US's point of view with one example. So in essence, its not solely in the USA's interest, its in the world's economic interest. I know that last comment might cause some more remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive, just explaining another perspective.

That is the advantage of being the sole superpower, it can and should be aggressive when protecting its interests and friends.

 

[Chrom]

If anything, Europe should be more worried than anyone else, especially since they are becoming more and more scared to act militarily on any occasion. Iran has time and time again said how they want to destroy other nations that pose a strategic or religious threat to it. And when that country develops nuclear weapons how can you just sit back and wait for them to use them. When a country makes threats to another's ally, why wouldn't you step in and take aggressive measures to keep them safe and opposition within their own borders.

See, how Iran is different from USA in that regard? From outside point of view? I'll say - no difference at all. So WHY should ex. India or Russia be more worried about Iran nuclear weapon, than for example, American or Pakistan nuclear weapon?
OF COURSE, from USA citizen point of view nuclear capable Iran is very bad, etc. But you must realise what this is ONLY for USA and few other countries. Not for most countries. What USA citizens are only smal minority on the Earth. And finally stop wonder why majority of UN council opposing any serious sanctions against Iran.
Just understand - for most earth citizens nuclear bomb in Iranian hands is no worse than nuclear bomb in USA hands.

If a strange person says he is going to kill your friend, are you just going to sit there and wait to see if he was telling the truth? Especially if you observe him buying weapons and making postures that show he is actually going to kill your friend. That is why the USA is being aggressive in the area, and also that it holds strategic importance to a world commodity.

In that case, you shouldnt complain than some OTHER friend of said strange person blow your face. You are equal bad. You both are dungerous types. You both should be watched. And you dont have ANY moral right to delare that "strange type" evil.

The UN is too scared of its own shadow to pose any kind of significant threat to Iran or North Korea for that matter. For example, the last few "economic sanctions" that the UN imposed on Iran, they just laughed and went on threatening their neighbors. When an organization refuses act on serious issues dealing with nuclear weapons, it in essence is proving how impotent it really is.

It is becouse these neighbors threat them even more. Plus, of course, usuall western propaganda what likes to exxagerate and twist any words. Just 1 example - Israel vialote more UN threaties than ALL other countries combined. Why UN cant do anything about it? Becouse most powerfull country in the world dont give a sheet about UN. And then they complain about UN impotency... USA THEMSELFES made UN impotent. USA strongly oppose ANY threaty what somewhat limit they sovereign rights - i.e. any international courts, any international human rights conventions, etc.
And ANY other organisation what can be ignored by major powers - will be useless.

I will agree that the USA has a point of view, since it is holds the majority of the world economy in it's financial system, I would say it deserves to have a point of view that should respected in a way that respects its power. Look at the recent credit crisis that hit the US financial system 2 months ago. With the inability of US investment banks and commercial banks to loan out money, due to already over-extended outstanding loans; the major economies of the world crashed. That is, there was over a 10% decline in economic values of said countries markets. I over-simplified the credit crisis, I know, but I am making a point don't want to get into an economic debate here, rather trying to explain the US's point of view with one example. So in essence, its not solely in the USA's interest, its in the world's economic interest. I know that last comment might cause some more remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive, just explaining another perspective.

That is the advantage of being the sole superpower, it can and should be aggressive when protecting its interests and friends.

Then you shouldnt wonder why rest of the world hate USA and wish it become much less significant for world economic - preferably, without big catastrophe. I said without BIG. Small one is ok.

 

[Chrom]

There are alot of countries that have a deep concern that Iran has the potential of building nuclear devices, countries from the West and in the Middle East, Russia down plays it due to more possible weapons sales and technology transfers, China down plays it due to weapons sales and because of oil. And yes the UN does seem useless when it comes to getting things done in a timely fashion, North Korea is a good example of this with China and Russia holding veto powers they were able to stall any major action that could of been taken against North Korea thus they have the bomb for possible use by a very unstable dying country. The future will hold nothing but mistrust between Russia and Western Europe, mistrust will run rampant against China and the rest of Asia. I have always believed in a very strong military to help ensure peace for your country, I guess I can thank both Russia and China for ensuring this for the U.S. The arms race is on and we can all sit back and see what new technologies will be developed and implemented for the future, we have been down this road before and it looks like new major players have been added and new partners have been added.

Answer, why Russia or China should care about USA or EU interests when USA or EU dont care about Russia or China ones?

