The Warmonger Thread

[Paradoxium]

So is this the international crisis Biden is talking about? Guess time will tell. Could be a grain of salt. This thread is the general discussion for all things war and conflict related. t:

Warnings from world leaders all within 72 hours - something to do with nuke warnings.

Australian PM Kevin Rudd - “Nuke strike would make 9/11 insignificant” and other weird warnings"

"Over the last 72 hours there has been a strange melange of cryptic messages leaked from world political leaders about what could be in store for America over the next few months.

These predictions of impending doom come from England, France, Australia and the United States.

I have my ears on the counter-terrorism sites and blogs so far. Nothing on this.

 

[Paradoxium]

Russia to Deploy Missiles Only If U.S. Builds Shield

By Maria Ermakova

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Russia will deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad only if the U.S. goes ahead with plans to build a defensive shield in Europe, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said, signaling an easing of Russia's stance.

Placing missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian region wedged between Poland and Lithuania, would be ``a responsive measure'' taken only if a U.S. anti-missile defense system is located ``in the form of interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic,'' Grushko was cited as saying today by state-run television channel Vesti.

``Russia won't deploy Iskander if the U.S. decides against plans to locate the system in eastern Europe,'' Interfax news agency quoted Grushko as saying in a separate interview.

Grushko's comments differ from those of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made just hours after Barack Obama won the presidential election. Medvedev said Nov. 5 that he would deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad to ``neutralize'' the U.S. system, without making any qualification.

``This is a step back and it was right to do so,'' said Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. ``They must have realized in the Russian government that Medvedev's announcement must have sounded quite harsh, while Obama has been rather reserved about the matter.''

`Good Partnership'

Medvedev congratulated Obama on his victory in a phone conversation yesterday and the two agreed to organize a meeting in the ``near term,'' according to a Kremlin statement. Rahr said that with the latest remarks on missiles, there is now ``a chance for a good partnership.''

Russia has repeatedly criticized the U.S. missile-defense system as posing a threat to its territory and said it would target Poland and the Czech Republic in response. The U.S. says the shield is necessary to protect against attack from ``rogue'' states such as Iran.

Grushko's remarks come amid doubts over whether Obama plans to press ahead with the missile-defense system in Europe. Obama's office said yesterday that he has made ``no commitment'' to the system, after a statement on the Polish president's Web site suggested that Obama will press on with the shield. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in an interview with yesterday's Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper that ``we don't know'' what the U.S. will decide.

`Workable' Technology

``Obama's position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable,'' Denis McDonough, Obama's senior foreign policy adviser, said in a statement released to reporters.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said today he hopes that Russia and the U.S. will hold ``expanded consultations'' on the matter by the end of the year, Vesti reported, citing comments Lavrov made in Egypt during a summit of the so-called Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators, which comprises Russia, the U.S., the United Nations and European Union.

Documents on the defense system that Russia received from the U.S. government ``fall short of agreements reached earlier,'' Lavrov said after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice promised to study the issue further, according to Lavrov.

Rice signed an agreement with the Polish government in August pledging to modernize Poland's military in exchange for the former Soviet satellite hosting 10 interceptor missiles. The Czech government agreed to host a radar site the previous month.

``The U.S. plans hurt Russia's strategic potential which is a foundation for global stability,'' Grushko said, according to Vesti.

 

[Malice]

Is it me.....or is the US somewhat instigating this somewhat by creating a useless shield elsewhere....
Just create them all over the US...and leave it at that.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

Not sure I follow Russia's logic here. They dont want us to build the shield, but if we do, they're specifically going to create missiles to shoot at it?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Not sure I follow Russia's logic here. They dont want us to build the shield, but if we do, they're specifically going to create missiles to shoot at it?

In Soviet Russia shield shoot missiles at you.

 

[Paradoxium]

I do wonder if the Obama Administration will engage in a war... maybe with Iran. I need to do some more reading on the subject matter.

 

[Malice]

I do wonder if the Obama Administration will engage in a war... maybe with Iran. I need to do some more reading on the subject matter.

He doesn't seem the type to me...but then again, I have been wrong on many things.

 

[SuBe]

I do wonder if the Obama Administration will engage in a war... maybe with Iran. I need to do some more reading on the subject matter.

He did keep talking about going into Sudan during the campain, I can see Obama using the Military similar as Clinton used them. Use the Air Force, bomb Asperin Factories, and have Marine Corps Generals be your wait-staff at Dinners.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I do wonder if the Obama Administration will engage in a war... maybe with Iran. I need to do some more reading on the subject matter.

I doubt Obama will instigate an Iran War but I kinda wonder, if the situation continues as it has, will it be avoidable.

 

[SuBe]

I just heard on the New Yesterday that some US troops are going to Isreal for the very first time.

You know that Bush didn't make that decision all by himself either. I wonder if Obama agreed that that would be in the best interest during the Obama Adminstration, to deter Iran from throwing any nukes toward Isreal.

 

[Paradoxium]

I doubt Obama will instigate an Iran War but I kinda wonder, if the situation continues as it has, will it be avoidable.

