Obama pulling troops out of Iraq

[Smallc]

The finite resources leading to catastrophic collapse is a shortsighted argument that ignores the reality of technological progress. We are constantly accessing resources that we never before thought to harness. We have tapped only the tiniest fraction of the energy available to us. And with energy, almost anything else can be produced.

I couldn't agree more. We'll be ind going forward, especially in countries like this one, rich in every conceivable kind of energy (we have more oil than anywhere else, and more of it becomes accessible all of the time).

[Guest Derek L]

The finite resources leading to catastrophic collapse is a shortsighted argument that ignores the reality of technological progress. We are constantly accessing resources that we never before thought to harness. We have tapped only the tiniest fraction of the energy available to us. And with energy, almost anything else can be produced.

So, you, like many others before, are declaring an end to (global) war?

Who is curtailing their defense spending? The US has significantly increased its spending over the last decade. Even Canada has boosted its spending. Russia, coming out of the post-Soviet union dump, has been trying to rebuild its military and has been increasing spending. Middle-eastern nations are increasing spending. Asian economies are becoming more powerful on the world stage and along with bigger economies often comes a bigger investment in the military.

In real dollar terms, not in comparison to GDP………The US is looking at potentially 5-15% cuts……..But as you say, there is new investment in militaries………why if the threat of war means the end to “civilization”?

We've seen the end to a certain type of war. This has happened many times in the past. The kind of war where people line up in neat lines and shoot each other has seen its end. The type of war where people sit in trenches for years has seen its end. And the type of war where great powers clash with thousands of tanks and millions of men has also seen its end. That does not mean we have seen an end to war. There is still war, such as the wars we are prosecuting today... Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. And developing and underdeveloped nations still engage in wars that cost the lives of millions.

Not ten years ago, most Western military circles saw a declining trend for heavy armour on the battlefield……….MRAP & and our new Leo’s speak different to that line of thinking……..

[Bonam]

So, you, like many others before, are declaring an end to (global) war?

In real dollar terms, not in comparison to GDP………The US is looking at potentially 5-15% cuts……..But as you say, there is new investment in militaries………why if the threat of war means the end to “civilization”

The new types of wars are also very expensive to execute. Though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were minor, they together cost trillions of dollars. And, they weren't even waged that effectively or decisively. Clearly, there is plenty of room for military investment without aiming for a global showdown between superpowers.

I am not declaring an end to wars, but I do believe that "WWIII" is extremely unlikely.

[Smallc]

In real dollar terms, not in comparison to GDP………The US is looking at potentially 5-15% cuts……..But as you say, there is new investment in militaries………why if the threat of war means the end to “civilization”?

Take the example of FELEX though. The Halifax class is being outfitted for more counter insurgency and littoral operations. I think it's a signal of things to come, at least for Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

The new types of wars are also very expensive to execute. Though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were minor, they together cost trillions of dollars. And, they weren't even waged that effectively or decisively. Clearly, there is plenty of room for military investment without aiming for a global showdown between superpowers.

I am not declaring an end to wars, but I do believe that "WWIII" is extremely unlikely.

I’ll ask you this………like the race of the Dreadnoughts over a hundred & ten years ago between the European powers, why are the Asian navies investing in expeditionary forces, namely their navies and specifically aircraft carriers?

[Guest Derek L]

Take the example of FELEX though. The Halifax class is being outfitted for more counter insurgency and littoral operations. I think it's a signal of things to come, at least for Canada.

FELEX is adding capabilities to the frigates, but not at the expense of it’s intended blue water roles.

[Smallc]

FELEX is adding capabilities to the frigates, but not at the expense of it’s intended blue water roles.

That's true, but I don't think they're anticipated full scale war, even if they're preparing for it.

[Bonam]

I’ll ask you this………like the race of the Dreadnoughts over a hundred & ten years ago between the European powers, why are the Asian navies investing in expeditionary forces, namely their navies and specifically aircraft carriers?

Because carriers are the main means to quickly and effectively project lasting power beyond your own immediate territory. China, like any nation whose economy relies on globalized trade and is large enough to support the investment needed to build carriers wants a piece of the action. However, it is far from stupid enough to try to engage the US militarily. The US and China are economically interdependent to such an extent that they'd have to be totally stupid to go to war with each other.

[Guest Derek L]

That's true, but I don't think they're anticipated full scale war, even if they're preparing for it.

Did we (or anyone) anticipate full scale war in 1931?

[Smallc]

Did we (or anyone) anticipate full scale war in 1931?

Maybe not, but the world is such an integrated place now. Things aren't really the same. As Bonam says, China and the US are very connected.

[Guest Derek L]

Because carriers are the main means to quickly and effectively project lasting power beyond your own immediate territory. China, like any nation whose economy relies on globalized trade and is large enough to support the investment needed to build carriers wants a piece of the action.

Exactly and the Indian Navy is tripling the size of their future Blue Water fleet………So two Asian, blue water fleets, designed to project power for their parent nations, whom happen to be resource poor, have countering viewpoints on foreign policy and just don’t generally trust one another………hmmm when did this happen before?

However, it is far from stupid enough to try to engage the US militarily. The US and China are economically interdependent to such an extent that they'd have to be totally stupid to go to war with each other.

Who says it will necessarily start off with US involvement? The last two didn’t……….

[Bonam]

Exactly and the Indian Navy is tripling the size of their future Blue Water fleet………So two Asian, blue water fleets, designed to project power for their parent nations, whom happen to be resource poor, have countering viewpoints on foreign policy and just don’t generally trust one another………hmmm when did this happen before?