I'll say even more - most of the time USA and EU play the "zero sum" game with Russia and China. So, answer me again, WHY should Russia or China (or anyone else for that matter) care about USA interests and they pathological problems with NK or Iran?

 

[eckherl]

Answer, why Russia or China should care about USA or EU interests when USA or EU dont care about Russia or China ones?

I'll say even more - most of the time USA and EU play the "zero sum" game with Russia and China. So, answer me again, WHY should Russia or China (or anyone else for that matter) care about USA interests and they pathological problems with NK or Iran?

Give me some examples why the rest of the world doesn`t seem to care about Russia or China interests.

 

[Chrom]

Give me some examples why the rest of the world doesn`t seem to care about Russia or China interests.

For example, read what western media write about russian oil/gas plans. Read what West do to limit Russian or Chinese influence in the world. Read how worried USA about Chinies military and economical growth. How they use any possible excuse about humans rights to impose economical and politcal sanctions agains China - of course, only if it benefits USA economic/politic and only if they feel what China/Russia cant answer.
Look at new ABM.

Note, i dont say West is wrong here. I dont say USA or EU or whoever else should care about russian or chinese interests. They shouldnt. They never cared. But they also shouldnt expect China, Russia or India to care about USA interests if it hurts them.

West shouldnt declare its own very private interests as universal "greater good". This only lead to misunderstanding and unnessessary tensions.

 

[jthieme]

For example, read what western media write about russian oil/gas plans. Read what West do to limit Russian or Chinese influence in the world. Read how worried USA about Chinies military and economical growth. How they use any possible excuse about humans rights to impose economical and politcal sanctions agains China - of course, only if it benefits USA economic/politic and only if they feel what China/Russia cant answer.
Look at new ABM.

Note, i dont say West is wrong here. I dont say USA or EU or whoever else should care about russian or chinese interests. They shouldnt. They never cared. But they also shouldnt expect China, Russia or India to care about USA interests if it hurts them.

West shouldnt declare its own very private interests as universal "greater good". This only lead to misunderstanding and unnessessary tensions.

This is just an observance, but western media is mostly reporting that Russia is threatening to shut off the oil and gas pipeline to Europe over a supply dispute. It looks to me like Belarus was stealing Russian oil by drilling into its well from within Belarus' own border. To me, Russia is justified in shutting off the pipeline. It's theft of Russian commodities IMO. But that's what we hear in the USA, what's the real story?

 

[AussiePatriot]

Chrom, do you honestly think a nuclear armed Iran would not be a threat to Israel, Europe, the US or any other non muslim nation (virtually the entire world)???

There is a good reason why 3 year old children should not be allowed to play with loaded firearms and Iranian Pres.Ahmadinejad would be a fool to think that what happened to Saddam Hussein and Slobberdown Mycokyabitch wont happen to him.

 

[Vladimir80]

The recent uptempo operations around UK and Guam are the result of our prezidents increased military policy. The people feel nostalgia for days when we were better. The military has suffered in the 90's and has only revamped itself in last 6 years. Now that they money is there we go back to being a major power. The US continues to press a missile shield that is not tolerable to the Federation so we play chess and run nuclear deterent patrols. It is no different with our boomers, they now run many more patrols than they did. The message to you is "we are strong, don't mess with us." The UK doesn't resepect rule of law and demands we change our constitution so they extradite someone they have no proof of. We can't be pushed around and that's the bottom line.

 

[jthieme]

No doubt has the recent surge in military spending has been a result of high oil prices. Russia has vast oil reserves, but the high price of oil will not last long. With prices so high, it becomes more appealing to look for different energy sources. When the price of oil falls, where will Russia get the funds to continue its military spending?

The arms race has begun once again. With China, Russia, and Iran all spending (and increasing with each fiscal year) high amounts of their respective GDP's on defense, it is inevitable that the US and European countries follow suit. Although, Europe seems to want to go in the opposite direction at the moment. Rather disarmament. There are however; few positives that result from arms races...

 

[Chrom]

Chrom, do you honestly think a nuclear armed Iran would not be a threat to Israel, Europe, the US or any other non muslim nation (virtually the entire world)???

There is a good reason why 3 year old children should not be allowed to play with loaded firearms and Iranian Pres.Ahmadinejad would be a fool to think that what happened to Saddam Hussein and Slobberdown Mycokyabitch wont happen to him.

Honestly, i dont think what nuclear capable Iran pose any more threat to non-islamic nations than nuclear capable Israel to islamic nations. And certainly Iran pose far less threat to non-islamic nations than USA to ANY nation what is not very friendly with them.

