Another cold war needed?!?!

[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

[motherengine]

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]

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.

[Queso]

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]

 

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]

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....

[pgrmdave]

The U.S. has been a world power for about a century, and I don't think that we will stop being top dog, at least not for a long time. We still control a great deal of the world's wealth, and many countries depend on us. Where would the world be if we didn't have such a consumer culture? Japan, India, China - all of these countries are going to depend on our wealth to purchase their products, and our investors to support their business. Barring military defeat, which will not be possible unless a war becomes political, as was the case in Vietnam and Korea, or the use of nuclear weapons against us, we will remain powerful.

[Fishteacher73]

The US will continue to be a reasonable force for a long time, I just think that many other cultures are moving up and could challenge the US cultural supremacy. With the relocation of jobs over seas there may be the seat of wealth still in theUS, but the general populus will be unemployeed and unable to have much purchasing power in the long run.

The US became a world power through cotton in the 19th century. With industrialization, we maintained that financial edge by moving onto a manufacturing power witch lasted into the 20th century. Both of these movements relyed upon lots of labor and specialized resources that the US had. (The US also had some great thinkers and engineers to help in the process). Currently the US economy is based on technology. As we have seen this A) Is not a stable market; :) Is NOT labor intensive; C) Is educationally intensive. The US no longer really makes stuff in terms of a wolrd manufacturing power. The only other economic force that the US has is its entertainment market, but that is only consumed partially across the globe.

[sanctus]

The US will continue to be a reasonable force for a long time, I just think that many other cultures are moving up and could challenge the US cultural supremacy

 

 

I would say that the almost the only thing where the US hasn't supremacy is culture, already for the simple reason that there is only 500 years of history.... What didi you mean cultural supremacy?

[sanctus]

prgemdave (and fishteacher)

 

What makes you think that you will stay a top-dog? I got more the impression that the period is starting to end now. As fishteacher said there are the more and more countries that can slowly compete with the US; some in warcraft (give china 20 years), some in economy (give EU/Asia years)..

[Fishteacher73]

What didi you mean cultural supremacy?

 

I was speaking in terms of the entertainment, although India has a pretty big cut of the market as well, but it is not as widely distributed. American movies, TV, and music are reasonably represented to some degree world wide. American pop culture and fashion also have a pretty big influence (So maybe this isn't truly culture, but it was the term that came to mind when I was speaking of this).

[Fishteacher73]

prgemdave (and fishteacher)

 

What makes you think that you will stay a top-dog?

 

I don't. I outlined some of the resons for my conclusions earlier, although they were mainly economic (But that is the mainstay of power in the world).

[pgrmdave]

The United States has very low tariffs, and a lot of wealth leaving. If we begin to lose our economic power - we will raise tariffs, effectively hurting almost every other nation's economy, and boosting our own. I don't think that we will be harmed militarily. No nation could attack us on our own soil without massive retribution, and we couldn't truly be harmed without being invaded. While I know that other nation's economys are increasing, I think that the US still controls the wealth, even if it is not in the hands of the masses.