If the economy is in the pits, I wouldn't rule it out. Thatcher did something similar - the whole rally around the flag strategy during difficult times. Remember, Bush was a non-interventionist when he was first elected.

 

[Hobgoblin]

On that note, I wonder if the war before Obama comes to office rumor could happen. Basically that Bush will OK Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the next two months.

If the economy is in the pits, I wouldn't rule it out. Thatcher did something similar - the whole rally around the flag strategy during difficult times. Remember, Bush was a non-interventionist when he was first elected.

Isnt that a double edged sword? Iran could rally around its flag after being attacked.

 

[SuBe]

On that note, I wonder if the war before Obama comes to office rumor could happen. Basically that Bush will OK Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the next two months.

I don't think that Bush would do that. He seems to have a lot of respect for Obama, I don't think he would set up Obama, or hell, he wouldn't set up the Nation like that.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I don't think that Bush would do that. He seems to have a lot of respect for Obama, I don't think he would set up Obama, or hell, he wouldn't set up the Nation like that.

Like he did in Iraq?

 

[SuBe]

Like he did in Iraq?

Iraq started in March of 2003, he had another 1-1/2 left before the elections, and you know he was already thinking about a 2nd term. With 2 months left, do you really think he would give that order as he walked out the door?

For a group of people that think Bush is just an idiot, some of you people give him too much intelligence to throw a MASTERPLAN like that.

What good would it do for him to start something with Iran now? If he would have done that, it would have been Months or even years ago. He'll "ride off into the sunset", and let Obama take care of it.

 

[Paradoxium]

On that note, I wonder if the war before Obama comes to office rumor could happen. Basically that Bush will OK Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities in the next two months.



Isnt that a double edged sword? Iran could rally around its flag after being attacked.

Yep. It's a matter of weighing pros and cons. I am not a fan of this strategy, but I expect politicians to entertain this type of stuff. Right now Iran is getting screwed with the low oil prices t:

 

[Paradoxium]

Reviving this for a moment:

Been doing some re-evaluating. Looking if I made some mistakes somewhere. I think I might be wrong on something - sort of. While the road leads to Rome (collapse of the fiat), there is a huge chance there is a deflationary depression as oppose to inflationary one. I've been going by the theory it will fluctuate from a deflation towards a inflation. I will have to look into this at greater detail.

Anyways as I told Demogoblin, a rally around the flag strategy is a very common tactic during a economic crisis. And if America is unable to coup with creditors decoupling from America (unless there is a change of trajectory now). I think initiating a war will not be out of the question now.

Let me be clear, I don't think Obama is the type nor did he ever intend to do so prior to the election. But history shows this is usually one of the ways to cope with a really bad economic crisis when all else fails. In other words he might be forced into doing it, even though he will hate the idea. This is how America got out of the first Depression and this also how Thatcher coped with the economic crisis during her time.

This is why I created this thread. Hopefully I am wrong on this mark, but I call this out first.

 

[The Major]

I don't think that Bush would do that.

Bush's track record in the last 8 years says otherwise.

He seems to have a lot of respect for Obama, I don't think he would set up Obama, or hell, he wouldn't set up the Nation like that.

That's all a show for the cameras.

 

[Paradoxium]

Iran Says It Has Launched Satellite

This feels like it, the big event that Biden was talking about. I know that headline doesn't appear much. But the implications are huge. If they can launch a satellite, that means they can launch an intercontinental ballistic missile. Remember mutually assured destruction is meaningless when you consider some of these guys worship death; suicide bombing, using women and children as human shields...etc..

If Iran nukes a major city would Obama have the stomach to retaliate and order the death of a ton of people?

 

[chamber-music]

Ahmajinidad isn't gonna bomb anyone directly. The guy is mostly all mouth. He may supply some arms or train a few terrorist squads and send them into Iraq but even he isn't stupid enough to publicly put a move on Israel or any western nation. He would get bombed to kingdom come.

 

[Paradyme]

Is it me.....or is the US somewhat instigating this somewhat by creating a useless shield elsewhere....
Just create them all over the US...and leave it at that.

I look at it this way, and I'm sure this is how the US military looks at it, but if they plant a missle shield around the US and lets say the missle is just about to hit the US but the missle won't be able to intercept the missle until it is 1 mile from the shore. The detonation, assuming of course that it was either a biological or nuclear weapon, would still technically hit the US depending on wind direction. Therefore if we put a weapon shield near a possible hostile enemy we could intercept it before it hits us or one of our allies in essence preventing friendly or domestic casualties. People assume a shield is shown as aggression but last time I checked we aren't the crazy punks shooting rockets/missles into countrys trying to kill an entire race.

 

[Timstuff]

Also, what's really stupid is that missile shields are not a sign of aggression, but defensiveness. If we were stockpiling warhead missiles outside of Russia, then yeah, they'd have cause for being upset. But to tell us that we are out of line for wanting to keep missiles from coming our way is pretty stupid. By saying that we don't have the right to defend ourselves, they are also saying that they do have the right to attack us.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Ahmajinidad isn't gonna bomb anyone directly. The guy is mostly all mouth. He may supply some arms or train a few terrorist squads and send them into Iraq but even he isn't stupid enough to publicly put a move on Israel or any western nation. He would get bombed to kingdom come.

