Agnostic.com

4 0

In these days of increasing tensions between the powerful states of our World, we are beginning to see a ramping up in military spending and activity. A part of the old Cold War mentality and strategies may be coming to the fore again, that of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). What do members think about retaliatory destruction? What would be your decision if it were up to you? Here are the positions of two persons who held that unenviable position of power. [news.bbc.co.uk]
If you are opposed to MAD strategies, what do you think is the best way forward?

Treasurehunter 6 Jan 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It's always about economics and resources. As long as we have the economy that we have it will never end. We're always in a state of a cold war. Nations are always plotting against others to get the upper hand economically. I think the only way a MAD situation would ever occur would probably be if either the U.S. or Russia or China was on the brink of collapse from losing the economic war. It looks like the U.S. is trying to corner Russia, and China to a lesser extent, in the market by trying to take over Syria. It's never about what the government says it's about. It's not about "terrists". Syria is about gas and oil supply to Europe.

Is Syria about preventing Iran from having an arc of influence and control stretching from the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea?

Is the situation in Myanmar, the result of inaction by the major powers because of China's desire to have a pipeline from the Indian Ocean overland to China?

@Treasurehunter From what I've read I believe that Syria is about the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Qatar wanting an oil pipeline going up to Turkey. Assad is Russia friendly, and going through conventional means would never work for the U.S. and friends, so the U.S. has to move it along somehow. They want Assad out. Russia's Gazprom provides Europe with most of their natural gas and oil and a pipeline through Syria for the U.S. and friends would severely put a damper on Russia's economy. Russia, Iran, and China are obviously allies in all this...for now. I'm not sure how Iran plays into it, but they are on the U.S.'s radar too. It was thought that no matter who became president between Trump and Clinton that the U.S. would still have a hard lined approach towards Iran.

As far as Myanmar, I haven't researched anything about that situation.

@Piece2YourPuzzle They could go through Iraq with that pipeline, so that reason is not really credible for me. Whatever the reasons are, millions of ordinary folks lives being ruined seems to have little effect on their reasoning or politics.

@Treasurehunter There might be a logistics problem with that. They would have to go to the northern most east corner of Iraq. It's an extra 500 miles of pipe plus security for it. Whatever it is though, I definitely agree that they don't care who lives or dies or has any type of hardship because of it.

0

The best way forward would be for all nations to renounce all intents of expansion or control of other nations' territories, or ideological control of others. That would solve 90 percent of the problem. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen with people like Putin, Assad, Netanyahu, Kim Jung Un, and Donald Trump around.

0

I want to be able to live in the Earth without having to rebuild everything. We have been at war for nearly my entire lifetime. I prefer to be destroyed than to fight. After all, we all die.

Goat Level 5 Jan 23, 2018
0

Vs military force-diplomacy needed

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:17649
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.