The argument about 3-year old children is as old as world itself. And in 99% cases it is false argument.
In case of Iran vs USA threat we should only look at who supported more terrorists, who aggressed more countres, who killed more innocent peoples abroad. Who employed nuclear weapon...

You just dont understand what fate of Saddam and Mycokyabitch prove only one thing - IF you want to be safe - you MUST have nuclear weapon. Or surrender. There is no other alternative.

Sooner or later every country will aquire nuclear weapon or comparable one in strength.

 

[Chrom]

No doubt has the recent surge in military spending has been a result of high oil prices. Russia has vast oil reserves, but the high price of oil will not last long. With prices so high, it becomes more appealing to look for different energy sources. When the price of oil falls, where will Russia get the funds to continue its military spending?

The arms race has begun once again. With China, Russia, and Iran all spending (and increasing with each fiscal year) high amounts of their respective GDP's on defense, it is inevitable that the US and European countries follow suit. Although, Europe seems to want to go in the opposite direction at the moment. Rather disarmament. There are however; few positives that result from arms races...

High oil and gas prices will last forever, and prices will increase each year. You miss one big factor here - BRIC economic. 20 years ago only "golden billion" got resources to spend. Now - add 1.5 billions chinese, 1 billions indians, 800 millions latain americans, etc. And they economic growth at high rate, and they citizens also like to drive autos and use plastic bags.

Besides, not only high oil prices are reason for Russia growth. Only 13% of Russia GDP is attributed to Oil and Gas (and the percent is failing rapidly) - compare it with 87% in case of Kuweit or similar Saudi Arabia who REALLY got oil-driven economy...
Btw, Russia and China spend far SMALLER percent of they GDP on military than, for example, USA or France. Tell us about "follow suit" again...

Btw, i agree about EU "disarment". This is mainly attributed to increased prices of new weapon. But we can see very same picture in Russia - russian forces also get smaller every year, DESPITE recent fund increasing.

 

[Vladimir80]

No doubt has the recent surge in military spending has been a result of high oil prices. Russia has vast oil reserves, but the high price of oil will not last long. With prices so high, it becomes more appealing to look for different energy sources. When the price of oil falls, where will Russia get the funds to continue its military spending?

Investments have been made with surplus invested in IT sector which is the fastest grown in the world since 2001. This and civilian areospace, maybe you have seen some of the huge contracts signed at MAKS shows? Heavy investment in agriculture, transportation, infrastructure, nuclear energy, autos, electronics, heavy machine, steel, even vodka domestic/export have increased. Foreign European investment has flooded the country, we are good to do business.

 

[jthieme]

High oil and gas prices will last forever, and prices will increase each year. You miss one big factor here - BRIC economic. 20 years ago only "golden billion" got resources to spend. Now - add 1.5 billions chinese, 1 billions indians, 800 millions latain americans, etc. And they economic growth at high rate, and they citizens also like to drive autos and use plastic bags.

Besides, not only high oil prices are reason for Russia growth. Only 13% of Russia GDP is attributed to Oil and Gas (and the percent is failing rapidly) - compare it with 87% in case of Kuweit or similar Saudi Arabia who REALLY got oil-driven economy...
Btw, Russia and China spend far SMALLER percent of they GDP on military than, for example, USA or France. Tell us about "follow suit" again...

Btw, i agree about EU "disarment". This is mainly attributed to increased prices of new weapon. But we can see very same picture in Russia - russian forces also get smaller every year, DESPITE recent fund increasing.

In regards to BRIC, you have one major problem that holds Russia back from gaining the predetermined growth rate that was projected in the early 2000's. Population growth rate. Russia is not adding to its population, you are in a steady decline. It's hard to increase your economy when you have a decrease in population. Brazil has been lagging behind what previous investors had hoped it would become by now. China and India have been the real interesting economies to watch.

Don't get me wrong, the game is far from over, but you can't honestly believe that Oil will be the energy source of the future! It's simple economics....once the price of a commodity becomes too high, investments in other sources increase. We are already seeing the high cost of energy curb consumer spending, and also fears of global inflation. Look at China, they may see a hyperinflation occur soon. The price will not be high forever. In the short term yes, but not 20 years from now. And if it is, well, we all have much different things to worry about being in the last 10 years the price increased by roughly 400% in oil.

You do bring up an interesting point about military forces shrinking despite increases in defense spending by large militaries. It will be interesting to see where the arms spending will take us in the next decade.

 

[swerve]

...
Btw, Russia and China spend far SMALLER percent of they GDP on military than, for example, USA or France. Tell us about "follow suit" again...