Yeah, I kinda doubt that would happen. Ahmedinijad really doesn't have any power in Iran and if Iran did end up bombing someone like Israel, they would end up losing the support of Russia and China and probably get bombed to kingdom come by the United States and Europe.

 

[Hobgoblin]

SCENARIOS-Will North Korea launch a war?
Tue Feb 3, 2009 4:41am GMT

Email | Print |
Share
| Single Page
[-] Text [+]
(For a related story, click [ID:nSEO348259])

By Jack Kim

SEOUL, Feb 3 (Reuters) - North Korea appears to be preparing to test-launch its longest range ballistic missile, media reports said on Tuesday, just days after Pyongyang warned that the Korean peninsula was on the brink of war.

Analysts say the possibility that North Korea would start an all-out war with the South is low because Pyongyang knows its underfunded military is no match for the U.S.-backed modern military of its Southern neighbour.

But the following scenarios could unfold:

A NAVAL SKIRMISH

The North has threatened military action over a disputed sea border off the west coast and it previously triggered clashes in 1999 and 2002 that killed or wounded dozens of sailors on both sides. The 1999 battle was orchestrated by the North's military with its leader Kim Jong-il's close involvement and caught the South by surprise, according to intelligence sources.

The North may be hesitant to spark another battle after its navy was badly outgunned by a superior South Korean force in the last firefight in 2002. Since then, the North's Soviet-era navy has become more obsolete while the South's has increased its firepower and technology.

What has changed is the North's deployment of more short-range missiles. The North could raise tension by firing missiles into waters claimed by the South or at one of its ships.

BORDER GUNFIGHT

A shootout along the Demilitarised Zone border could easily ignite a broader gunfight involving many of the more than 1 million troops who are deployed on both sides of the buffer zone that has divided the peninsula since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a ceasefire and not a peace treaty.

But a land battle is unlikely because of the chance it could trigger a bigger conflict. A more likely scenario is for the North to conduct massive military training manoeuvres or send aircraft just close enough to the border so that the South has no choice but to respond.

A MISSILE LAUNCH

The North could raise regional tension by testing its ballistic missiles, which have the range to hit all of South Korea and most of Japan. It could go ahead and fire its long-range Taepodong-2 missile. South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unnamed South Korean government source as saying the North had a newly constructed launch pad on its west coast.

The last time North Korea launched a Taepodong-2 in 2006, the missile fizzled less than a minute into flight and destructed.

A successful test would boost support at home for North Korea's leaders and raise alarm in Japan and the United States because it increases the chances that the two countries could be targets of North Korean missiles.

SECOND NUCLEAR TEST

The North could set off a nuclear device again. The first test in October 2006 was considered by South Korea and the United States as only a partial success, which indicted flaws in the North's weapon design or materials. The North needs a second test to see if it has fixed those problems, experts say.

But a second test carries major risks to the isolated state because it is certain to strain ties with its biggest benefactor China and lead to a new round of international trade sanctions.

NUCLEAR PLANT

North Korea might feel it can win more over the long term from new U.S. President Barack Obama if it ups the stakes. In order to increase its leverage, the North could begin to restore operations at its Soviet-era Yongbyon nuclear plant and reverse disablement steps called for in an international deal that were designed, in total, to put the facility out of business for at least a year.

The North's most likely priority would be restoring its facility that separates plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Experts say the North could have it up and running again in a few months. There are discharged, irradiated fuel rods cooling at Yongbyon that the North could use to produce what experts say would be enough plutonium for one more nuclear weapon.

ALL-OUT WAR

U.S. military commanders in South Korea have said U.S. and South Korean forces would be able to quickly defeat the North, even though the North would still be able to quickly fire off thousands of artillery shells as well as launch missiles that could hit South Korea and Japan. Analysts say an all-out war would bring the end of Kim Jong-il's government, cause enormous destruction on the peninsula, and perhaps Japan. It could also plunge the regional economy, and even the global economy, into a tailspin.

South Korea has 670,000 soldiers backed by 28,000 U.S. troops. North Korea has a military of 1.2 million personnel.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKSEO348936

Not too concerned, but this seems like the right place to discuss this.

 

[chamber-music]

Also, what's really stupid is that missile shields are not a sign of aggression, but defensiveness. If we were stockpiling warhead missiles outside of Russia, then yeah, they'd have cause for being upset. But to tell us that we are out of line for wanting to keep missiles from coming our way is pretty stupid. By saying that we don't have the right to defend ourselves, they are also saying that they do have the right to attack us.

Russia doesn't like it because having missiles in their backyard (they still think they own eastern europe) is a sign of weakness to them and it might make them a little edgy because they can't bully countries like Ukraine or Georgia so easily.

There are still people in russia who don't want the fomer soviet states to have power or become more pro-western.