Who says it will necessarily start off with US involvement? The last two didn’t……….

The US wasn't the world's dominant superpower back then either. Nowadays, if the US isn't involved, it wouldn't be a world war, just a regional skirmish.

I see your point about India and China. My opinion is the leaders on both sides are sane enough that they wouldn't wanna engage each other in full out war and risk hundreds of millions of deaths to nuclear weapons, which both sides have.

Maybe some little proxy wars here and there like the US and the USSR had, some territorial skirmishes like India and Pakistan had, some spying and black ops for sure. But all out war where millions of dudes drive around in tanks and stuff? Just don't see it.

[Guest Derek L]

The US wasn't the world's dominant superpower back then either. Nowadays, if the US isn't involved, it wouldn't be a world war, just a regional skirmish.

That’s open to interruption………The US Battleship fleet was only dwarfed by the Royal Navy in the 1930s

I see your point about India and China. My opinion is the leaders on both sides are sane enough that they wouldn't wanna engage each other in full out war and risk hundreds of millions of deaths to nuclear weapons, which both sides have.

Maybe some little proxy wars here and there like the US and the USSR had, some territorial skirmishes like India and Pakistan had, some spying and black ops for sure. But all out war where millions of dudes drive around in tanks and stuff? Just don't see it.

We came very close to exactly that several times with the Soviets……..The difference between then and now, was then it was a “struggle” over ideology, not vital resources……And for the record, the Chinese have thousands of tanks, as do the Indians.

[Smallc]

Still, if people want the resources, they aren't going to use nukes. That means, a conventional war...and that means, for the next couple of decades, anyway, no one is going to challenge the US.

[Guest Derek L]

Still, if people want the resources, they aren't going to use nukes. That means, a conventional war...and that means, for the next couple of decades, anyway, no one is going to challenge the US.

Who says they’ll use nukes? Also, any resources either nation requires are not plentiful in either nations current territory…….I’d suggest you go read the link in the other thread (War South China Sea) on the article released by the Chinese State media.

There were scenarios during the Cold War for a conventional conflict between NATO and the Warsaw pact……hence the military build-up of conventional forces in Europe for five decades……whether both sides would remain conventional is another question…….regardless, the number of warheads that both China and India (and Pakistan) poses today isn’t even a fraction of the number in the European theatre during the 80s………If you’d like to read an interesting scenario of a third world war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, I’d suggest Red Storm Rising.

[GostHacked]

How do you know that?

From 2007 - most donations than any other candidate

From 2011 @ the 2 min mark. - more donations than other candidates combined

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcXzyu7cSpY

Pay attention to who the military is supporting. Now figure out why they support him.

[olp1fan]

Or Iran attacks a neighbour for whatever reason?

Its been centuries since Iran has attacked anybody...

[olp1fan]

Russia and Canada will be at war with each other before the end of the decade

Putin has an image to uphold and he has been very serious about the arctic belonging to Russia, his legacy is at stake

and Russians expect him to not back down

Don't expect much help from the U.S, Canada and the U.S will have a falling out and relations will be cold

I do expect Britian and Australia to assist Canada

There will be other players involved as well like the Nordic countries who have a stake in the Arctic

they might join forces with Russia because of their proximity to Russia

I suppose many of you will think this is silly though eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

Its been centuries since Iran has attacked anybody...

That's simply not true...Persia/Iran has been involved in numerous conflicts either as direct aggressor or instigator (e.g. Kurdish rebellions). Iran was first to attack Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant. Payback is a bitch!

Edited October 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't expect much help from the U.S, Canada and the U.S will have a falling out and relations will be cold

Why would the United States support Canada for its illegal claim on the north? The US has competing claims.

I do expect Britian and Australia to assist Canada

I don't...remember Iraq?

I suppose many of you will think this is silly though eh?

Uh-huh.

[olp1fan]

Why would the United States support Canada for its illegal claim on the north? The US has competing claims.

I don't...remember Iraq?

Uh-huh.

Why would the United States support Canada for its illegal claim on the north? The US has competing claims.

Do you recognize NW Passage as Canadian territory?

Here let me get a map for you to show you most of its clearly in canadian

territory

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Northwest_Passage_route.gif

And what do you mean remember Iraq?

How does that mean Canada won't be supported by fellow commonwealth countries?

[olp1fan]

If the NW Passage isn't Canadian waters then the water between the Florida Keyes and Florida do not belong to the U.S

[bush_cheney2004]

If the NW Passage isn't Canadian waters then the water between the Florida Keyes and Florida do not belong to the U.S

The NW passage is subject to international treaty for shipping transit just like any other part of the world. Canada thinks it "owns" the North Pole!

[olp1fan]

The NW passage is subject to international treaty for shipping transit just like any other part of the world. Canada thinks it "owns" the North Pole!

oh is it? do show me proof of this international treaty that states it belongs to the world

canada does not think its own the north pole btw

NW Passage is clearly between Canadian land, therefore it is ours

Edited October 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[bush_cheney2004]

oh is it? do show me proof of this international treaty that states it belongs to the world

canada does not think its own the north pole btw

NW Passage is clearly between Canadian land, therefore it is ours

Then please enjoy it all you want, but other nations can still transit according the the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to which Canada is a signatory. And just for fun, US and Soviet submarines "invaded" your "waters" numerous times during the Cold War, and all Canada would do is grant permission after the fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

If you really want those waters to be sovereign territory, be prepared to defend it.

Edited October 22, 2011 by bush_cheney2004