Btw, i agree about EU "disarment". This is mainly attributed to increased prices of new weapon. But we can see very same picture in Russia - russian forces also get smaller every year, DESPITE recent fund increasing.

France spends half the USAs share of GDP on defence, & is one of the highest in the EU. Others are even lower. Don't lump W. Europe & the USA together, as if they were at the same level.

Russia, on the other hand, is spending about the same proportion as the USA, according to the published Russian budget. On the NATO definition, it is almost certainly higher. Exactly how much China spends is hard to work out exactly, but the published budget puts it at about the same level as most W. European countries, & we know the published figures omit major categories of spending. China certainly spends more than the UK & France, perhaps as much as or perhaps a bit less than the USA, as a share of GDP.

EU cuts have been real, & huge. EU military spending is well under half the share of GDP it was 20 years ago, & since real GDP has not doubled, that means significantly less in real terms. And unlike in Russia, spending is still declining.

 

[Chrom]

In regards to BRIC, you have one major problem that holds Russia back from gaining the predetermined growth rate that was projected in the early 2000's. Population growth rate. Russia is not adding to its population, you are in a steady decline. It's hard to increase your economy when you have a decrease in population. Brazil has been lagging behind what previous investors had hoped it would become by now. China and India have been the real interesting economies to watch.

You are only partially right. For average citizen it is much better to have 8% GDP increase per year AND population decline than 8% GDP increase and 4% population growth. I'm sure you understand that.

Don't get me wrong, the game is far from over, but you can't honestly believe that Oil will be the energy source of the future! It's simple economics....once the price of a commodity becomes too high, investments in other sources increase. We are already seeing the high cost of energy curb consumer spending, and also fears of global inflation. Look at China, they may see a hyperinflation occur soon. The price will not be high forever. In the short term yes, but not 20 years from now. And if it is, well, we all have much different things to worry about being in the last 10 years the price increased by roughly 400% in oil.

Again, you are only partially right. Sure, oil prices can not raise indefinitly. But they can raise to the point where other alternatives like solar or wind energy are viable. My brother have master degree in the alternative energy field, and according to his words alternative sources can offer any profit only starting from about 80-90$ for oil barrel. As such, this is ABSOLUTE minimum oil prices will reach in near future. OF course, unless some major science breakthrought occurs...

You do bring up an interesting point about military forces shrinking despite increases in defense spending by large militaries. It will be interesting to see where the arms spending will take us in the next decade.

As i see it, only USA army have more or less clear direction. They increase reliance on WMD for self-defence. They decrease conventional army capabilities for global war, in same time increase conventional army capabilites in peace-keeping operations and limited war scenaries against technologically weaker opponents.

Personally, i see it as a good thing. It is a clear sign what USA dont plan any major war against for example China or Russia. As such, i expect no global catastrophe.

 

[kato]

EU cuts have been real, & huge. EU military spending is well under half the share of GDP it was 20 years ago, & since real GDP has not doubled, that means significantly less in real terms. And unlike in Russia, spending is still declining.

Not generally, though. The German budget, for example, actually went down during the Cold War already - from 3.3% in 1979 to 2.8% in 1989. It then went down as the peace dividend paid off, in the early 90s, until reaching about 1.5-1.6% - and it has stayed at exactly that GDP share since then. And, in the next couple years, it will stay there too, as planned nominal increases slightly more than offset GDP rises.

So, neither still declining (but constant) nor "well under half" of the share of 20 years ago (but at around 55%).

In the last 5 years, few EU countries have actually cut their budgets in relation to GDP. Those countries that did usually experienced either a deescalation of their defence situation (eg Greece, Cyprus) or downsized as they didn't already do so before (eg Sweden). France actually has raised its budget.
Both within EU-15 and EU-25, budget has actually remained pretty constant over the last 5 years, at around 1.9% of GDP.

 

[Chrom]

France spends half the USAs share of GDP on defence, & is one of the highest in the EU. Others are even lower. Don't lump W. Europe & the USA together, as if they were at the same level.

Russia, on the other hand, is spending about the same proportion as the USA, according to the published Russian budget. .

Year 2007 - Russia spend about 2.9% of its GDP for defence purposes. USA - formally about 3.7%, but real % is much higher (about 6.5%) as it doesnt include Iraq, Afganistan and foreign special forces (CIA, etc) funding. France - about 2.6%, but here i cant comment as i dont know exact funding allocation.

P.S. China spend less than 2%.